Supreme Court to Rule on Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots - 2026-01-04

Supreme Court to Rule on Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

In a development that could reshape the contours of bail jurisprudence under India's stringent anti-terrorism laws, the Supreme Court of India is poised to deliver its judgment on January 5, 2026, on special leave petitions challenging the denial of bail to several prominent student activists accused in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, reserved its verdict on December 10, 2025, after marathon hearings that dissected allegations of a pre-planned plot to incite communal violence during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). At the heart of the matter are petitioners Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, who have endured over five years in custody without trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This ruling holds profound implications for balancing national security concerns with fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial and free expression, amid criticisms of prolonged pre-trial detention as a form of punishment by proxy.

The case underscores ongoing tensions in India's criminal justice system, where UAPA's rigorous provisions—making bail nearly impossible if a prima facie case exists—clash with constitutional safeguards under Articles 19 (free speech) and 21 (life and liberty). Legal experts anticipate the judgment could either reinforce the law's tough stance on alleged "intellectual terrorists" or advocate for liberal interpretations, drawing from precedents that prioritize innocence until proven guilty.

Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots and CAA Protests

The roots of this high-profile case trace back to late 2019 and early 2020, when nationwide protests erupted against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Enacted in December 2019, the CAA fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries, sparking fears among critics that it discriminates against Muslims and enables exclusionary policies. In Delhi's Shaheen Bagh neighborhood, a sit-in led primarily by women and students became a symbol of peaceful resistance, drawing global attention.

Tensions boiled over in February 2020, culminating in violent clashes in Northeast Delhi between CAA supporters and opponents. From February 23 to 26, riots ravaged areas like Jaffrabad, Maujpur, and Karawal Nagar, resulting in 53 deaths—mostly Muslims—over 200 injuries, and widespread arson and looting. The violence, described by authorities as orchestrated rather than spontaneous, prompted the Delhi Police Special Cell to register FIR No. 59/2020 on March 5, 2020, invoking UAPA alongside Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections for criminal conspiracy (120B), promoting enmity (153A), rioting (147), and murder (302).

What began as a probe into immediate rioters evolved into a "larger conspiracy" narrative, alleging a pan-India network aimed at "regime change" and "economic strangulation." Accusations centered on student leaders from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Jamia Millia Islamia, portrayed as masterminds who mobilized via WhatsApp groups like the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and Jamia Awareness Campaign Team. Key accused include former JNU student Umar Khalid, JNU scholar Sharjeel Imam, activist Gulfisha Fatima, and others like Tahir Hussain (former AAP councillor), Khalid Saifi, and Ishrat Jahan. Notably, some co-accused, such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, secured bail from the Delhi High Court in 2021, citing insufficient evidence of UAPA applicability and protection for dissent. Others, like Safoora Zargar, were released on humanitarian grounds due to pregnancy.

This backdrop highlights the case's political undertones, with defense counsel arguing it criminalizes legitimate protest, while prosecutors frame it as an assault on national sovereignty.

The Larger Conspiracy Case: Charges and Accused

FIR 59/2020 paints a picture of meticulous planning, citing digital footprints—WhatsApp chats, Signal app migrations, and deleted messages—as evidence of coordination. Protected witness statements, call detail records (CDRs), and meetings at locations like the Indian Social Institute and Shaheen Bagh are invoked to link the accused. The prosecution alleges the riots were not organic but a "well-choreographed" bid to paralyze Delhi, sever Northeast India's "chicken neck" corridor, and incite communal divides.

The petitioners face charges under UAPA for terrorist acts (Section 15) and unlawful activities (Section 13), treated as scheduled offenses that bar bail unless the court finds no prima facie case. They have been detained since early 2020—Imam from January, others post-riots—totaling over five years for most, with trials stalled despite claims of completion. Supplementary chargesheets, the latest in 2023, have prolonged the process, fueling delay arguments. The full list of accused exceeds 20, but the current bail pleas focus on the seven mentioned, all student activists at the forefront of CAA opposition.

Delhi High Court's Denial of Bail

The saga reached the Delhi High Court, where a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur delivered a 133-page verdict on September 2, 2024, dismissing the bail applications. The court held that a prima facie UAPA case was established, emphasizing the gravity of the accused's roles. For Khalid and Imam, it spotlighted "inflammatory speeches on communal lines" to mobilize Muslim communities, rejecting free speech defenses.

"Violence in the name of protest is not free speech," the bench declared, underscoring that "any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests... cannot be permitted" and falls outside Articles 19(1)(a) and (b). The ruling critiqued parity claims with bailed co-accused, deeming the 2021 grants based on an "incorrect interpretation" of UAPA. It affirmed the conspiracy's scope, relying on agency principles where one accused's actions impute liability to co-conspirators. This decision, rooted in public interest and riot severity, prompted the SLPs to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Hearings: Arguments Unfolded

The apex court took up the batch of SLPs under the title Gulfisha Fatima v. State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters , with hearings spanning November to December 2025. Justices Kumar and Anjaria, after noting voluminous materials—synopses, timelines, charts—directed collation of all documents for clarity. Proceedings featured intense exchanges, with the bench probing evidence quality and detention duration.

Hearings concluded on December 10, 2025, with the bench reserving judgment. The state resisted bail, arguing delays stemmed from the accused's non-cooperation, such as seeking adjournments for more investigation evidence. Prosecutor Additional Solicitor General SV Raju asserted the trial could wrap in two years if petitioners cooperated, dismissing delay pleas.

Petitioners' Key Submissions

Defense counsel mounted a multi-pronged attack, centering on constitutional infirmities and evidential gaps. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, highlighted his client's absence from Delhi during the riots and characterized his Amravati speech as a call for "Gandhian non-violent protests" against CAA. Playing the speech in court, Sibal invoked youthful agitation: "These are students, they agitate wrongly or rightly. In younger days, even we used to agitate, and if we protest, there is no use of putting me in jail or convicting me. You can't keep me incarcerated for protesting." He analogized chakka jam and rail roko tactics to common Indian protests, not UAPA "terrorist acts," citing liberal bail in Vernon and Shoma Sen .

For Gulfisha Fatima, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasized her six-year detention—the only woman without bail despite lesser allegations than bailed co-accused like Kalita and Narwal. "The 'great argument' of regime change nowhere appears in the main chargesheet and the four supplementary chargesheets," he noted, decrying 90 listings, 25 bench absences, and 26 renotifications as a "caricature" of justice. At 32, Fatima's continued custody serves no public interest, he argued.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for Sharjeel Imam, contested his speeches—already prosecuted separately—as at most Section 13 UAPA offenses, not Section 15 terrorist acts. Detained pre-riots, Imam wasn't physically present; labeling him an "intellectual terrorist" or "anti-national" violates presumption of innocence. Dave rebutted video snippets as selectively edited.

Other arguments included Salman Khurshid's for Shifa Ur Rehman (no fund recovery despite misuse claims) and Siddhartha Agarwal's for Meera Haider (prosecution-attributable delays, with charge arguments deferred from 2023 to 2024). For Shadab Ahmed, Siddhartha Luthra cited CDRs disproving presence, later contradicted by police. Mohd. Saleem Khan's counsel invoked Shaheen Welfare Association on draconian detentions.

Collectively, petitioners stressed no violence proof after five years, trial unlikelihood, and parity, urging bail to uphold Article 21.

Prosecution's Rebuttals

The Delhi Police, via Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju, portrayed the riots as a "well-designed, well-crafted, well-orcheographed" assault on sovereignty, not spontaneous. “This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orcheographed riot,” Mehta asserted, debunking "myths" of peaceful protest.

Raju applied conspiracy agency from a 2013 judgment and the Rajiv Gandhi case, making Imam's materials admissible against all. He detailed evidence: protected witnesses, DPSG chats, Signal shifts, pre-riot meetings (December 2019-February 2020), and CDRs placing Khalid at sites. Delays? Attributable to accused seeking evidence, not prosecution; supplementary sheets aren't delays. Raju rejected hearsay dismissals and parity, calling bailed co-accused orders flawed, and labeled the accused "educated terrorists" more dangerous than street actors. Videos of Imam's calls to unite Muslims, disrupt supplies, and distrust courts were played, though Dave countered as narrative-building.

Legal Precedents and Principles

The clash invoked key precedents. Petitioners leaned on Shoma Sen (2023), where SC granted bail despite UAPA, stressing case-specific scrutiny over blanket denials. Vernon emphasized liberal approaches. The High Court's stance echoed stricter views, but SC probed UAPA's Section 43D(5) bar, questioning if "regime change"—absent from chargesheets—meets prima facie thresholds. Principles of natural justice, speedy trial ( Hussainara Khatoon ), and free speech limits ( Kedar Nath Singh ) loomed large, with defense arguing speeches need "more" than incitement for conspiracy.

Implications for UAPA and Bail Jurisprudence

This case tests UAPA's constitutionality in activism contexts, post-2019 amendments tightening bail. A favorable ruling could mandate timelines, easing the law's 90% denial rate and addressing India's 5 lakh+ undertrials (70% in custody). It may delimit "larger conspiracy" scopes, requiring tangible violence links over digital inferences, and affirm speech protections unless directly tied to acts. Conversely, upholding denial reinforces state power in security cases, potentially chilling dissent.

Broader Impact on Legal Practice

For criminal lawyers, the judgment offers ammunition: robust delay/parity pleadings, challenging "intellectual terrorism" labels as prejudicial, and leveraging digital evidence vulnerabilities (e.g., selective edits). It spotlights investigative lapses—like unsubstantiated "regime change"—urging defenses to demand chargesheet specificity. In the justice system, it amplifies calls for UAPA reforms, akin to TADA's sunset, and speedy trials via tech (e.g., virtual hearings). For human rights practitioners, it influences NGO strategies in minority rights litigation, while police may refine conspiracy framings. Ultimately, it could humanize undertrials, reducing prison overcrowding and upholding rule of law.

Looking Ahead: The January 5 Judgment

As the Supreme Court bench prepares to pronounce, the legal fraternity watches closely. A grant of bail would signal judicial empathy for prolonged detainees, potentially freeing the petitioners to resume lives shattered by five years' incarceration. Denial, however, might escalate to review petitions, prolonging agony. Beyond individuals, this verdict will echo in courtrooms nationwide, defining when protest morphs into peril and where security yields to liberty. In an era of polarized politics, it reaffirms the judiciary's role as democracy's sentinel.