Delhi riots case: SC notices to police on bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, others

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Delhi Police to file its response on the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, all accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of conspiring in the February 2020 Delhi riots. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria issued notice and posted the matter for 27 October.

The case, for many, is now emblematic of how legal procedure itself can serve as a form of punishment. The accused have been behind bars for more than five years without trial, as hearings meander through adjournments, recusals and shifting judicial schedules.

On Monday, Justice Kumar explained that the matter could not be heard last week because Justice Manmohan, originally on the bench, had recused owing to a past professional association with senior advocate Kapil Sibal. Such recusals are routine, but for those in prolonged detention, they add to the steady accumulation of lost years.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Fatima, pressed for interim bail on the ground that the petitioners were students who had already spent over half-a-decade in custody. The bench, however, indicated it would prefer to decide the main bail petitions rather than grant temporary relief. This approach, though legally sound, effectively means that the activists remain incarcerated until yet another round of arguments, filings, and judicial consideration is complete.

The petitions stem from a Delhi High Court order of 2 September, which denied bail to nine individuals including Khalid and Imam. The court reasoned that “conspiratorial” violence in the guise of protest could not be tolerated, even while acknowledging that peaceful protest is protected under Article 19(1)(a).

The judgment, however, emphasised that rights are “not absolute” and must give way to “reasonable restrictions” to safeguard law and order.

Despite the stern language of the high court, critics note that the case against the accused appears remarkably thin. Much of the prosecution’s case relies on speeches, WhatsApp chats, and organisational activity linked to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens. Defence counsel has argued that such activity, far from demonstrating a conspiracy to foment riots, falls within the ambit of Constitutionally protected political expression.

Indeed, lawyers for Khalid have described FIR 59 of 2020, the so-called “larger conspiracy” FIR, as a “joke,” pointing out that many deaths and violent episodes referenced in it are already covered by other FIRs, with no direct evidentiary overlap tying the activists to them. Despite voluminous chargesheets running into thousands of pages, there appears to be no firm proof linking the accused to actual acts of violence.

Adding to doubts about the credibility of the investigation are repeated judicial findings that Delhi Police fabricated or padded evidence in other riot-related cases. A review of dozens of acquittal orders by the Indian Express showed that trial courts have on multiple occasions chastised the police for presenting unreliable witnesses, dictating statements, and failing to follow basic procedures like Test Identification Parades. In one instance, a judge concluded that an investigating officer had “artificially” strengthened the case with supplementary material.

These findings do not directly exonerate Khalid and his co-accused, but paint a troubling picture of investigative practices in riot cases generally. They lend weight to the argument that the conspiracy case may rest more on political suspicion and the deterrent effect of prolonged incarceration than on hard, testable evidence.

The cumulative effect is stark. The activists have already served the equivalent of a medium-term sentence without conviction. Each adjournment and procedural delay adds to the tally of lost time. Bail hearings under UAPA require only a prima facie showing of guilt to keep an accused in jail, lowering the threshold for continued detention.

The result is that the process itself functions as punishment: long years behind bars, reputational damage, separation from families and careers, and the psychological weight of uncertainty. Even if acquittal eventually comes — as it has in numerous other riot-related cases — the penalty has already been paid in time.

With PTI inputs