The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 9) reserved its verdict on the bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case.

 

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria wrapped up the hearing on the challenges filed against the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order refusing them bail. All petitioners have remained in custody for more than five years, facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

 

Arguments by Petitioners

 

The central grievance highlighted by all the petitioners was prolonged incarceration and the improbability of the trial commencing anytime soon.

 

Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima), Kapil Sibal (for Umar Khalid) and Siddharth Dave (for Sharjeel Imam) stressed that in five years, no material has surfaced to show that the accused incited violence.

 

Dr. Singhvi argued that Gulfisha, in custody for nearly six years, is the only woman in the case denied bail—despite the Delhi High Court granting bail to similarly placed co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal in 2021. He further submitted that the prosecution’s “regime change” theory appears nowhere in the main or supplementary chargesheets, four of which were filed by 2023.

 

Calling the listing history of her bail plea a “caricature of justice”, Singhvi pointed out that the matter was listed 90 times—25 times the bench was unavailable, and 26 times it was renotified—reflecting systemic delays rather than any fault of the accused.

 

For Umar Khalid, Kapil Sibal underscored that he was not even in Delhi during the February 2020 riots. He emphasised that the Amaravati speech relied upon by the prosecution was a call for peaceful resistance based on Gandhian principles. The defence even played the speech in court. Sibal said that while student protests may be inconvenient or disruptive, they cannot be elevated to “terrorist acts” under UAPA. He cited the Vernon and Shoma Sen rulings where the Court adopted a more liberal approach to bail under UAPA.

 

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave said Imam’s speeches—already the subject of separate FIRs—could not be used to sustain a terrorism charge under Sections 15/18 of UAPA. At most, the content may fall under Section 13 (unlawful activity). Dave added that Imam was already in custody a month before the riots and therefore could not have participated in any alleged physical conspiracy. He objected to the State’s branding of Imam as an “intellectual terrorist,” reminding the Court of the presumption of innocence.

 

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Shifa-Ur-Rehman, argued that the allegations regarding misuse of AAJMI funds are unsupported by any recovery.

 

For Meeran Haider, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal highlighted delay and parity concerns. He said arguments on charge could not proceed for a year because the prosecution itself had not completed its investigation.

 

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Luthra, for Shadab Ahmed, submitted that CDR records initially showed he was not present at protest sites and that the prosecution revised its theory only a year later.

 

For Mohd. Saleem, Advocate Gautam Khazanchi relied on the Shaheen Welfare Association decision addressing prolonged detention under stringent anti-terror laws.

 

Submissions by Delhi Police

 

The Delhi Police, represented mainly by ASG SV Raju, argued that the protests were not spontaneous but part of a coordinated nationwide conspiracy aimed at “regime change” and “economic blockade.” Reliance was placed on WhatsApp groups like DPSG and the Jamia Awareness Campaign Team, conversations allegedly moved to encrypted platforms, and purported meetings in Delhi where planning supposedly occurred.

 

The prosecution said delays were caused by the accused, not the State, and that if the defence cooperated, the trial could finish within two years. On November 20, ASG Raju argued that the accused were “educated terrorists” who used intellectual influence to mobilise unrest. Videos of Sharjeel Imam’s speeches calling for blockades and disruption of supplies were played in court. The defence countered that the clips were selectively edited and already part of the chargesheet.

 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had earlier submitted that public statements made by the accused clearly indicated a pre-planned plot threatening national sovereignty. The State also contended that earlier bail grants to co-accused (2021 Delhi High Court orders) were based on an incorrect interpretation of the UAPA.

 

Prosecution’s Rebuttal

 

ASG Raju argued that the alleged conspiracy must be viewed through established principles of criminal agency—once Section 120B IPC is invoked, statements and materials relating to one conspirator become usable against others. He maintained that most delays arose from the accused insisting on waiting for supplementary chargesheets and new material. Filing additional chargesheets, he asserted, cannot be treated as prosecution-caused delay.

 

He referred to protected witness testimonies, digital exchanges, alleged deletion of chats, and meetings at ISI, Shaheen Bagh, PFI office and Seelampur to show coordinated planning between December 2019 and February 2020. He dismissed defence arguments about hearsay evidence and parity, saying the discharge orders relied upon by the petitioners were not on merits.

 

Background

 

The petitions challenge the Delhi High Court’s September 2 decision rejecting bail to nine accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.

 

The case relates to the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots, involving charges under UAPA and the IPC. Many of the accused were student activists associated with anti-CAA protests. Several co-accused—including Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Safoora Zargar—have already been released on bail on various grounds.

 

 

Case Titles

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

2. GULFISHA FATIMA v. State (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

6. MOHD. SALEEM KHAN v. State (NCT of Delhi) | SLP(Crl) No. 15335/2025

7. SHADAB AHMED v. State (NCT of Delhi) | SLP(Crl) No. 17055/2025