Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots UAPA Conspiracy Case

In a significant development for cases involving anti-terror laws, the Supreme Court of India on December 10, 2025, continued hearings on bail petitions filed by several prominent activists accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, is examining pleas from Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—all charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This ongoing proceeding underscores ongoing tensions between free speech protections and national security concerns in India's legal landscape.

The hearings come at a critical juncture, as the accused have been in prolonged pre-trial detention, raising questions about the application of UAPA's rigorous bail provisions. Senior advocates for the petitioners argued vehemently that inflammatory speeches alone cannot constitute a conspiracy under the Act, a point that could have far-reaching implications for how sedition-like charges are framed in protest-related cases.

Background of the 2020 Delhi Riots Case

The 2020 Delhi riots, which erupted in February amid widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in over 50 deaths and extensive property damage, primarily in Northeast Delhi. What began as a clash between pro- and anti-CAA demonstrators quickly escalated into communal violence, prompting a massive investigation by the Delhi Police.

Central to the probe is the "larger conspiracy" narrative, where authorities allege a coordinated plot by activists, students, and others to incite unrest. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over aspects of the case, invoking UAPA provisions that classify certain acts as terrorism. Key accused, including Umar Khalid—a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader—and Sharjeel Imam—a research scholar—have been portrayed by the prosecution as masterminds who used speeches and social media to mobilize crowds.

UAPA, enacted in 1967 and amended in 2019 to include provisions for designating individuals as terrorists, imposes severe restrictions on bail. Under Section 43D(5), courts can deny bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. This high threshold has been criticized by legal experts for potentially violating Article 21 rights to liberty and a speedy trial, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The case gained notoriety when the Delhi High Court, in a 133-page judgment in September 2022, denied bail to Khalid, Imam, and others, holding that "violence in the name of protest is not free speech." The court emphasized the accused's roles in delivering "inflammatory speeches on communal lines" to instigate mobilization, rejecting pleas of parity with co-accused whose involvement was deemed less direct. This decision propelled the matters to the Supreme Court, where they have lingered for over two years.

Recent Developments in the Supreme Court Proceedings

The December 9, 2025, session marked the conclusion of rejoinder submissions by the defense. Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, highlighted the petitioner's over six-year incarceration as an undertrial—a duration that exceeds the minimum sentence for many UAPA offenses. Dave stressed the absence of any direct allegation of Imam's involvement in the violence itself, noting that Imam is not named in any of the 750 FIRs related to riot-specific incidents.

" Giving an 'unpalatable' speech cannot by itself attract the rigours of the UAPA," Dave argued, as per reports from the hearing. This contention strikes at the heart of the prosecution's case, which relies heavily on speeches and alleged conspiratorial meetings, including WhatsApp groups, to establish intent.

Other counsels echoed similar themes. For Umar Khalid, arguments focused on the lack of evidence linking him to on-ground violence, while pleas for Gulfisha Fatima and others underscored the prolonged detention without trial commencement. The bench reserved its observations, listing the matter for December 10, when Additional Solicitor-General (ASG) S.V. Raju, on behalf of the Delhi Police, is set to deliver closing submissions.

Raju has previously indicated that several defense arguments are "factually erroneous," promising clarifications. The prosecution maintains that the accused's actions fall under UAPA's expansive definition of terrorism, which includes acts intended to threaten India's unity or sovereignty. They point to chargesheets filed in September and November 2020, which detail a web of communications aimed at orchestrating unrest.

In a related sidebar, the prosecution informed the Supreme Court in November 2025 that the trial could conclude within two years, citing progress in framing charges. However, this timeline has been met with skepticism, given UAPA cases' history of delays—some undertrials have languished for over five years without verdict.

Parallel Developments: Umar Khalid's Interim Bail Plea

Adding layers to the narrative, Umar Khalid separately approached a Delhi trial court on December 9, 2025, seeking interim bail to attend his sister's wedding scheduled for December 27. Khalid requested release from December 14 to 29, invoking precedents where he was previously granted similar relief for a family event two years ago.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Court has fixed the hearing for December 11. Khalid's counsel argued that the request aligns with humanitarian considerations under Article 21, especially since his regular bail remains pending before the apex court. The Delhi Police opposes, citing risks under UAPA's stringent custody norms.

This plea highlights the human cost of prolonged litigation in high-stakes cases. Legal observers note that interim bails in UAPA matters are rare, often requiring exceptional circumstances, as seen in the Supreme Court's 2021 grant of bail to Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in the same riots probe—albeit on different grounds.

Legal Analysis: Balancing Free Speech and Security Under UAPA

From a legal standpoint, the bail hearings illuminate critical tensions in India's counter-terrorism framework. UAPA's Section 16(1)(a) prescribes a minimum five-year sentence for terrorist acts, extendable to life imprisonment, creating a presumption against bail that burdens the accused to disprove prima facie culpability.

Defense arguments pivot on constitutional safeguards. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, but is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for public order and security. The key question: Do "unpalatable" speeches, without evidence of direct incitement to violence, meet UAPA's threshold? Precedents like Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) distinguish advocacy from incitement, a nuance the Supreme Court may revisit.

Moreover, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been emphasized in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979). With trials dragging on, the court could invoke twin-test principles from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)—necessity and proportionality—for bail decisions.

Critics, including human rights groups like Amnesty International, argue UAPA's misuse stifles dissent, particularly against Muslim activists in protest contexts. The 2019 amendments, allowing individual terrorist designations without due process, have faced Supreme Court scrutiny in Countrywide Lawyers Service v. Union of India (2021), where procedural safeguards were mandated.

If the court grants bail, it could signal a recalibration of UAPA's application, potentially easing burdens on undertrials and encouraging faster trials. Conversely, denial would reinforce the Act's deterrent effect but invite further constitutional challenges.

Implications for the Legal Community and Justice System

For legal practitioners, this case exemplifies the challenges of defending UAPA charges. Bail hearings demand meticulous dissection of evidence—often voluminous chargesheets spanning thousands of pages—while navigating the Act's reverse onus clause. Younger lawyers may find opportunities in appellate advocacy, as these matters frequently escalate to higher courts.

Broader impacts include policy debates on UAPA reforms. The Law Commission of India's 2018 report recommended safeguards against misuse, yet amendments have toughened the law. As protests evolve— from CAA to farmers' agitations—courts must delineate protected expression from criminal conspiracy.

The proceedings also spotlight trial delays, with over 700 accused across riot FIRs. The Delhi Police's two-year trial projection, if met, could set a benchmark, but systemic issues like witness protection and digital evidence handling under UAPA remain hurdles.

Looking Ahead: What to Watch For

As ASG Raju's submissions unfold, observers anticipate rebuttals on factual inaccuracies, possibly including forensic analysis of speeches and communications. The bench's queries on parity with granted bails (e.g., to co-accused like Tahir Hussain) will be telling.

Beyond the courtroom, public discourse on communal harmony and protest rights intensifies. With elections looming, the verdict could influence political narratives on law and order.

In sum, these hearings transcend individual fates, probing the resilience of India's democratic ethos against security imperatives. For legal professionals, they offer a masterclass in constitutional balancing, reminding us that justice delayed is justice denied—especially under laws as draconian as UAPA.

(Word count: 1,248)