A bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar reserved its verdict in December 2025 on separate special leave petitions filed by the accused against the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail. File | Photo credit: Special arrangement
The Supreme Court is scheduled on January 5 to pronounce judgment on the bail pleas of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid and other accused persons in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case related to the alleged “larger conspiracy” for the February 2020 riots in the capital.
A bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar reserved its verdict in December 2025 on separate special leave petitions filed by the accused against the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail. The Supreme Court reasoned that “an unrestricted right to protest would damage the constitutional framework and interfere with the legal order of the country”.
Apart from Mr Khalid, the other appellants include Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. They sought bail mainly because of the prolonged imprisonment without trial for the past five years. Mr. Khalid, Mr. Imam and others were accused of being the “masterminds” of the riots that left 53 dead and more than 700 injured. Violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.
The Supreme Court observed that conspiracy to commit acts of violence under the guise of right to protest cannot be allowed. On the issue of delay, the Supreme Court reasoned that an “expedited trial” would prejudice both the rights of the accused persons and the State of NCT (National Capital Territory) of Delhi, which is the respondent before the apex court.
Senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, wondered aloud in court what “public interest” would be served by the continued imprisonment of a woman who had already spent nearly six years behind bars as an accused. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also for the petitioner, likened the extended remand to a pre-trial conviction.
Responding to the court hearing, the Delhi Police played videos of Mr Imam’s public speeches in an attempt to support their claim that the accused had conspired to incite communal unrest and armed insurgency with the ultimate aim of “regime change”. “The deep-rooted, premeditated and pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the petitioners resulted in the death of 53 persons, extensive damage to public property, leading to the registration of 753 FIRS (First Information Reports) in Delhi alone,” the police affidavit said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opened the police argument by asserting that the February 2020 violence was nothing but “an attack on the nation’s sovereignty”.
The Delhi Police, also represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, accused the petitioners of planning the delay so that the detention could be used as grounds for bail. The prosecution could complete the trial in two years if the accused did not delay the trial, Mr. Raju said.
Mr Khalid’s lawyers pointed to how Delhi courts had acquitted him in 93 out of more than 750 riot cases, while criticizing the police for “abysmal processing of evidence” leading to a “severe erosion of public confidence in investigative agencies and the rule of law”.
His lawyers cited 17 of those court judgments between 2022 and 2025 to argue that police investigations were “of poor quality”, including cases where an investigating officer who claimed he could not speak English nevertheless submitted documents and an indictment to the court in the language; eyewitnesses who “suddenly appeared” to identify accused persons, even without a test identification parade; and Muslim mobs chanting “Jai Shri Ram” while indulging in vandalism.
Published – 03 Jan 2026 20:44 IST
