New Delhi: The Delhi Police, which strongly opposed the pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others during the February 2020 riots in the city, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it was nothing spontaneous but a “managed, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on the nation’s sovereignty.
The negotiations remained inconclusive and will continue on November 20.
Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Rehman were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act and provisions of the former IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the riots that left 53 dead and more than 700 injured.
2020 Delhi riots
Violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that there was an attempt to divide society on communal lines and it was not just an agitation against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Read also | Delhi court acquits 6 accused in 2020 riots
Mehta claimed it was a “myth” that it was a spontaneous riot after the CAA/NRC protests and referred to a speech by an imam in which he allegedly said that Muslims, who make up 30 percent of the population, were incapable of uniting in an armed revolt.
“First, the myth to be debunked. It was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-planned, well-crafted, well-organized, pre-planned riot. That will be borne out by the collected evidence…
“Speech after speech, statement after statement, there was an attempt to divide society on communal lines. It was not just agitation against some act.”
“Sharjeel Imam says it is his heartfelt ‘chakka jaam’ wish for every city where Muslims live. Not just Delhi,” Mehta added.
The Attorney General said that a narrative is being created on social media that something very serious is happening to young people. But the accused themselves are to blame for the delays in the process.
“We are ready to complete the trial in six months. For each charge filed, the accused will plead for five years. In fact, these accused do not deserve to be released, so they are delaying the trial to get a reason for bail,” Mehta added.
He said the photograph collected from the accused themselves shows that they are all sitting together and hatching a conspiracy.
“Bail cannot be granted…”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who is also appearing for the Delhi Police, said the accused were seeking parity with Natasha Narwal, Devyangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in the June 2021 riots after spending a year in jail.
According to Raju, the accused persons cannot claim parity with the three other co-accused as the apex court has clearly said that the bail order of the co-accused cannot be taken as a precedent.
The ASG said that if a person is charged under the UAPA, then bail is only possible if the conditions or strict conditions of Section 43D(5) are met.
Raju argued that the Delhi High Court had wrongly granted statutory bail to the imam under Section 436-A CrPC in May 2024 in connection with the 2020 communal riots case involving charges of sedition and illegal activities.
Read also | SC to hear pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid in Delhi riots case tomorrow
“Bail cannot be granted only under the provisions of the CPC when other stringent conditions of the UAPA also apply to the case. Under Section 436-A, a person can be released from custody if he has served more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence,” Raju said.
He argued that there was no material change in circumstances in Khalid’s case that would require the court to review the earlier rejection of his bail applications.
Khalid, who was seeking bail in a UAPA case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, told the apex court that there was no evidence to link him to the violence and denied conspiracy charges against him.
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and the imam, saying “conspiratorial” violence under the guise of demonstrations or citizen protests cannot be tolerated.
Apart from Khalid and the imam, Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed faced bail denial.
Tasleem Ahmed’s bail application was rejected
The bail application of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by another bench of the apex court on 2 September.
The Supreme Court said the constitution gives citizens the right to protest and hold demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without weapons, and such actions must be within the limits of the law.
While the Supreme Court stated that the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public assemblies was protected under Article 19(1)(a). a) and cannot be shamelessly limited, he noted that this right is “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable limitations”.
“If the unrestricted right to protest is allowed to be exercised, it would damage the constitutional framework and interfere with the legal order of the country,” the bail denial order said.
The defendants, who denied all the charges against them, have been in jail since 2020 and moved to the High Court after the trial court rejected their bail applications.
