The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju presented arguments on behalf of the Delhi Police, citing protected witness statements that placed Umar Khalid at the center of planning and supervision during the protests. Raju claimed that Khalid and co-accused Nadeem Khan issued instructions through the Jamia Coordination Committee, and call-detail records placed Khalid at key locations during the initial stages of the unrest. The ASG also argued that Khalid had deliberately left Delhi before the riots to deflect responsibility and that messages on the Delhi Protest Support Group WhatsApp group were initially accessible to all members, including Khalid. He further cited the Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini to contend that acts of one conspirator can be attributed to all others, stating that Sharjeel Imam’s case would serve as evidence against the other accused.
The defense, led by senior advocate Siddharth Dave for Sharjeel Imam, argued that speeches alone cannot constitute a terrorist act under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Dave said the question is whether the speeches were conspiratorial, and if not, Section 15 cannot be invoked.
The Supreme Court also directed all parties to compile and collate their documents, including authorities, memos, submissions, charges, and witness lists, into a single compilation by December 18 for the court’s convenience.
The accused had approached the top court after the Delhi High Court denied their bail on September 2, 2025. Most of the accused have been in custody since 2020. The case relates to allegations that the accused conspired to incite riots following clashes over the Citizenship Amendment Act, leading to 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries. Multiple FIRs were registered under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA.
The Delhi Police argued that the accused planned a regime-change operation, incited communal riots, and intended to harm non-Muslims, supporting their claim with documentary and technical evidence. The court had previously criticized the police for delaying their response and the police later filed a 389-page affidavit detailing their case.
The hearing concluded with the defense presenting its arguments, and the police scheduled to make their submissions subsequently.
