The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 31) heard arguments on the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima—accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Sections of the IPC for criminal conspiracy.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria adjourned the matter till Monday to hear submissions from co-accused Meeran Haider, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shifa-Ur-Rehman, along with the Delhi Police.

The petitions challenge the Delhi High Court’s September 2 judgment, which denied them bail. That decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur in FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.

Gulfisha Fatima: Only Organised Protests, No Evidence of Violence

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, emphasized that she has been incarcerated since April 11, 2020 — over five years and five months. Despite the chargesheet being filed long ago, the trial has not commenced. Singhvi underscored that she is the only woman still in custody, while others have been released on bail. “If bail comes after 6–7 years, what is the meaning of liberty?” he asked.

Citing precedents like Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Sheikh Javed Iqbal, Singhvi argued that bail can be granted despite UAPA restrictions in cases of prolonged custody. He also criticized the High Court for keeping her bail plea pending for over three years. The only allegation, he said, was her role in organising anti-CAA protests as part of the Pinjra Tod collective and related WhatsApp groups. “There is not a single photo, video, or act of violence linked to her,” he asserted. “At worst, I set up protest sites.”

Umar Khalid: Gandhian Speech Cited As Evidence; Not in Delhi During Riots

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, pointed out that court proceedings were delayed due to administrative lapses, not the accused. He noted that the presiding judge was on leave for 55 dates and that on 59 dates, hearings didn’t proceed because the Special Public Prosecutor was unavailable.

Sibal stressed that Khalid was not even in Delhi during the riots, had no weapon recovery or violent act alleged, and was named only in one out of 751 FIRs. The only alleged act was a speech in Amravati, Maharashtra, invoking Gandhian principles of non-violence. He argued that this could not be classified as a “terrorist act” under UAPA.

Citing the bail orders of Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, Sibal argued that the same standard should apply since Khalid faced identical evidence but was not present in Delhi. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent bail order in the Bengaluru riots case, where bail was granted due to delay in trial.

Sharjeel Imam: Already In Custody During Riots; Old Speeches Misconstrued

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, contended that the investigation continued till September 2024, with multiple supplementary charge sheets, showing that delays were on the part of the police, not the accused.

Imam has been in custody since January 25, 2020, a month before the riots erupted. “If I was already in jail, how could I conspire in February?” Dave argued. He said the only material against Imam are speeches from December 2019, which merely called for ‘chakka jams’ and peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Justice Kumar inquired about the speech, to which Dave replied that it was a call for civil disobedience, not violence. He added that Imam, a Bihar resident with IIT and JNU credentials, was facing prolonged incarceration for speech-based allegations already cleared in other cases.

Earlier this week (October 27), the Delhi Police sought two weeks to file counter-affidavits, but the Supreme Court refused, directing them to respond by Friday. The Bench also urged ASG SV Raju to consider the petitioners’ five-year custody.

In its reply filed yesterday, the police contended that the accused were responsible for delaying the trial through “mala fide and mischievous conduct.”

Previously, the matter was listed before Justice Manmohan (who later recused due to past association with Kapil Sibal) and Justice Aravind Kumar. After several adjournments in September, the bench issued notice on September 22 and listed the case for hearing on October 27.

The accused — student activists and anti-CAA protest organisers — are charged with planning the “larger conspiracy” that allegedly led to the February 2020 Delhi riots.

The list of accused includes Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha (bailed), Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar (bailed), Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, Devangana Kalita (bailed), and Natasha Narwal (bailed).

The September 2, 2024 High Court judgment denied bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed. All have spent over five years in custody.

Case Details:

1. Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP (Crl) No. 14165/2025

2. Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) | SLP (Crl) No. 13988/2025

3. Sharjeel Imam v. State (NCT of Delhi) | SLP (Crl) No. 14030/2025

4. Meeran Haider v. State (NCT of Delhi) | SLP (Crl) No. 14132/2025

5. Shifa-Ur-Rehman v. State (NCT of Delhi) | SLP (Crl) No. 14859/2025