'Out Of 751 FIRs, Charged Only In one, Where Is The Conspiracy?', Umar Khalid To SC Seeking Bail In 2020 Delhi Riots Case

New Delhi: Activist Umar Khalid on Friday told the Supreme Court that there are 751 FIRs in the Delhi 2020 riots, and he is charged in one, and if it's a conspiracy, “it's a bit surprising”. Khalid and others have moved the apex court against an order passed by the Delhi High Court, which rejected their bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) regarding the alleged larger conspiracy in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

Arguments On Behalf Of Umar Khalid

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented Khalid before a bench comprising justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. Sibal said the special public prosecutor, on various grounds –ill health, personal emergency, busy in another court, busy in the high court, internet connectivity issues, etc. – sought several adjournments in the matter. Regarding arguments on the charge, in the trial court, Sibal said his client’s counsel argued on the charge for seven days, and the matter was adjourned six times.

Sibal pointed out that Delhi Police, in its counter-affidavit, claims that his client is responsible for delaying the court proceedings. Sibal pressed that there is no evidence linking his client to violence and denied conspiracy charges against him.

“The charge against me is conspiracy, only conspiracy….there are 751 FIRs, I am charged in one. If it’s a conspiracy, it’s a bit surprising.... The petitioner was not present in northeast Delhi…and the petitioner was not even in Delhi. So, on the dates when riots took place, I was not in Delhi”, said Sibal.

Sibal contended that there has been no recovery of funds, weapons or any material evidence linking him to the 2020 Delhi riots. “No recovery of weapons, arms and ammunition, funds or any other incriminating material…from the petitioner or at his instance. No physical evidence has been retrieved from him which connects him to any violence or writing. Not a single witness has given a statement that connects him to any actual incident of violence in northeast Delhi”, said Sibal.

Sibal submitted that Khalid is entitled to bail on grounds of parity, noting that fellow activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail in June 2021.

Sibal said that the Delhi High Court, while denying bail, had termed Khalid’s speech at Amravati on February 17, 2020, as “inflammatory.” “It is available on YouTube. It was a public speech where I (Khalid) spoke about Gandhian principles,” said Sibal.

Arguments On Behalf Of Gulfisha Fatima

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi represented Gulfisha Fatima before the bench. He argued that she has been in jail for five years and five months, since April 2020, and pointed out that while the main chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2020, the prosecution has made it an “annual ritual” to file supplementary chargesheets every year and added, “by filing supplementary chargesheets, they cannot generate an indefinite ongoing investigation”. It was argued before the bench that there has been an extraordinary delay in the consideration of the bail plea of Fatima, which has been listed over 90 times since 2020.

Singhvi said she is entitled to bail on grounds of parity, and she has served five years and five months of incarceration; five or six chargesheets have been filed. “I am the only woman in custody now…charges have not yet been framed, and arguments on the charge are ongoing. I completed arguments in March 2025…”, said Singhvi

Singhvi said the allegation against his client is merely that she created a WhatsApp group to coordinate or mobilise support. It was argued before the bench that the real test in law, as laid down by the apex court, is whether there was any intent to incite violence or create disharmony.

Arguments On Behalf Of Sharjeel Imam

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave represented Sharjeel Imam before the bench. Dave contended that the police took three years to complete their investigation. “Out of the five years I have spent in custody, three went by because the probe was still ongoing….the speeches were delivered by me (Imam) nearly two months before the riots,” submitted Dave.

He stressed that there is no direct or proximate link to suggest that his client could have incited the violence.

The apex court will continue to hear the matter on November 3.

Delhi Police Claims Regime Change Operation

The Delhi Police on Thursday strongly opposed the release of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, saying criminal conspiracy was hatched for the execution of riots intended for achieving the final “regime change” goal.

In a voluminous affidavit filed through advocate Rajat Nair, a day before the matter is scheduled to come up for hearing, the police contended that the conspiracy to incite violence and riots, demonstrates that the accused didn’t intend to vent personal grievance or political dissent, but the intent to incite violence which has direct implications on the nation’s economic and social fabric, leading to serious ramifications against the broader society.

“The messaging, tone, and references therein were not incidental but deliberate, reflecting an overarching aim to destabilize the country and by setting up a global narrative of ethnic cleansing or pogrom of the Muslim community under the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)”, said the affidavit.

The police said that the riots were not spontaneous but part of a deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy.

The police said that the conspiracy hatched, nurtured and executed by the petitioner was to strike at the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of the country by destroying the communal harmony, and instigating the crowd not only to abrogate public order but to instigate them to an extent of armed rebellion.

It added that the international theory developed in the past few years has termed these kinds of organised/sponsored protests as “regime change operation(s)”.

The affidavit said that at the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the state is setting out the brief facts only for the convenience of understanding the broad contours of the criminal conspiracy hatched for the execution of riots intended for achieving the final “regime change” goal.

Background

The petitioners moved the apex court against an order passed by the Delhi High Court, which rejected their bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) regarding the alleged larger conspiracy in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.

The Delhi High Court on September 2 denied bail to nine persons, including Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in the case, saying “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens couldn’t be allowed. Imam had already moved the apex court against the high court order.

Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC.

Those who faced rejection include Khalid, Imam, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed.