Supreme Court Hears Bail Pleas of Activists Linked to 2020 Delhi Riots
Activists Challenge Prolonged Incarceration
Gulfisha Fatima, an activist implicated in a supposed “larger conspiracy” related to the 2020 Delhi riots, addressed the Supreme Court on Tuesday, asserting that the extended detention of undertrial defendants in this case undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Fatima, along with four others—Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, and Shadab Ahmad—has contested a September 2 ruling from the Delhi High Court that rejected their bail requests.
The group was detained between January and September 2020 due to their alleged involvement in the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020, which was sparked by tensions surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act. This unrest resulted in 53 fatalities and numerous injuries, predominantly affecting the Muslim community.
During the hearing, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Fatima, informed the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that such prolonged detention equates to a “pre-trial conviction.”
Singhvi emphasized, “No one should endure such punishment unless they have been convicted.”
Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khalid, argued that he should not be held accountable for the delays in the judicial process.
Sibal contended that if bail is denied, Khalid could remain incarcerated for “another three years” as an undertrial, despite no “single act of violence” being linked to him.
“That would mean eight years without a trial,” Sibal stated. “I am an academic and an individual. I have not been implicated in any overt act.”
Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Haider, and Ahmad face charges under various laws, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code.
On October 30, the Delhi Police submitted an affidavit opposing their bail petitions, claiming that their actions were part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent.
The police also accused the petitioners of playing the “victim card” regarding their lengthy detention, asserting that they were responsible for delaying the trial for “malicious and mischievous reasons.”
On October 31, Khalid, Imam, and Fatima stated in court that they had not incited violence and were merely exercising their right to peaceful protest against the CAA.
On November 18, the Delhi Police argued that the five cannot claim equality with co-accused individuals who were granted bail, asserting that the High Court’s 2021 decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Court Reviews Imam’s Speeches Under UAPA
During Tuesday's proceedings, the Supreme Court also evaluated whether certain segments of Imam’s speeches during protests against the Citizenship Act could be construed as incitement or a “terrorist act” under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
In previous hearings, the Delhi Police had presented video clips of Imam urging blockades and nationwide protests, which were characterized as provocative.
Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Imam, argued that his client was being unjustly labeled an “intellectual terrorist” without any conviction.
He noted that Imam had already faced prosecution for the same speeches being used to suggest a “conspiracy,” including one filed on January 25, 2020, and pointed out that Imam was in custody prior to the February 2020 riots.
Dave maintained that a speech alone cannot constitute a terrorist act and that the prosecution must demonstrate further actions to support a charge under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
He also highlighted that none of the 750 FIRs related to the 2020 riots named Imam as an accused. He referenced a ruling from the Allahabad High Court that granted Imam bail, stating that his speeches did not incite violence.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju requested time to respond to these arguments.
The hearing is set to continue on Wednesday.