New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to activist Gulfisha Fatima in connection with the 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, observing that she did not exercise independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites during the agitation against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). In a detailed and strongly reasoned order, the apex court held that the allegations against Fatima placed her on a distinctly different footing from those described by the prosecution as the alleged masterminds of the violence.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria made it clear that while the allegations against Fatima were serious and formed part of the prosecution’s narrative, they did not justify her continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage. The court underlined the constitutional requirement of an individualised assessment of necessity before denying bail, especially when the investigation is substantially complete and the accused does not pose a continuing threat to the administration of justice.

Granting bail, the bench said Fatima’s alleged role was executory and facilitative rather than one involving autonomous decision-making or strategic leadership. “The allegation that Gulfisha Fatima mobilised local women and coordinated protest-site logistics, though relevant to the prosecution’s case, does not presently disclose that she exercised independent command, resource control, or strategic oversight over multiple protest sites,” the court said.

The bench noted that, according to the prosecution itself, directions were conveyed to Fatima by others who were allegedly higher in the organisational hierarchy of the protest movement. In such circumstances, the court found no justification for treating her at par with accused persons such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, whom the prosecution has described as principal conspirators.

“The prosecution itself asserts that directions were conveyed to her by others higher in the asserted hierarchy. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the level of attributed agency and control does not justify continued incarceration once the investigative purpose stands substantially fulfilled,” the judges observed.

The Supreme Court also addressed concerns raised by the prosecution that Fatima’s release on bail could result in interference with witnesses or revival of the alleged operational network behind the protests. The bench said such apprehensions were not supported by any concrete material on record.

It noted that the structures—formal or informal—relied upon by the prosecution to argue the existence of an organised protest network no longer existed in their asserted form. The court said there was no specific pleading or contemporaneous evidence to suggest that Fatima currently retained the capacity to mobilise people or resources in a manner that could undermine the trial.

“The apprehension that her release may lead to interference with witnesses or revival of the alleged operational network is considerably weakened by the absence of material suggesting that she retains any autonomous capacity to mobilise persons or resources in the current circumstances,” the bench said. It added that any residual risk could be adequately addressed through the imposition of stringent bail conditions.

Reiterating settled principles governing bail, the apex court stressed that the seriousness of allegations, by itself, cannot be the sole ground for prolonged pre-trial detention. “The gravity of the incidents, though serious, cannot eclipse the constitutional demand for individualised assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention,” the court said.

The bench warned that continued incarceration based solely on the nature of the allegations, without a proximate and continuing nexus between the accused and any present threat to the administration of justice, would amount to a punitive measure. Such an approach, it said, would be inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and established legal principles.

“Prolonged incarceration premised solely on the seriousness of allegations, absent a proximate and continuing nexus between the appellant and present threats to the administration of justice, would amount to a punitive measure inconsistent with settled principles,” the order said. The court further held that, given Fatima’s alleged executory role and the absence of demonstrable present capacity to influence proceedings, her continued custody did not meet the threshold of necessity.

The Supreme Court also took into account the length of time Fatima had already spent in custody. It noted that she had been incarcerated for a substantial period and that there was no material to indicate that her release would pose an irremediable risk that could not be mitigated through restrictive conditions.

“The law does not envisage incarceration as a measure of deterrence at the pre-trial stage,” the bench said, particularly in cases involving individuals with no prior criminal antecedents. The court also observed that Fatima is a woman accused of a ground-level facilitating role, a factor that further weighed in favour of granting bail.

In a significant part of the ruling, the bench examined the principle of parity and compared the allegations against Fatima with those levelled against her co-accused. The court noted that the accusations attributed to Fatima—such as assignment of protest sites, coordination of local mobilisation, participation in meetings of Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) members, and logistical execution of protest activities—were substantially similar to the allegations against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita.

The prosecution, the court pointed out, itself alleged that Narwal and Kalita conveyed DPSG directions to Fatima and jointly coordinated protest activities at the Seelampur and Jafrabad sites. Since bail had already been granted to Narwal and Kalita, who stood on the same factual and legal footing in terms of alleged roles, meetings, communications, and execution on the ground, the continued incarceration of Fatima would violate the doctrine of parity.

“Once bail has been granted to co-accused who stand on the same factual and legal footing, continued incarceration of Fatima violates the settled principle of parity,” the bench said. It added that, in the absence of any distinguishing material against her, denial of bail would amount to hostile discrimination, offending Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Along with Fatima, the Supreme Court also granted bail to Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. However, the court refused to extend similar relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing differences in the nature and extent of allegations against them.

The court directed that the appellants be released on executing a personal bond of ₹2 lakh each, along with two local sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. It also imposed strict conditions to ensure that the integrity of the trial process is maintained.

As per the order, the appellants must remain within the territorial limits of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and cannot leave without prior permission of the trial court. Any request for travel must clearly disclose the reasons, and such requests will be considered strictly on their merits.

The case arises from the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, which claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 people injured. The riots took place amid widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), marking one of the most violent episodes in the capital in recent years.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is significant not only for its immediate impact on the accused but also for its broader reaffirmation of constitutional principles governing bail, personal liberty, and equality before the law. By emphasising individualised assessment, parity, and the non-punitive nature of pre-trial detention, the judgment adds to the evolving jurisprudence on bail in cases involving serious allegations and prolonged incarceration.