SC Scrutinizes UAPA Application as Delhi Riots Accused Argue 'Punishment Without Trial' in Bail Hearing

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is currently engaged in a critical examination of the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as it hears the long-pending bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and others implicated in the alleged "larger conspiracy" behind the February 2020 North East Delhi riots. The arguments, presented before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, have brought to the forefront fundamental questions about the balance between national security, the right to a speedy trial, and the very definition of a "terrorist act."

The activists, who have been incarcerated for over five years as undertrials, are challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2 order which denied them bail. Their counsel has forcefully argued that their continued detention, in the absence of a concluded trial, amounts to a de facto punishment, subverting the foundational legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

---

Core Tenets of the Defense: Questioning Evidence and Intent

The hearing has seen senior advocates for the accused meticulously deconstruct the prosecution's case, arguing that the evidence on record fails to meet the high threshold required to justify the denial of bail under the UAPA.

For Umar Khalid , senior advocate Kapil Sibal presented a multi-pronged defense. He emphasized Khalid's physical absence from Delhi during the period the riots erupted. "He (Khalid) was not even in Delhi when the riots took place," Sibal argued, adding that out of 751 FIRs registered in connection with the riots, his client was named in only one. The defense highlighted the lack of any recovery of incriminating materials, such as weapons or funds, from Khalid.

Crucially, Sibal invoked the principle of parity, pointing to the bail granted to co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal. "They are granted bail. Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi. The evidence and witnesses are the same," he submitted, arguing that the acts attributed to Khalid do not fall within the UAPA's definition of a "terrorist act."

For Sharjeel Imam , senior advocate Siddharth Dave presented a compelling timeline to challenge the conspiracy narrative. He noted that Imam has been in custody since January 25, 2020, nearly a month before the riots began. "If I am in custody since January, what role could I play in orchestrating riots that occurred in February?" Dave questioned. He contextualized Imam's speeches from December 2019, which the prosecution has cited as inflammatory, as calls for peaceful "chakka jams" (roadblocks) to protest the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), explicitly stating, "There was no call for violence at all."

For Gulfisha Fatima , senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the allegations against her are limited to organizing a protest site. "No act of violence occurred at those sites," Singhvi contended. "There is no oral or documentary evidence showing that any violent material was present where I was." He underscored the "extraordinary delay" in the trial and noted that Fatima is the only woman accused who remains in custody in this case.

A common thread in the defense's arguments was the issue of trial delays. The counsel for the accused alleged that the prosecution has deliberately prolonged proceedings, taking over three years to complete the investigation and filing supplementary chargesheets as late as September 2024, thereby making the commencement of the trial an impossibility.

“They say it is me who is taking time and delaying the case whereas the fact says otherwise,” argued Kapil Sibal for Umar Khalid.

---

The State's Counter: A 'Pre-Planned Regime Change Operation'

The Delhi Police has vehemently opposed the bail pleas, portraying the riots not as a spontaneous eruption of violence but as a "deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy." In a detailed affidavit submitted to the court, the police argue that the accused are playing the "victim card" after engineering the very delays they now decry.

The prosecution's narrative frames the anti-CAA protests as a "radicalising catalyst" used to mask a sinister motive: to destabilize the state and tarnish India's international image. The police allege that the timing of the riots was deliberately chosen to coincide with the official visit of then-US President Donald Trump.

“The materials on record, including the chats referencing US President Donald Trump, establish beyond doubt that the instant conspiracy was pre-planned to be executed at the time when the US President was to make an official visit to India,” the Delhi Police affidavit states.

The police further contend that the conspiracy was intended to be replicated PAN-India and described it as a "Regime Change Operation." They claim to possess "ocular and irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence" showing the accused's "intrinsic, deep-rooted and fervent complicity in engineering a nationwide riot on communal lines," which resulted in 53 deaths and the registration of over 750 FIRs.

---

Legal Implications and the UAPA Conundrum

This case has become a significant test for the judiciary's interpretation of the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), which imposes a strict bar on granting bail if the court finds "reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

The Supreme Court's engagement with the specifics of the evidence—or the alleged lack thereof—signals a willingness to look beyond the prosecution's bare allegations. The Bench's scrutiny of what constitutes a "terrorist act" versus legitimate, albeit disruptive, protest is central to the outcome. The arguments force a distinction between incitement to violence and calls for civil disobedience, a line that is often blurred in UAPA cases.

For legal practitioners, the court's decision will have far-reaching implications. It could either reinforce the existing high bar for bail under UAPA or set a new precedent that emphasizes the necessity of substantial, prima facie evidence of direct involvement in terrorist acts, especially in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention. A favorable ruling for the petitioners could empower defense lawyers to more effectively challenge the indefinite incarceration of undertrials based on lengthy investigations and broad conspiracy charges. Conversely, a dismissal would solidify the state's power to detain individuals for extended periods under the anti-terror law based on its interpretation of a larger conspiracy.

The hearing is set to continue, with the Bench scheduled to hear submissions from the remaining co-accused—Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shifa Ur Rehman—and the concluding arguments from the Delhi Police. The legal community watches closely as the Supreme Court weighs the liberty of individuals against the grave charges of a conspiracy that scarred the national capital.