Supreme Court To Rule On Delhi Riots Bail Pleas January 5

The Supreme Court will pronounce its decision on January 5 on the bail pleas of seven accused in the alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, a ruling closely watched for its legal and political implications.

The case involves prominent student activists and has remained at the centre of national debate over civil liberties, national security, and the application of stringent anti-terror laws.

According to the causelist issued by the apex court, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale will deliver the judgment on Monday.

The accused seeking bail include Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan.

All face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, one of India’s most rigorous security legislations.

Several of the accused have remained in judicial custody for over five years, a factor repeatedly highlighted during arguments.

The petitions before the Supreme Court challenge the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail in the case, which investigators describe as a planned conspiracy behind the communal violence that rocked parts of northeast Delhi in February 2020.

On December 10, the top court reserved its verdict after extensive hearings from both sides.

The Bench subsequently directed the petitioners and the prosecution to submit any additional documents supporting their arguments by December 18, signalling a scrutiny of the voluminous record.

Verdict Awaited In UAPA Case

The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, strongly opposed the bail pleas. He asserted that the riots did not erupt spontaneously but resulted from a deliberate, premeditated design aimed at destabilising social harmony.

He described the violence as ‘well-crafted and orchestrated,’ arguing that it amounted to an attack on the sovereignty of the nation rather than a mere law-and-order breakdown.

The prosecution relied on speeches, digital communication records, and other documentary evidence to claim a systematic attempt to inflame communal divisions.

The Solicitor General also rejected claims of undue delay in the trial, contending that the accused themselves prolonged proceedings by repeatedly contesting the framing of charges.

He argued that seeking bail without addressing the merits of the case had become a recurring tactic in complex prosecutions.

According to the Delhi Police, national security considerations outweigh arguments based solely on the length of custody.

Earlier, on September 2 last year, the Delhi High Court dismissed bail pleas filed by Khalid, Imam, and other accused.

The High Court held that a prima facie case under the UAPA existed, justifying continued detention at that stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming verdict is expected to set a significant precedent on bail jurisprudence under anti-terror laws.

It will also influence the broader discourse on individual liberty, prolonged incarceration, and the balance between security and constitutional rights.

Also Read: Centre Appoints Justice MS Sonak As Chief Justice Of Jharkhand High Court