The Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearings in one of the most closely watched cases linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, examining the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused in what investigators describe as a “larger conspiracy” behind the violence. The proceedings revived intense debate around the origins of the riots, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, and the investigative approach of the Delhi Police.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the Delhi Police, argued forcefully that the riots were not the outcome of spontaneous public anger but the product of a coordinated and pre-meditated plan. Their submissions attempted to reinforce the police narrative that the events of February 2020—when northeast Delhi witnessed some of the worst communal clashes in decades—were orchestrated through a network of speeches, meetings, and mobilising efforts tied to the anti-CAA protests.

Government’s Stand: Riots Were “Well Designed and Orchestrated”

Solicitor General Mehta presented detailed arguments before the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria, opposing the bail sought by Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. He insisted that the evidence compiled by the Delhi Police reveals the riots as a deliberately executed conspiracy.

Mehta argued that any perception of the violence being sudden or reactive must be dispelled. “This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned riot. That will emerge from the evidence collected,” he told the Court. According to him, a series of speeches and public statements indicated a deliberate attempt to divide communities and incite unrest under the guise of protests.

In his submissions, Mehta also referred to statements attributed to Sharjeel Imam, asserting that Imam had advocated for widespread road blockades, or “chakka jaam”, in “every city where Muslims reside”, not just Delhi. This, Mehta argued, pointed to an attempt to ignite disruption on a national scale.

Claims of Delayed Trial and Misuse of Protests

The prosecution maintained that the accused had contributed to the delay of the trial and thus cannot rely on the prolonged duration of their incarceration—over five years—as a grounds for bail. The Delhi Police reiterated an argument previously made on October 30: that anti-CAA protests were “sponsored” and had been strategically used as a smokescreen to radicalise participants and trigger communal disturbances aimed at regime change.

This framing positions the protests not as peaceful civil dissent but as part of a broader network designed to mobilise unrest. The police told the Court that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the Supreme Court previously rejected Umar Khalid’s bail, and therefore, the current applications should also be dismissed.

Supreme Court to Revisit Case on November 20

At the end of the session, the bench scheduled the next hearing for November 20, signaling that the arguments from both sides require further examination. The outcome is expected to be closely watched, given the large public interest surrounding the prolonged incarceration of the accused and the repeated delays in the trial.

High Court Reviews FIRs Related to Delhi Riots

In a parallel development, the Delhi High Court held its own hearing on matters connected to the 2020 riots. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain requested an updated status report from the Delhi Police regarding the FIRs filed in connection with the violence.

Several petitions are currently before the High Court, calling for:

• An independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the riots
• FIRs against political leaders accused of making inflammatory speeches
• Accountability for police personnel alleged to have failed in their duty or acted improperly

The High Court asked Delhi Police counsel Dhruv Pande to submit comprehensive details, including the total number of FIRs registered, progress on each, and the status of pending investigations. These matters have been scheduled for further hearing on November 21.

Complex Legal and Political Landscape

The 2020 Delhi riots remain one of the most contentious and politically charged incidents in recent years. Beyond the immediate criminal cases, the legal trajectory continues to raise questions about the investigation’s impartiality, the use of UAPA charges, the boundaries of free speech, and the role of protests in a functioning democracy.

As the Supreme Court prepares to continue its hearing, the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand at the intersection of legal scrutiny, political narratives, and debates over civil liberties. The upcoming proceedings on November 20 are expected to provide deeper clarity on how the Court views the arguments presented by the prosecution and whether the prolonged incarceration of the accused without conclusion of trial warrants reconsideration.

Both courts—the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court—are now examining critical questions that could shape the long-term judicial understanding of the 2020 riots, the anti-CAA protests, and the state’s handling of dissent.