The hearing has been deferred yet again, with no new date set; the accused, have faced significant delays in their trial and bail hearings, sparking concerns about the pace of justice
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court, which was to hear the batch of bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, will not hear the case on Tuesday as the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria will not be sitting. No date has been set for the next hearing.
The accused, charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), have faced significant delays in their trial and bail hearings, sparking concerns about the pace of justice. The 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which claimed 53 lives and injured over 700, mostly from the Muslim community, have been linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), LawChakra portal said.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Siddharth Dave appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the Delhi Police.
During the last hearing, Dr Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, argued that her prolonged incarceration violated the principles of liberty.
He told the court: “I’ve been in custody for five years and five months since April 2020. The chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2020, and since then, they’ve made it a yearly ritual to file a supplementary chargesheet. It will eventually have to be determined whether an investigation can be prolonged indefinitely through such supplementary chargesheets.”
Calling the situation “a distortion of the criminal justice system,” Singhvi said, “Merits don’t matter here. The concept of liberty is that you put me on stringent conditions but don’t put me in jail. There are more than 900 witnesses.”
Arguing for Umar Khalid, Kapil Sibal highlighted the lack of procedural fairness in the trial. “He has addressed the proceedings before the high court, but I want to highlight what transpired during the trial because procedural fairness lies at the heart of personal liberty,” he said.
Sibal explained the repeated disruptions during trial, saying: “Out of 55 hearing dates, including both main and miscellaneous matters, the judicial officer was on leave several times. On 11 occasions, the case couldn’t be taken up due to staff shortages, absence of a stenographer, or other logistical issues. On 26 dates, the matter couldn’t proceed owing to an excessive workload.”
The senior advocate added: “There were also 59 hearing days lost because the DSP was unavailable citing reasons such as personal urgency or internet problems and 4 days were lost due to lawyers’ strikes. The trial began on September 10, yet it has been adjourned six times. Despite this, the counter-affidavit alleges that I am delaying the proceedings. I just wanted to set the record straight—the charge against me is solely that of conspiracy.”
Sibal said there was nothing specific. “I am not involved in the offence at all. The people present in Delhi having same witnesses cited against them have got bail,” he added.
After Sibal’s submissions, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave began arguments for Sharjeel Imam, saying, “Out of the five years, three years goes in investigation alone. I was arrested 25.8.20 and the first supplementary chargesheet where I am named 22.11.22. In Sept 2024 the clarity comes that the investigation is complete. There are almost as many as 900 witnesses. There is no delay till 2024 on our part. I was already in custody in another FIR.”
He added: “Petitioner is in custody since almost 5 years and 9 months. He was already in custody in earlier FIR. The present FIR was in March; so since two months he was already in custody and when the riots took place he was already in custody. He is not an accused in even a single one of those riot cases.”
Earlier, the Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, calling the 2020 violence a “coordinated regime change operation disguised as civil dissent.”
The police affidavit stated that encrypted chats and recovered data showed a “deep-rooted conspiracy” and claimed the riots were planned to coincide with US President Donald Trump’s visit to “internationalise the unrest.”
