Crucial 'Regime Change' Claim Not in Delhi Riots Chargesheet, Gulfisha Fatima Tells Supreme Court

It's quite a moment in the ongoing legal saga surrounding the 2020 Delhi Riots. Gulfisha Fatima, one of the individuals accused in the much-discussed conspiracy case, has made a rather pointed submission to the Supreme Court. Her affidavit, filed before the apex court, directly contests the Delhi High Court's earlier observations that the police's claim of a 'regime change operation' formed a part of the official chargesheet.

Truth be told, this isn't just a minor detail; it’s a crucial point of contention. Fatima, who, along with activist Umar Khalid, is facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), argues vehemently that such a specific claim was conspicuously absent from the formal documents presented by the police. One might recall that the Delhi High Court had previously cited this very 'regime change operation' narrative while denying bail to both Fatima and Khalid, which, you see, makes her current submission all the more impactful.

During the proceedings before a bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma, Fatima’s counsel, Sushil Bajaj, really hammered this home. He emphasized that while the chargesheet indeed speaks of actions aimed at 'causing unrest, embarrassment to the government, and creating disaffection,' it stops short of explicitly mentioning a full-blown 'regime change operation' or an intent to 'overthrow an elected government.' It’s a subtle but profoundly important distinction, wouldn't you agree?

Now, to understand the context a bit better, it's worth remembering that during the High Court hearings, the police counsel had, in fact, presented a PowerPoint slide that did contain phrases like 'regime change operation' and 'overthrow of elected government.' However, what Fatima’s affidavit, filed this past December, highlights is that simply showing a slide during arguments isn't the same as having those exact words and accusations formally documented within the actual chargesheet. It's about what's officially on paper, after all.

So, where does this leave us? The Supreme Court is currently engaged in hearing the bail pleas from both Umar Khalid and Gulfisha Fatima, which were initially rejected by the High Court. This latest submission from Fatima, drawing a clear line between what was alleged in court presentations and what was written in the chargesheet, could potentially reshape how the evidence is viewed. It truly underscores the meticulous scrutiny that legal documents and their exact wording undergo in such high-stakes cases.