During the bail hearing in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrutinised the speeches allegedly made by Sharjeel Imam, raising the question whether such remarks could be excluded from the definition of “terrorist acts” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

 

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria was hearing the special leave petitions filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 decision denying them bail.

 

The Delhi Police had previously played videos of Imam’s speeches during anti-CAA protests, arguing that his comments encouraging blockade of the “chicken neck” corridor in the Northeast, calling for nationwide chakka-jams, and advocating cutting-off supplies to Delhi were inflammatory and incited violence.

 

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, argued today that the State has wrongly branded him a “terrorist”. He stressed that Imam has never been convicted and continues to remain a citizen with the presumption of innocence. Labelling him an “intellectual terrorist”, he said, causes deep prejudice.

 

Referring to FIR No. 22/2020—registered for the same speeches—Dave submitted that the prosecution was attempting to rely on already-prosecuted speeches to rope him into FIR 59/2020 concerning the riots. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, weeks before the riots unfolded in February, he pointed out.

 

Justice Kumar, however, highlighted the prosecution’s argument that Imam’s statements—particularly the remark “hamare paas sirf chaar hafte hain”—formed part of a broader plan allegedly aimed at triggering civil unrest.

 

Dave countered that a speech alone cannot constitute a terrorist act under Section 15 UAPA without evidence of overt acts or coordination. “Standing and giving a speech cannot disrupt national infrastructure,” he said.

 

When Justice Kumar reiterated that speech could contribute to supply disruption, Dave pointed out that multiple FIRs in Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh already exist based on these speeches, and in each case he has either secured bail or benefited from default bail due to delayed chargesheets. He also emphasised that not a single one of the 750 FIRs from the riots names Imam as an accused.

 

“Can we take your argument that these speeches do not amount to a terrorist act?” the Court asked. Dave responded that the speeches cannot alone form the basis of a conspiracy to commit terrorism under UAPA. He cited a favourable Allahabad High Court order that rejected the claim that his speeches called for violence.

 

Dave added that while the prosecution calls him an “expert” on riots for writing a thesis, they simultaneously argue he failed to engineer large-scale violence—an inherent contradiction.

 

ASG SV Raju, for the State, sought time to respond, stating that some submissions were “misleading”. The matter will resume tomorrow.

 

The Court also heard replies of co-accused Gulfisha Fatima and Umar Khalid.

 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha, called her continued detention—over five years—the longest faced by any woman accused in the case. He noted that accusations against her are even weaker than those against Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in 2021. He criticised repeated adjournments—over 50 listings without hearing—calling it a “caricature of the justice system.”

 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Umar Khalid, maintained that Khalid was not even in Delhi during the riots. He argued that the Amaravati speech cited by prosecution advocated peaceful, Gandhian protest. Civil disobedience tactics like chakka jams and rail rokos are common in India and cannot be treated as terrorist conduct, he added. Even recent farmers’ protests involved highway blockades, he noted.

 

Sibal warned against punishment for dissent: “Students protested. If there is a case, prosecute and convict. But incarceration for protests alone cannot be justified.”

 

He also referred to judgments like Vernon Gonsalves and Shoma Sen, where the Supreme Court took a liberal approach in UAPA bail matters.