New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on January 5 on the bail pleas filed by seven accused in the February 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, as the court resumes work after the winter break. A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria had earlier reserved its order after hearing detailed arguments from both sides.
The accused in the case include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Md Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. All seven have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and have remained in jail for over five years.
The top court heard submissions from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Delhi Police, while senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid, Sidharth Luthra and others appeared for the accused.
The matter has also drawn international attention in recent weeks, with New York’s first Muslim mayor Zohran Mamdani writing a letter in support of Umar Khalid. Separately, a group of US lawmakers had written to India’s Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra, urging a fair and timely trial in accordance with international law.
The accused face multiple charges, including criminal conspiracy, sedition, promoting enmity between groups and making statements leading to public mischief under the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 13 of the UAPA. The Delhi Police have alleged that the group questioned the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of India and played a key role in the violence that erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens.
The riots broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 during the visit of then US President Donald Trump, leaving 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The police have described the violence as a pre-planned and well-orchestrated conspiracy aimed at destabilising the country, a claim strongly contested by the accused.
Opposing bail, ASG Raju argued that the speeches of Sharjeel Imam could be attributed to the other accused as part of a larger conspiracy. He also alleged that Umar Khalid deliberately left Delhi ahead of the riots to distance himself from the violence and said Khalid played a key role in planning events leading up to the unrest.
The defence, however, rejected these claims. Sharjeel Imam, through his counsel Siddhartha Dave, asserted that he was neither a terrorist nor anti-national and had not been convicted of any offence. Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, maintained that Khalid was not present in Delhi at the time of the riots and could not be punished for participating in protests. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, highlighted the prolonged incarceration of the activist and termed the delay in the trial extraordinary.
The Supreme Court’s verdict is expected to have significant legal and political implications, given the prolonged detention of the accused and the broader debate surrounding protest rights and national security laws.
