SC Weighs Liberty vs. Security in Delhi Riots UAPA Bail Hearing

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has become the focal point of a critical legal debate, balancing the stringent provisions of anti-terror laws against the fundamental right to liberty, as it hears the bail petitions of several activists incarcerated for over five years in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria on Friday, October 31, 2025, heard extensive arguments challenging the prolonged pre-trial detention of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, all charged under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The hearing, listed at the top of the board and set to continue on Monday, saw senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Siddharth Dave forcefully argue that the continued incarceration of the petitioners amounts to a "distortion of the criminal justice system," especially as the trial is yet to commence.

---

The Core Contention: Prolonged Detention vs. Gravity of Offence

The central legal question placed before the bench was whether the gravity of an offense, particularly under the UAPA, can justify indefinite pre-trial detention. The petitioners’ counsel argued that it cannot. "The seriousness of the offence cannot be a determining factor when bail is sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration of an undertrial," was a key submission, challenging the very foundation upon which bail has been repeatedly denied to the accused by lower courts.

Dr. Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, underscored the human cost of the delay. "If you get bail after 6-7 years, what is the point?" he asked, highlighting that his client has been in custody since April 11, 2020—over five and a half years. He argued that with over 800 potential witnesses, the trial is nowhere near conclusion. "Merits don't matter in this; this is a distortion of the criminal justice system. The concept of liberty is that you don't keep me in jail without trial," he asserted, citing the Supreme Court's own precedent in the Najeeb case, which affirmed that bail can be granted under UAPA on grounds of prolonged custody.

This argument directly confronts the Delhi Police's stated position in its counter-affidavit, where it maintained, "In offences which strike at the very root of the integrity of India [UAPA offences] ‘jail and not bail’ is the rule.”

The Parity Principle: A Key Plank in Defence Arguments

A significant portion of the arguments revolved around the principle of parity. The defence counsel repeatedly invoked the June 2021 Delhi High Court order that granted bail to co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, delivered a sharp comparison. "Those three were present in Delhi on the day of riots. They are granted bail. I was not even present in Delhi on those dates. And I am denied bail! The evidence and the witnesses are the same," he argued. This contention seeks to establish that the case against Khalid, who faces allegations primarily based on an out-of-state speech and purported conspiracy, is on weaker footing than that of co-accused who are already out on bail.

Similarly, Dr. Singhvi pointed out that Ms. Fatima is now the only woman accused still in custody in this case, after Narwal and Kalita were granted relief. The plea for parity thus becomes a crucial test for judicial consistency in applying bail jurisprudence under the UAPA.

Deconstructing the Conspiracy Allegations

The defence systematically attempted to dismantle the prosecution's case, which alleges a pre-planned conspiracy to orchestrate communal violence during former U.S. President Donald Trump's visit to India.

Umar Khalid's Case: Mr. Sibal argued that the entire case against Khalid is circumstantial and lacks direct evidence. He emphasized several points: - Absence from Delhi: Khalid was not physically present in Delhi when the riots occurred. - No Incriminating Recoveries: No weapons, funds, or incriminating materials have been recovered from him. - The Amravati Speech: The sole "overt act" alleged is a speech delivered in Amravati, Maharashtra, on February 17, 2020. Sibal contended that the speech, far from being incendiary, "invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence." - Lack of Connection to Violence: Out of 751 FIRs related to the riots, Khalid is named as an accused in only one—the overarching conspiracy case (FIR 59).

Sharjeel Imam's Case: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave highlighted the temporal and logical disconnect in the allegations against Imam. - Pre-existing Custody: Imam was arrested on January 25, 2020, in connection with other cases related to his speeches. He was already in jail for a month before the Delhi riots broke out in late February 2020. Dave questioned how a person already in state custody could be part of an active conspiracy to commit riots. - Nature of Speeches: His allegedly inflammatory speeches, calling for "chakka-jams" to protest the CAA, were made in December 2019, two months before the violence. Dave argued that linking these speeches to the subsequent riots was "a bit of a stretch."

Gulfisha Fatima's Case: Dr. Singhvi submitted that the allegations against Fatima are limited to organizing peaceful anti-CAA protest sites and participating in meetings. - No Violence at Protest Sites: "I set up protest site. No photograph or video or evidence of violence in any site where I organised protest," he argued on her behalf. - Bail to Co-attendees: Others who attended the same meetings have been granted bail. - Lack of Evidence: He stressed the complete absence of any recovery of weapons or evidence suggesting she instigated violence.

Delhi Police's Strong Rebuttal: A Plot for 'Regime Change'

In its affidavit filed on October 30, the Delhi Police vehemently opposed the bail pleas, framing the anti-CAA protests as a "camouflage" for a deep-rooted conspiracy aimed at "regime change." The police alleged the petitioners weaponized protests to instigate an "armed rebellion" and engineer nationwide riots.

The affidavit contended that the accused leveraged the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to "disrupt the secular fabric of the nation" and portray the law as a "pogrom against Muslims" to an international audience during President Trump's visit. The police also accused the petitioners of deliberately delaying the trial for "mala fide and mischievous" reasons and asserted that it only needs to examine 100-150 material witnesses, not the 900+ figure cited by the defence.

The Road Ahead: Implications for UAPA Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court's eventual decision will have profound implications. A ruling in favour of the petitioners could reinforce the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the right to liberty, even under stringent laws like the UAPA. It would signal to trial courts that indefinite incarceration without trial is a violation of fundamental rights, potentially paving the way for bail in similar long-pending cases.

Conversely, a dismissal of the pleas would reaffirm the primacy of national security concerns as interpreted by the state, potentially solidifying the "jail is the rule" norm in UAPA cases. This would raise further questions about the efficacy of constitutional remedies for undertrials facing serious charges under special statutes. As the legal community watches, the hearing on Monday is poised to be a defining moment in the ongoing tussle between individual liberty and state security.