Delhi riots: SC seeks response from police on bail pleas of activists
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Police on the bail pleas of student activist Sharjeel Imam, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid, and three others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria directed the police to respond by October 7, after the petitioners’ lawyers requested an early hearing, hoping their clients could be released before Diwali following nearly five years of pre-trial incarceration.
At the start of proceedings, Justice Kumar apologised for not taking up the matter on September 19, explaining that Justice Manmohan had recused himself due to a prior association with senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who represents Khalid.
Sibal appears for Khalid, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represents Gulfishan Fatima, and senior counsel Siddharth Dave represents Imam.
The petitioners, including Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman, argued that prolonged detention amounts to punishment without trial, particularly as the trial is far from conclusion, with multiple supplementary charge sheets and numerous witnesses yet to be examined. Sibal urged the court to consider an interim bail so that the accused could be released before Diwali.
The development comes after two recent adjournments. On September 19, the matter could not be heard due to Justice Manmohan’s recusal, and on September 12, it was deferred as Justice Kumar noted that voluminous case records had arrived past midnight, leaving insufficient time for review.
Earlier, on September 2, the Delhi High Court had rejected bail pleas of nine accused, terming their roles in the alleged conspiracy “prima facie grave” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The high court had described Imam and Khalid as the “intellectual architects” of the riots, pointing to speeches, WhatsApp communications, and pamphlets mobilising opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019.
The HC noted that Imam’s speeches in Aligarh, Asansol, and Chakand, and Khalid’s speech in Amravati on February 17, 2020, were not isolated acts, and their absence from riot sites did not mitigate their alleged roles.
The accused maintain they were not involved in planning any violence and have sought parity with fellow activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021. Imam highlighted that he had been in custody since January 2020, weeks before the riots, and that his speeches were unrelated to the violence, while Khalid said his reference to former US President Donald Trump’s visit was innocuous.
The high court, however, rejected these contentions, emphasising that while the right to protest is protected, conspiratorial violence disguised as demonstrations cannot be allowed.