On Tuesday, the Supreme Court stayed its hearing of bail applications filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others who are charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the case tied to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which authorities describe as a “larger conspiracy”.
A bench composed of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria listened to arguments from senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhi and Siddharth Dave, who represent the petitioners who are contesting the Delhi High Court’s order issued on September 2 that denied them bail.
Focusing first on Gulfisha, 32‑year‑old Fatima has been held for more than five years. While her co‑accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal gained bail in 2021, Fatima’s case is being treated as a “similar to, and much lesser than” the allegations faced by the others. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that her situation had become a “caricature of our justice system,” noting that the High Court listed her bail hearing 90 times, adjourned 25 of those because the bench was unavailable, and 26 because the case had to be renotified. “Without conviction, keeping someone in jail for so long makes a mockery of our criminal justice system. This is pre‑trial punishment,” he said.
Singhvi also pointed out that the prosecution’s “regime change” theory never appears in the main chargesheet or any of the four supplementary chargesheets; it shows up only in the counter‑affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, suggesting an attempt to influence the Court’s perception unfairly.
For Umar, the senior counsel Kapil Sibal raised the Amravati address that the prosecution cites as evidence, explaining that the speech invoked Mahatma Gandhi and the principle of non‑violence. “Advocating Gandhian civil disobedience cannot be treated as a conspiracy,” Sibal said, adding, “If this speech attracts UAPA, then many of us could be liable to go to jail.” He also reminded the bench that Khalid has spent five years and three months in custody with no charges formally framed. “If bail is denied today, he may spend another three years without trial. What public interest does that serve? This is punitive. I am innocent until proven guilty,” he added. The advocate highlighted that the prosecution’s repeated filing of supplementary charge sheets over the years kept the trial process from starting, thereby delaying any real argument on the alleged conspiracy.
Describing the student protests as “legitimate forms of dissent,” Sibal further insisted that actions such as chakka jams or rail rokos are common across India and that protesting does not equate to terrorism. “You cannot call that a terrorist act, nor can you keep someone incarcerated as if to punish them for protesting,” he said.
Switching to Sharjeel Imam, senior advocate Siddharth Dave maintained that the prosecution has no concrete evidence beyond Imam’s speeches, which are already under separate legal scrutiny. “Sharjeel is neither a terrorist nor anti‑national,” Dave said, adding: “He has not been convicted in any case, yet he has been labelled an ‘intellectual terrorist’. That is unacceptable.” Dave also pointed out that Imam was already in custody in January 2020, several weeks before the February riots, making it difficult to tie him to the alleged conspiracy. “If the allegation is conspiracy, the prosecution must show something beyond the speech. There is nothing,” he said.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
