No evidence linking me to 2020 Delhi riots violence: Umar Khalid to SC

Before the Supreme Court on Friday, 31 October, the long shadows of the February 2020 Delhi riots once again returned to the fore — this time through impassioned pleas for liberty. Activist Umar Khalid, incarcerated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), sought bail while insisting there exists “not a shred of evidence” tying him to the violence that scarred the national capital.

Appearing for Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria that neither funds, nor weapons, nor any material proof had been recovered to suggest his client’s complicity.

“There are 751 FIRs — I am named in one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a curious one,” Sibal quipped, adding that Khalid was not even in Delhi when the riots broke out. “No witness statement connects him to any act of violence,” he stressed, noting that the activist deserved bail on grounds of parity with Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha — all granted relief in 2021.

Sibal also contested the Delhi High Court’s observation that Khalid’s Amravati speech was “inflammatory.” “It’s on YouTube — a speech about Gandhian values, not violence,” he said.

In the same hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, lamented her continued incarceration — five years and five months since April 2020. He accused the prosecution of turning the case into “an annual ritual” by filing supplementary chargesheets each year. “The allegation is merely that she created a WhatsApp group. But the real test is intent — was there any effort to incite violence or disharmony?” he asked.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, noted that his client spent three of his five years in custody waiting for the police to finish investigating. “My speeches were delivered two months before the riots,” he said, questioning the alleged link to the violence.

The Delhi Police, in its reply, held firm — asserting that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy to “strike at the sovereignty and integrity of India through a regime change operation disguised as peaceful protest.”

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on November 3.

The case, which has already spanned half a decade, remains one of the most contentious legacies of the 2020 Delhi riots — a collision between the state’s claims of conspiracy and the activists’ calls for justice, echoing the enduring tension between dissent and democracy.

With PTI inputs