THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY, on November 3, 2025, continued hearing the arguments of the petitioners: Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rahman, Meeran Haider, and Mohd. Saleem Khan, in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The petitions have been filed against the impugned September 2 order of the Delhi High Court, dismissing their bail applications. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria is hearing the matter.
Petitioners’ Argument
Sibal: 97 of 116 concluded trials ended in acquittal
The day’s hearing commenced with senior advocate Kabil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, continuing with his arguments. He shed light on the fact that of the 751 FIRs filed in connection with the riots, 116 have concluded, with 97 ending in the acquittal of the accused persons. In 16-17 of these, the trial courts have pulled up the police for fabricating evidence. Admitting that these are not directly related to the case at hand, Sibal argued that the facts highlight the ‘nature of the investigation’.
Khurshid: No witness associated Shifa-ur-Rehman with any unlawful activity
Appearing for Shifa-ur-Rehman, senior advocate Salman Khurshid began his arguments by drawing lessons from the Chicago 7 trials against the anti-Vietnam War protestors, reminding that the right to protest remains an incontrovertible right in a democracy. The crucial question, he said, is where we must draw the line on the exercise of the right to protest. He continued that Shifa-ur-Rahman had been ‘cherry-picked’, and no case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) can be made out even if the accusations are accepted on their face. Statements of witnesses, Khurshid argued, referred to actions of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (‘AAJMI’), not to the accused individually. All decisions of the AAJMI are taken collectively, he noted, adding that the prosecution has handpicked the accused without any fault.
Khurshid emphasised that while there is no denying that the accused was present during the protests, no witness has associated any violent or unlawful activity with him. Even during the incident of the police ransacking the Jamia Millia Islamia campus, there were no allegations of violence made against Rehman despite his presence at the campus. He added that certain protected witness statements merely note that Rehman attended meetings, without mentioning any discussion or attributing any act of incitement. At best, it may be asserted that the accused participated in the protests, which in itself is insufficient to invoke the UAPA.
Khurshid, invoking the principle of parity, averred that Rehman is entitled to bail on the same grounds as co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021. Though the Supreme Court, on appeal, clarified that this judgment was not to be treated as a precedent, it held it to be pertinent in the context of parity.
Khurshid referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kareem @ Sadam vs State Of National Investigation Agency (2025), wherein the Supreme Court had granted bail to the accused detained under similar charges, on account of their long incarceration of more than five years, and given that the remaining 254 witnesses yet to be examined. Drawing a parallel, Khurshid pointed out that the trial in the present case has yet to begin in earnest, with charges not fully framed and several hundred witnesses still to be examined.Sidharth Aggarwal: Meeran Haider’s continued custody serves no purpose
Senior advocate Sidharth Aggarwal, appearing for Meeran Haider, first alluded to the categorisation of the accused by the Delhi High Court in the impugned order. Haider was placed in the third category along with Shifa-Ur-Rehman, who has no previous antecedents. The primary charge against Haider is that he received eighty thousand rupees in his bank account and four lakh rupees in cash, out of the one crore 60 lakhs rupees spent during the protests. It is alleged that of the 4 lakh rupees, 2 lakh rupees remained in Haider’s possession, with the rest spent on the protest.
Agarwal argued that when balancing the rights of the accused with those of the prosecution, the amount of 2 lakh rupees out of a 1.6 crore rupees arrangement is highly relevant and should be considered. He then pointed out that the chargesheet states that Haider was present in a secret meeting held at Chand Bagh; however, a photograph of the secret meeting, which is annexed to the chargesheet, does not show his presence. Furthermore, Aggarwal pointed out that, when the protests occurred, Haider was in Bihar for his mother’s obsequies.
Moreover, Aggarwal referred to the general conditions of bail. He argued that Haider had fully complied with the conditions of interim bail, surrendered on time, and had not tampered with any evidence. He said continued custody does not serve any purpose as the presence of Haider has never threatened witnesses nor impeded the investigation.
Agarwal further contended that in several of the alleged offences, Haider has already undergone either the maximum or at least half of the possible sentence. He denied the accusation of conspiracy with Sharjeel Imam, stating that Haider had actually publicly tweeted that Imam should not be allowed at protest sites and that no CCTV footage or other evidence placed him at any location of rioting circumstances.
Finally, Aggarwal insisted that the June 15, 2021, judgment of the High Court, which granted bail to three accused in the same conspiracy and matter, squarely raises the principle of parity to apply. In fact, the allegations against Haider were less severe. Two out of the three individuals who were granted bail by the High Court were members of multiple organisations and played a more prominent role in the coordination of the protests. In the impugned order of the High Court, no rationale for why Haider’s position, qua the allegations, requires a sterner approach is provided.
Gautam Khazanchi: Saleem Khan not part of any organisation, WhatsApp group
Advocate Gautam Khazanchi, representing Mohd Saleem Khan, argued next. Observing that the primary accusation against Saleem was his arraigned role in orchestrating the protests at Chand Bagh. Khazanchi maintained that Saleem’s presence at the site was recorded by witnesses after two months of his arrest, thus underpinning their veracity. It was also argued that Saleem was not part of any organisation, nor was he a member of any WhatsApp group, and that he was absent from the CCTV footage relied on by the prosecution.
Khan’s commendable behaviour both in Court and in jail was also advanced by Khazanchi as a ground for bail. In the end, Khazanchi also raised the parity argument and of protracted captivity, which he did not elaborate on since it was already adequately covered by others.
After hearing Khazanchi’s argument, the top Court adjourned the matter for Thursday, November 6, 2025.
Previous hearing pressed on protracted period of imprisonment
In the previous hearing, petitioners' arguments had mainly revolved around the protracted period of incarceration and the flimsy evidence of the prosecution. Senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, arguing for Gulfisha Fatima, had contended that Fatima has been in custody for over five years without trial or framing of charges, even though the chargesheet was filed long ago. He insisted that the prolonged incarceration violated the principle of liberty. He had further cited Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), allowing bail under UAPA despite its stringent conditions.
Sibal had appeared for Umar Khalid. He underlined that the only alleged act was delivering a speech in Amaravati, which had not instigated any violence but, in reality, invoked Gandhian non-violence. Khalid was not even in Delhi during the riots. There is no evidence linking him to funding, weapons, or acts of violence, and he has been named in only one of the 751 FIRs related to the riots.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who appeared for Sharjeel Imam, submitted that Imam had been in custody since January 25, 2020, long before the riots in February, making it impossible for him to have participated in any conspiracy. His speeches, delivered in December 2019, merely called for chakka-jams and peaceful protests against the CAA. Any links to the riots months later were indeed a far “stretch.” Additionally, Dave said that Imam has been released on bail in other speech-related matters. He is still in jail only because of this UAPA case, even though the inquiry has been going on for four years and has led to many extra charge sheets.
The larger conspiracy case
The Delhi riots larger conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020) involves activists accused of planning the February 2020 riots during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (‘CAA’). The Delhi Police alleges that the protests were part of a wider conspiracy to flare up violence. The accused face charges under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code for conspiracy and other offences. The accused have argued that they merely took part in peaceful demonstrations.
Several co-accused, such as Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, have already received bail. Khalid, Imam, and Fatima have been in custody for more than five years. The Delhi High Court rejected their bail pleas on September 2, 2024, agreeing with the police’s view that there was evidence of a larger conspiracy. The petitioners have now appealed to the Supreme Court, attesting that their long detention without trial violates their right to liberty. They also pointed out that the trial has not started, even though the chargesheet was filed years ago and more than 800 witnesses have been listed.