The Supreme Court of India is poised to deliver a pivotal judgment on Monday, deciding the fate of several individuals, including activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in connection with the 2020 north-east Delhi riots case. The apex court's ruling on their bail pleas, filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), marks a critical juncture in one of the capital's most severe episodes of communal violence.
The Legal Battle and Key Arguments
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, which had reserved its verdict on December 10 after extensive hearings, will pronounce the order. The accused challenged a Delhi High Court order that had denied them bail, describing their alleged roles as "grave." Other individuals named in the pleas include Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
Defence counsel strongly argued for bail, highlighting that their clients have been in custody for over five years since the events of February 2020. They contended that the trial has faced significant delays with little prospect of commencing soon. Crucially, the defence maintained there is a lack of conclusive evidence directly proving the accused instigated the violence that led to 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
Prosecution's Stance: Alleging a Larger Conspiracy
Opposing the bail applications, the Delhi Police presented a starkly different narrative. They alleged the riots were not spontaneous but part of a "premeditated, pan-India conspiracy" with objectives of "regime change" and economic disruption. The police claimed the protests were strategically timed to coincide with the visit of the then US President to India to garner international attention.
Furthermore, the prosecution argued that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was used as a "radicalising catalyst" under the facade of peaceful demonstration, which eventually escalated into widespread communal violence and property damage. The High Court had earlier noted that speeches made by Imam and Khalid were inflammatory and mobilised communal sentiments.
What the Verdict Will Mean
The Supreme Court's decision is more than just a bail ruling; it is a significant development in the legal interpretation and application of the UAPA in cases of mass violence. The outcome will determine whether the accused continue their detention or are released pending a trial that has seen protracted delays. This verdict is being closely watched for its implications on legal processes, the right to a speedy trial, and the standards of evidence required to deny bail under anti-terror laws.
The judgment will set a precedent for how courts balance stringent laws meant for national security with the fundamental rights of the accused, especially when they have spent years behind bars without a trial conclusion. All eyes are now on the Supreme Court as it prepares to clarify this complex legal and social issue.
