On Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered a sharp pushback to the prosecution in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, demanding a clear explanation of how Sharjeel Imam’s anti-CAA speeches, made weeks before the 2020 violence, could meet the UAPA threshold of a “terrorist act.” The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the bail pleas of Imam, Umar Khalid and others, all challenging the Delhi High Court’s earlier refusal of bail.
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned whether Imam’s anti-CAA speeches, which referred to nationwide chakka jams and the blocking of the “chicken neck” corridor, could legally meet the stringent statutory ingredients required for UAPA offences. The Court observed that even if the speeches appeared provocative, the prosecution must show how they cross the legal threshold of terrorism, a requirement fundamental to invoking Section 15 of the Act.
Appearing for Imam, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the State was attempting to turn dissent into terrorism. He told the Court that Imam had never been convicted of any offence and had already been arrested in January 2020 under FIR 22/2020 for these very speeches, long before the riots took place. He stressed that Imam was in custody when the violence broke out, making it impossible for his earlier speeches to be retroactively tied to a conspiracy. Dave maintained that a speech, in the absence of any meetings, actionable steps or concrete plans, cannot be expanded into a terrorist act.
The Bench also examined the prosecution’s reliance on Imam’s remark that “there were only four weeks left,” which the State claimed reflected a pre-planned effort to engineer conditions for unrest. Dave countered that all such statements had already been examined by courts in the Northeast, where Imam had secured either bail or default bail. When asked whether none of Imam’s speeches entered the realm of terrorism, Dave responded that they did not, noting that the State had failed to connect any specific act to the alleged conspiracy. He further addressed the allegation regarding the DPSG WhatsApp group, observing that the prosecution alternated between calling him a mastermind and claiming the alleged plan failed owing to his incompetence, positions he said cannot logically coexist.
The Court also heard submissions on behalf of Gulfisha Fatima. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that she is the only woman accused who remains behind bars, even though several co-accused obtained bail in 2021. He criticised the State’s narrative of a purported “regime change” conspiracy, noting that this assertion appears neither in the main chargesheet nor in the supplemental filings and only surfaced in a counter-affidavit before the Apex Court. Singhvi highlighted that the matter had been listed nearly ninety times, with almost half the hearings adjourned due to non-availability of benches, a situation he described as a distortion of due process.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, submitted that Khalid was not even present in Delhi at the time of the riots, as he was in Amravati. He argued that the speech attributed to Khalid was a call for peaceful, Gandhian protest and that forms of civil disobedience such as rail rokos and chakka jams have long been part of India’s protest culture. According to Sibal, Khalid’s prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to punishment without adjudication, contrary to constitutional principles. He relied on the Supreme Court’s own approach in cases like Vernon and Shoma Sen, where bail was granted despite the invocation of UAPA.
The hearing concluded with the matter being posted for continuation on Wednesday, when the prosecution is expected to respond to the rejoinders raised by the defence.
Picture Source :