2020 Delhi Riots: SC To Pronounce Verdict On January 5 On Bails Pleas Of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam And Others

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on January 5 would pronounce its verdict on bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi.

On December 10, a bench comprising justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria had reserved the verdict, after hearing submissions from solicitor general Tushar Mehta, additional solicitor general (ASG) S V Raju and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid, and Sidharth Luthra.

Khalid, Imam, and other accused were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) anti-terror law and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The accused moved the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail in the "larger conspiracy" case of the February 2020 riots.

On December 10, during the hearing, Raju, representing Delhi Police, contended that the prosecution cannot be blamed for the delay in trial, and added, “there is no delay on the part of the prosecution…..They said we want hard copies of everything... 30,000 pages”.

Raju had stressed that the acts of one conspirator can be attributed to others. “Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to Umar Khalid. Sharjeel Imam’s case will be considered as evidence against the others….”, argued Raju.

Raju submitted that Khalid deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots happened, as he wanted to deflect responsibility. He stressed that the planning for the riots was done by Khalid, and it is not correct that he was not the admin of Delhi Protest Support Group, and only admins could send messages.

It was argued before the bench that everyone could post messages before March 11, including Umar Khalid, and after March 11, they deleted everything, and subsequently, he was not made an admin, and later migrated to Signal for communications.

The police also drew the court's attention to the FIR of 2016 in relation to the slogans raised at JNU. The bench asked, "What is the relevance of this FIR for riots, which happened in 2020?" Raju submitted that conspiracy begins before the act, and conspiracy can start even 2 years before.

He emphasized that, as per protected witness James, all instructions came from Umar Khalid, and the decisions of the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC) used to come from Khalid and Nadeem Khan. He added that call-detail records place Khalid on the ground during the initial stages of the protest.

It was argued that Khalid was actively involved in all the meetings, and he was taking minute-by-minute information about the riots, the chakka jams and the protests.

The bench asked Raju, "How do you bring conspiracy under section 15 (of the UAPA)?" It further queried that the petitioners are saying speech has nothing to do with action, and it is only a speech. Raju replied that speech led to action. At this juncture, the bench queried, "How would the speech link to the action?"

Raju replied that the speech gives an idea of what was planned. The bench pointed out that one of the petitioners argued that conspiracy meetings will fall under section 13(1)(b) at best.

Responding to why section 15 will be attracted in the matter, Raju said they threaten the unity and security of the country, the isolation of Assam, and also threaten economic security. The bench observed that the police are not attributing the use of these things to these persons in the chargesheet.

Raju clarified that he is not arguing the substantive offence, and he is only arguing on conspiracy, and the conspiracy was to use all this. He added that there was a conspiracy to use the petrol bomb, and they had used it.

After hearing submissions, the bench granted parties time till December 18 to submit all documents in connection with the matter and reserved the verdict.