The Delhi Police on Thursday strongly opposed the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, telling the Supreme Court that the alleged offences were part of a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to destabilise the Indian state. Arguing that the case involved a “regime change operation” executed under the guise of civil protests, the police insisted that the gravity of the charges warranted “jail and not bail.”
The opposition to bail was set out in a 177-page affidavit filed a day before the top court was scheduled to hear the matter. The document outlined the prosecution’s contention that the violence that erupted in February 2020, coinciding with then–US President Donald Trump’s visit to India, was not spontaneous but planned to “internationalise” India’s internal affairs and portray the government as discriminatory following the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
Police Call Riots a Deliberate ‘Regime Change Operation’
According to the affidavit, the protests that began as demonstrations against the CAA were transformed into an organised conspiracy to provoke communal riots. The police claim the accused—Khalid, Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman—were part of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” designed to embarrass the Indian government before the international community during Trump’s high-profile state visit.
The affidavit alleged that encrypted chats, messages, and digital evidence recovered during the investigation show that the accused coordinated logistics, protests, and mobilisation to coincide with the US President’s visit in February 2020. Police argue that these communications demonstrate intent to ignite communal discord and paralyse law enforcement in key parts of Delhi.
“Evidence shows that the riots were a planned act, not a reactionary outburst,” the police said. “The aim was to cripple the state machinery and project India as unstable before global audiences.”
The police submission also cited incidents of unrest that occurred simultaneously in other states—Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Bihar—as evidence of a “pan-India plan” rather than isolated flare-ups. This, the affidavit said, pointed to an orchestrated strategy aimed at nationwide destabilisation.
Supreme Court’s Query on Prolonged Detention
The police’s filing comes just two days after a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria asked the prosecution to consider whether the accused—many of whom have been in custody for nearly five years as undertrials—could be released on bail pending trial.
“See if you can think of something… five years are over already,” the bench observed, hinting that prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in trial proceedings might be grounds for interim relief.
However, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—the anti-terror law invoked in the case—the criteria for granting bail are much stricter. The court must first be satisfied that the allegations against the accused do not even prima facie suggest involvement in terrorist or unlawful activity. The Delhi Police maintain that this threshold has not been met in this case.
Police Accuse Accused of Delaying Trial
The affidavit also blamed the accused for the slow pace of the trial, asserting that much of the delay was due to their procedural tactics. It claimed that the process of supplying charge sheet documents alone took 39 hearings over two years, while the framing of charges has been pending for almost 50 hearings.
The Delhi High Court, in a ruling earlier in September 2025, had also noted that the defence’s repeated applications and procedural objections contributed to the delay. The prosecution accused the petitioners of concealing this observation when they approached the Supreme Court.
Police counsel Rajat Nair, representing the Delhi Police, submitted that the state has amassed a “substantial body of evidence” including eyewitness statements, digital data, phone records, and financial trails linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy. The police insist that the evidence supports charges under the UAPA, which treats acts of violence intended to disrupt the sovereignty or integrity of India as terrorism.
High Court Denial of Bail and Role of the Accused
The activists—Khalid, Imam, Haider, Fatima, and Rehman—are accused of orchestrating protests and instigating violence in February 2020, which left 53 people dead and over 400 injured, most of them in the Northeast Delhi districts.
In its September 2 order, the Delhi High Court denied bail to the five, calling the allegations “prima facie grave” and noting that the evidence suggested a coordinated plan behind the riots. The court held that even though Khalid and Imam were not physically present at riot sites, their “influence and involvement” in planning and mobilisation were significant.
The high court also cited the prosecution’s contention that both were key figures in the initial mobilisation of protests against the CAA in December 2019, which later evolved into what investigators allege was a conspiracy to trigger violence. Pamphlets, speeches, and messages exchanged through WhatsApp groups were said to have played a critical role in mobilising crowds across the capital.
Police Label Activists as ‘Intellectual Architects’
During earlier hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police, had described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the alleged conspiracy. They argued that the accused may not have personally engaged in acts of violence but were the ideological and logistical driversbehind the unrest.
According to the police, the conspiracy was structured, hierarchical, and multi-layered—spanning street-level protest coordinators, funders, and “influencers” responsible for shaping public sentiment. The affidavit emphasised that the case cannot be viewed as a routine public order offence because it allegedly involved efforts to “undermine the elected government” through orchestrated civil disobedience and violence.
Defence Argues Criminalisation of Dissent
In response, the accused have consistently maintained that the prosecution is attempting to criminalise dissent by conflating peaceful protest with terrorism. They argue that their activities were part of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and assembly, and that their prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to punishment before conviction.
“The prosecution has no direct evidence linking us to violence,” their counsel argued in previous hearings. “We were only exercising our democratic right to protest unjust laws.”
The defence has also pointed out that several co-accused, including student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021, and that similar principles of parity should apply to the current petitioners.
Khalid’s lawyer has further argued that continued custody for nearly five years without commencement of trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, including protection from arbitrary detention.
Long Incarceration Raises Human Rights Concerns
The five accused have been in jail for extended periods: Sharjeel Imam since January 2020, Umar Khalid since September 2020, and others for comparable durations. Despite multiple supplementary charge sheets, the trial has yet to move beyond the preliminary stage, with over 200 witnesses still to be examined.
Human rights advocates have raised concerns that such long pre-trial detention undermines the presumption of innocence and contradicts international legal standards. Critics of the UAPA argue that its stringent bail conditions effectively invert the burden of proof, making release almost impossible before conviction.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh two central issues during Friday’s hearing: whether the delay in trial proceedings justifies interim bail, and whether the evidence on record meets the stringent UAPA threshold that restricts bail when accusations of terrorism are prima facie supported.
The outcome could significantly shape the course of one of India’s most politically charged cases, determining not only the fate of the accused but also the interpretation of civil liberties under anti-terror legislation.
As the court examines arguments from both sides, the Delhi riots conspiracy case continues to sit at the intersection of national security, judicial process, and democratic rights—raising enduring questions about how far the state can go in prosecuting alleged conspiracies without infringing upon the fundamental freedoms of its citizens.
Leave a Reply