The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its verdict on January 5 on the bail pleas of seven accused persons, including former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam, in the so-called “larger conspiracy” case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The decision is expected to be a significant moment in one of the most closely watched criminal cases arising from the communal violence that rocked northeast Delhi nearly six years ago.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria reserved its judgment on December 10 after hearing extensive arguments from both sides — the accused, who have been in prolonged custody, and the Delhi Police, which has strongly opposed their release under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Apart from Khalid and Imam, the bail pleas before the apex court pertain to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. All seven are accused of being part of an alleged coordinated conspiracy that culminated in large-scale communal violence in February 2020. The riots left 53 people dead and hundreds injured, and caused widespread destruction of property in several parts of northeast Delhi.

The case is among the most controversial prosecutions arising from the riots, largely because of the invocation of the UAPA — India’s principal anti-terror law — against student activists and protest organisers. The prosecution has alleged that the accused were not merely participants in protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but were part of a deeper, premeditated plan to destabilise the country and trigger communal violence.

During the December 10 hearing, the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned the Delhi Police on a central issue: whether the alleged acts attributed to the accused could legitimately be classified as “terrorist acts” under Section 15 of the UAPA. This provision defines terrorism in expansive terms, covering acts intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or economic stability of the country.

The bench sought clarity on how speeches and protest-related activities — which form a substantial part of the prosecution’s case — could meet this high threshold. “How do you bring Section 15 of the UAPA into this case?” the court asked the Delhi Police, echoing the defence’s argument that the material relied upon consisted largely of speeches made weeks before the riots.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, argued that the speech cited by the prosecution was delivered in December 2019, well before the violence erupted in February 2020. The bench noted this time gap and observed that, at most, the allegations might fall under Section 13 of the UAPA, which deals with “unlawful activity,” rather than terrorism.

The court appeared unconvinced, at least during the hearing, that the acts described automatically crossed the line from unlawful protest into terrorism. It pressed the prosecution to explain what specific elements elevated the case to one warranting the application of the anti-terror law.

Opposing bail, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the speeches and actions of the accused could not be viewed in isolation. According to him, they formed part of a chain of events that directly led to violence and threatened the country’s integrity and security.

Raju told the court that Sharjeel Imam’s December 2019 speech explicitly referred to disruptive actions such as “chakka jam,” blocking roads, disrupting essential supplies, and “cutting off Assam from the rest of the country.” He contended that Section 15 of the UAPA also covers acts that threaten economic security, and that the impact of such calls could not be minimised as mere rhetoric.

“It cannot be said that this was just a speech,” Raju submitted. “His speech led to many other actions, and for those actions, he is responsible.”

On Umar Khalid’s role, the additional solicitor general referred to what he described as Khalid’s antecedents, including his alleged involvement in the controversial 2016 JNU protest. Raju told the court that an FIR relating to that protest, in which Khalid was accused of raising anti-national slogans, had been relied upon in a supplementary charge sheet filed in November 2020.

The bench also questioned the prosecution’s claim that the accused had sought to engineer a “regime change,” a phrase that defence counsel argued did not appear in the original charge sheet. In response, Raju said the evidence before the trial court, particularly WhatsApp chats, showed that regime change was indeed part of the alleged conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, multiple WhatsApp groups were created to mobilise protests and coordinate activities. While Khalid argued that he was not an administrator of these groups and did not have the ability to post messages, the prosecution alleged that until March 11, 2020, all members could post messages freely. Raju further claimed that incriminating conversations were deliberately deleted and that members were asked to migrate to the encrypted messaging platform Signal.

A major plank of the bail arguments advanced by the accused was the length of their incarceration. Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while Imam has been incarcerated since January 28, 2020 — weeks before the riots even broke out. The defence argued that there was no realistic prospect of an early conclusion of the trial and that prolonged detention without conviction violated their fundamental rights.

The accused also alleged that the prosecution was deliberately arresting one accused at a time to artificially extend the scope of the conspiracy and delay the trial. The Delhi Police rejected this charge, instead blaming the accused for the slow pace of proceedings. Raju told the court that the defence had insisted on physical copies of nearly 30,000 pages of evidence despite soft copies being made available.

He also relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that once cognisance is taken of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, evidence against one accused becomes admissible against co-accused.

The bail pleas before the Supreme Court arise from a September 2 decision of the Delhi High Court, which refused bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam. A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that the material collected by investigators prima facie pointed to a coordinated conspiracy, describing Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the violence.

The high court noted that Khalid was not present in Delhi during the riots and that Imam was already in custody when violence erupted, but held that this was immaterial since the alleged mobilisation and planning had already taken place.

The accused had sought parity with fellow student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021. The high court rejected this argument, stating that the roles attributed to Khalid and Imam were prima facie more serious. It emphasised that while the right to protest is constitutionally protected, conspiratorial violence disguised as demonstrations cannot be allowed.

The Supreme Court’s verdict on January 5 is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for the accused but also for how anti-terror laws are applied to protest movements and political dissent in India.