5 months ago
1
Activists Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid, and Sharjeel Imam told the Supreme Court connected Tuesday (December 2, 2025) that the Delhi Police’s assertion of a coordinated “regime alteration operation” down the February 2020 Delhi riots finds nary notation successful the chargesheet, adjacent though it is present being projected arsenic a cardinal plank of the prosecution’s case.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria was proceeding the bail pleas of the 3 activists, on with Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, each accused of conspiring to orchestrate the unrest, and charged nether the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The accused person assailed the Delhi High Court’s September 2 bid denying them bail. The High Court had described their roles arsenic “grave” and said that the grounds connected grounds suggested a coordinated program down the riots, which near 53 radical dormant and hundreds injured successful the nationalist capital.
Commencing his rejoinder arguments connected behalf of Ms. Fatima, elder advocator A.M. Singhvi submitted that his lawsuit had already spent astir six years successful custody, and described specified prolonged pre-trial detention arsenic “astonishing and unprecedented”. “Where person you alleged authorities alteration arsenic the bosom of your chargesheet?” helium asked, adding that the prosecution’s assertion of a pan-India conspiracy “to abstracted Assam from India” was arsenic unfounded.
Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, had earlier argued that the standard of the violence, its grade of preparation, and the intent down it near “no doubt” that the conspiracy extended acold beyond civilian demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. According to the prosecution, the unit formed portion of a coordinated “regime alteration operation” executed nether the guise of civilian dissent.
Mr. Singhvi further stressed that Ms. Fatima is the lone pistillate inactive successful custody successful the case, and questioned what “public interest” her continued incarceration served. “By keeping her successful jailhouse and objecting truthful vociferously to bail, which nationalist involvement are you serving? … How tin she fly successful the eyes of the Supreme Court and the full world? What volition she do?” helium asked.
‘Misplaced consideration’
Mr. Singhvi besides apprised the Bench that charges against Ms. Fatima were yet to beryllium framed, and contended that specified “endless custody” efficaciously amounted to punishment earlier trial. “This volition marque a caricature of our transgression justness system. Nobody needs to beryllium punished similar this unless they are convicted. This is simply a pre-trial conviction,” helium argued.
The elder counsel took beardown objection to the High Court’s reflection that a “hurried trial” would beryllium detrimental to the accused. “...the gait of the proceedings volition advancement naturally. A hurried proceedings would besides beryllium detrimental to the rights of some the Appellants and the State,” the Division Bench had held.
He likened this reasoning to the Supreme Court’s infamous Emergency-era judgement successful A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, successful which the tribunal had upheld the President’s bid suspending citizens’ entree to judicial remedies. Referring to Justice M.H. Beg’s wide criticised remarks successful that case, describing the state’s attraction of detainees arsenic “care which is astir maternal successful nature”, Mr. Singhvi argued that the High Court’s attack reflected a likewise misplaced paternalism.
“This is misplaced information [by the High Court] for the petitioner. I would alternatively not person this information by the High Court,” helium said.
Not ‘inflammatory’
Appearing for Mr. Khalid, elder advocator Kapil Sibal played successful tribunal the activist’s February 17, 2020 code delivered successful Amravati, which the Delhi Police has cited arsenic grounds of conspiracy. Mr. Sibal argued that thing successful the code could conceivably pull charges nether the UAPA, noting that Mr. Khalid had urged the assemblage to “respond to unit with peace, and to hatred with love”.
“You cannot property idiosyncratic else’s code to maine and accidental that I americium liable for the riots… Nobody tin telephone his code inflammatory successful immoderate consciousness of the word,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
Justice Kumar past referred to the Delhi Police’s contention that the code was “provocative” and had instigated people.
“I person placed the speech. If this is inciting, past galore of america are liable to spell to jail,” Mr. Sibal responded.
He further contended that specified prolonged incarceration amounted to a “punitive act” by the State, aimed astatine deterring different assemblage students from protesting.
“Ultimately, what is the nationalist interest? First, if I travel out, I should not bash activities that endanger the state. Your Lordships person capable powerfulness to guarantee that I don’t. This is punitive… What person these kids done? They were protesting… You cannot accidental that it is simply a violent act,” the elder counsel stressed.
‘Presumption of innocence’
Echoing specified a contention, elder advocator Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mr. Imam, questioned the Delhi Police’s characterisation of his lawsuit arsenic a “dangerous intelligence terrorist” without a full-fledged proceedings oregon adjacent a azygous conviction.
“I americium being labelled arsenic a unsafe intelligence terrorist. The Additional Solicitor General said intelligence terrorists are much dangerous. Not 1 condemnation against me. The words were utilized against a national of this country. I tin recognize aft a full-fledged proceedings due to the fact that I suffer the presumption of innocence. But this statement has caused anguish to me,” Mr. Dave submitted.
He further pointed retired that Mr. Imam had been arrested connected January 28, 2020, earlier the riots occurred, and that his speeches, by themselves, could not represent the offence of transgression conspiracy. “This FIR (First Information Report) was registered successful March 2020. For implicit a month, I had already been successful custody. Of people it rules retired my carnal beingness successful the riots due to the fact that I was successful custody,” helium said.
At this juncture, Justice Kumar said, “Can we instrumentality your statement that these speeches won’t represent a violent act?”
Mr. Dave responded that the speeches could not fulfill the ingredients of “criminal conspiracy”, and that the prosecution would person to show an “overt act” to found the offence.
The Bench took enactment of the submissions and said the proceeding would proceed connected December 3. The Bench is expected to proceed proceeding the rejoinder submissions connected behalf of the accused.
