Delhi Riots Case: Supreme Court Set to Hear Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima on Friday

 

Umar Khalid

NEW DELHI – In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear the bail pleas of several key accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots on Friday. The list of petitioners includes former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid, activist Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima, all of whom have been in judicial custody for multiple years under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The hearing, which is being closely watched by legal experts and human rights organizations, represents a critical juncture in one of the most high-profile and politically charged cases in recent years. The accused have repeatedly been denied bail by the trial court and the Delhi High Court, which have cited the gravity of the allegations and the constraints of the UAPA law, which makes the grant of bail exceptionally difficult.

The case, investigated by the Delhi Police, alleges that the accused were part of a pre-meditated conspiracy to orchestrate the communal violence that engulfed parts of Northeast Delhi in February 2020. The riots, which broke out amidst protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in the deaths of 53 people and left hundreds injured.

The legal counsel for the petitioners is expected to challenge the foundation of the conspiracy case, arguing a lack of specific, credible evidence that directly links their clients to the actual incitement of violence. They are likely to contend that the charges are based on stretched inferences from speeches and alleged meetings, and that prolonged incarceration without a trial concluding in sight violates their fundamental rights to liberty and a speedy trial.

The prosecution, represented by the Delhi Police, will likely reiterate its stance that the accused played a central role in the conspiracy. They are expected to rely on electronic evidence, witness statements, and the nature of the UAPA to argue that releasing the accused could hamper the ongoing investigation and trial.

The outcome of Friday's hearing could have far-reaching implications. A grant of bail by the apex court would be a monumental relief for the accused and could set a significant precedent for other similar cases under the UAPA. Conversely, another denial would mean their continued detention as the slow-moving trial proceeds.

The Supreme Court's scrutiny of these bail pleas brings the legal and ethical debates surrounding the application of anti-terror laws in cases of alleged protest-related violence back into sharp focus. The decision will be a definitive moment in a case that has become a symbol of India's ongoing discourse on dissent, law and order, and judicial process.