New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in the high-profile Delhi riots case of February 2020, during which the Delhi Police submitted that activist Sharjeel Imam’s speeches could be attributed to other accused and used as evidence against them. The matter, which has drawn national attention, involves charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code against a group of activists alleged to have orchestrated the communal violence in Northeast Delhi that left 53 dead and hundreds injured.

During the proceedings before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing Delhi Police, argued that in a conspiracy, all participants are liable for the acts of each other. “Acts of one conspirator can be attributed to others. Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to Umar Khalid. Sharjeel Imam’s case will be considered as evidence against the others,” Raju submitted.

Arguments on Conspiracy and Role of Accused

The ASG further claimed that Umar Khalid deliberately planned to leave Delhi before the riots to avoid responsibility. Raju insisted that Khalid played a central role in planning and refuted claims that he was not an administrator of a WhatsApp group allegedly linked to the riots. According to the police, the riots were not spontaneous but “an orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed attack on India’s sovereignty,” and all accused were part of a coordinated effort.

The apex court reserved its judgment after hearing all the lawyers and directed the parties to submit written arguments, charts, and other relevant materials by December 18, 2025.

Sharjeel Imam’s Stand in the Supreme Court

Sharjeel Imam, seeking bail in the case, expressed anguish over being labeled a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a full-fledged trial or a conviction. Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam, told the court, “I would like to say that I am not a terrorist, as I have been called by the respondent. I am not an anti-national as called by the State. I am a citizen of this country, a citizen by birth, and I have not been convicted for any offence till now.”

Dave contended that Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, prior to the outbreak of communal violence in Northeast Delhi, and that the speeches alone could not constitute the offence of “criminal conspiracy” in the riots case. The defense maintained that Imam’s incarceration, without trial or conviction, had already resulted in nearly six years of detention, a delay described as “astonishing and unprecedented” by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared for Gulfisha Fatima, another accused in the case.

Umar Khalid and Other Accused

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, argued that his client was not in Delhi when the riots occurred and therefore cannot be treated as culpable in the events. “He cannot be kept incarcerated as if to say that I will punish you for your protests,” Sibal submitted, emphasizing the legal distinction between activism and criminal responsibility.

Other accused in the case include Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Gulfisha Fatima, all of whom have been booked under stringent anti-terror provisions for allegedly being “masterminds” of the riots. They are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which prescribes severe punishments, including life imprisonment or the death penalty in cases where terrorist acts result in death, in addition to fines.

Nature of the Riots

The February 2020 Delhi riots erupted amidst widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence primarily affected Northeast Delhi and led to clashes between communities, resulting in significant loss of life, injuries, and damage to property. Eyewitnesses and reports highlighted targeted attacks, arson, and large-scale destruction in multiple localities.

According to the Delhi Police, the riots were carefully coordinated, with the accused allegedly using social media, messaging apps, and public speeches to mobilize and incite individuals. This, the police argue, constitutes a clear case of conspiracy under Indian law, making each participant liable for the actions of the group.

Legal Arguments on Bail

The bail pleas of Imam, Khalid, and others have been strongly opposed by Delhi Police. The government has maintained that allowing bail in the case could undermine ongoing investigations and pose risks to public order. The Delhi High Court had earlier, on September 2, 2025, denied bail to the accused in the “larger conspiracy” case, leading them to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

In court, the defense teams emphasized the prolonged pre-trial detention of their clients and questioned the attribution of conspiracy based solely on speeches or association with social media groups. They argued that legal principles require proof of direct participation in criminal acts, and that ideological speech or activism alone should not be equated with criminal conspiracy.

Conspiracy Law and Evidence Attribution

Under Indian law, acts of one conspirator can be attributed to others if they are found to be part of a common plan to commit an unlawful act. This principle, cited by the Delhi Police in their submission, forms the basis of the government’s argument for including Imam’s speeches as evidence against other accused. The contention is that speeches encouraging unrest, combined with organized activity, constitute acts within the scope of the conspiracy.

However, the defense counters that freedom of speech and protest is constitutionally protected, and caution must be exercised to distinguish between criminal incitement and political activism. The Supreme Court’s consideration will therefore involve balancing these legal nuances against the backdrop of national security and public order.

Broader Implications

The case has drawn widespread attention due to its political and social implications. Activists, human rights organizations, and legal scholars have highlighted concerns regarding prolonged pre-trial detention under the UAPA, the challenges of bail under anti-terror laws, and the intersection of activism and alleged criminal conspiracy. Critics argue that extended incarceration without trial can have chilling effects on dissent, while supporters of stringent prosecution stress the necessity of safeguarding public order.

Next Steps in the Case

The Supreme Court has directed all parties to submit detailed written arguments and supporting documents by December 18, 2025. The bench will then review the submissions and determine the legal framework under which bail or other relief can be granted, as well as the admissibility of evidence linking speeches and online communications to the larger conspiracy.

As the proceedings unfold, the court’s decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences not only for the accused but also for legal interpretations of conspiracy, incitement, and the limits of speech in cases involving public violence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court hearing on December 10 highlighted the complex legal and factual questions surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots. The Delhi Police’s submission that Sharjeel Imam’s speeches can be attributed to other accused underscores the government’s approach to the case as a coordinated conspiracy rather than isolated incidents. Meanwhile, the defense’s arguments stress individual rights, freedom of expression, and the long delays in trial.

The outcome of these proceedings will play a crucial role in determining accountability in the riots, the scope of evidence under conspiracy law, and the balance between civil liberties and national security. The Supreme Court’s judgment, anticipated following the submission of written arguments, is being closely watched by legal experts, activists, and the broader public alike, as it could set important precedents for future cases involving mass violence and activism.