Supreme Court Examines Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots UAPA Conspiracy Case

New Delhi, November 24, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India is delving deeper into the contentious bail applications of prominent activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and several others implicated in the alleged "larger conspiracy" behind the 2020 Delhi riots. Accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the petitioners argue for release citing prolonged incarceration without trial, while the Delhi Police maintains that the violence was a meticulously orchestrated plot aimed at regime change. This hearing, before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, underscores ongoing debates over the balance between national security imperatives and fundamental rights in India's counter-terrorism framework.

The case, which has captivated legal circles for over four years, exemplifies the challenges of applying UAPA—a law criticized for its draconian bail provisions that presume guilt until proven otherwise. As the court resumes arguments following the previous session on November 21, 2025, the proceedings highlight evidentiary disputes, the role of protected witnesses, and the broader implications for dissent in a polarized political landscape.

Background of the 2020 Delhi Riots and the 'Larger Conspiracy' Narrative

The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi erupted amid widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). What began as clashes between pro- and anti-CAA demonstrators in areas like Jafrabad quickly escalated into communal violence, claiming 53 lives—including a policeman and an Intelligence Bureau officer—and injuring over 700 people. Properties were torched, and the unrest spread across several days, drawing sharp criticism for the Delhi Police's handling of the situation.

Hundreds were arrested in the aftermath, with a core group of 20-odd individuals, including former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid, charged under UAPA and various Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections for allegedly masterminding a "larger conspiracy." The Delhi Police's chargesheet paints a picture of premeditated sabotage: protests designed to "choke Assam out of India" through chakka jams (road blockades), mobilization of armed rioters, and inflammatory speeches aimed at destabilizing the government.

Umar Khalid, arrested in September 2020, has spent over four years in custody without the trial commencing. Similarly, Sharjeel Imam faces accusations of inciting secession by targeting the Siliguri Corridor, often dubbed the "chicken's neck" vital for India's connectivity to the northeast. Gulfisha Fatima is alleged to have organized women and children for rallies that turned violent, including creating WhatsApp groups for coordination near Nadima Masjid.

The prosecution's narrative, bolstered by statements from protected witnesses, describes the riots not as spontaneous outbursts but as a "regime change operation." As Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued in the prior hearing, "conspirators planned violence, organised chakka jams to disrupt and 'choke Assam out of India,' and further mobilised rioters armed with sticks, who engaged in heavy stone-pelting." Videos of Sharjeel Imam's speeches have been presented as evidence of intent to balkanize the nation.

This framing invokes Section 15 of UAPA, which criminalizes terrorist acts aimed at threatening India's unity, integrity, or sovereignty. The law's bail clause under Section 43D(5) is particularly onerous, requiring courts to deny bail if there appears to be "reasonable grounds" for believing the accusations are prima facie true—a threshold that has led to widespread concerns about indefinite detention.

Supreme Court Proceedings: Building the Case for Bail

The current hearings stem from a series of bail rejections at lower courts and the Delhi High Court. On November 21, 2025, the Supreme Court bench heard detailed submissions from the prosecution, who vehemently opposed the pleas. The Delhi Police accused the petitioners of selectively invoking constitutional rights "for the sake of getting bail," framing their arguments as a mere rhetorical device rather than genuine claims of liberty.

In contrast, the defense, led by senior advocate Trideep Pais for Khalid, emphasized the absence of direct evidence tying the accused to the violence. Pais argued before the Delhi High Court in a related hearing that Khalid had sent only "five messages in total, mostly responding to questions about the protest location and one message asking to de-escalate." He dismissed allegations of Khalid creating the "Jamia Awareness" WhatsApp group as "hearsay," noting, "The person who claimed I created the group is named James, who also heard someone else say it."

The Supreme Court matter, adjourned for further arguments potentially on November 24 or soon after, involves multiple petitioners. Khalid Saifi, accused of operating the "Shaheen Bagh control room" to coordinate unrest, and others like Devangana Kalita face similar scrutiny. The bench is examining whether the chargesheet adequately substantiates the conspiracy claims, particularly the "regime change" angle, which the defense contends is absent from formal documents despite police assertions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in an earlier appearance, reinforced the prosecution's stance that the riots were "not spontaneous but pre-planned," urging the court to consider the broader threat to public order. Protected witness testimonies, detailing organized stone-pelting and arms mobilization, form the crux of the evidence, though their anonymity raises questions about cross-examination rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Defense Strategies and Evidentiary Challenges

For legal professionals tracking UAPA cases, the defense's approach offers critical insights. Pais highlighted Khalid's non-involvement in mobilization messages, arguing that "mere association with a group was not evidence of wrongdoing." This echoes precedents like Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), where the Supreme Court ruled that mere membership in a banned organization does not constitute an offense without active participation in violence.

The petitioners also invoke the principle of parity: co-accused like Safoora Zargar, charged under UAPA for similar roles, were granted bail by the Delhi High Court on humanitarian grounds despite allegations of plotting to "destroy, destabilise and disintegrate the Government of India" over CAA opposition. Khalid's counsel stressed the four years and five months of undertrial detention, contending it violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) ruling, which deems prolonged incarceration without trial as punitive.

Moreover, the defense challenges the hearsay nature of key evidence, such as indirect claims about group creation. In UAPA contexts, where the standard of proof is heightened due to national security, such arguments test the boundaries of admissible testimony. Critics, including human rights organizations, argue that the law's provisions stifle dissent, particularly among student activists and Muslim communities, as seen in the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR)'s advocacy for the accused as "political prisoners."

Prosecution's Counter: National Security vs. Individual Liberty

The Delhi Police's opposition is rooted in a robust national security narrative, portraying the accused as "urban naxals" or overground workers for extremist ideologies. References to links with Maoist groups, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI)—political arm of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI)—and financing through hawala underscore allegations of a pan-India conspiracy. Enforcement Directorate (ED) probes revealed funds collected for "terrorist acts," as per their disclosures.

Raju's submissions painted a vivid picture of orchestration: from WhatsApp coordination to provocative statements by figures like Apoorvanand and Mehmood Paracha. The prosecution dismisses bail pleas as constitutional posturing, aligning with the government's push towards a "Naxal-free" India by 2026, amid operations like "Kagaar" targeting insurgents.

This stance reflects a post-26/11 evolution in India's anti-terror laws, where UAPA amendments in 2019 expanded "terrorist acts" to include economic disruption, making bail rarer. Legal scholars note that such cases often perpetuate a "guilty until proven innocent" paradigm, straining judicial resources and eroding trust in the system.

Broader Legal Implications and Impacts on the Justice System

The Supreme Court's deliberation carries weighty implications for UAPA's application. If bail is granted, it could signal a recalibration of the "prima facie" test, potentially easing detentions in over 1,000 pending UAPA cases nationwide. Conversely, denial would reinforce the law's rigor, inviting further constitutional challenges under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (free speech), and 21 (life and liberty).

For practitioners, the case illuminates strategies in high-stakes terrorism trials: leveraging parity, challenging hearsay, and invoking speedy trial rights. It also spotlights ancillary issues like protected witnesses, whose use—while necessary for security—can undermine fair trial standards, as critiqued in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA (2019), where the Supreme Court upheld stringent bail denial but urged evidence scrutiny.

The riots' legacy extends to public discourse, with groups like CASR decrying the cases as state repression, while pro-government voices label supporters as anti-India elements. As pollution protests morph into ideological battlegrounds and Naxal surrenders accelerate, this hearing tests India's commitment to democratic accountability.

In a nation grappling with communal fault lines, the outcome could influence how future dissent is policed. Legal experts anticipate the bench may reserve judgment, urging trial progression—a pragmatic nod to Article 21's mandate. Until then, the petitioners remain in limbo, their fates emblematic of the UAPA's double-edged sword: a shield against terror, yet a potential curb on liberty.

This case, woven into India's socio-political fabric, reminds the bar that justice delayed is justice denied, particularly when national security cloaks potential overreach. As arguments unfold, the legal community watches closely, awaiting a verdict that could redefine the contours of protest and punishment.