Supreme Court Takes Action: Notices Issued on Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Case

In a significant development that has drawn national attention, the Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Delhi Police regarding the bail applications of several individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, including prominent figures Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. A division bench comprising Justice Bela M.

Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal sought a response from the investigating agency, marking a crucial stage in the protracted legal battle surrounding the contentious Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) charges.

The case stems from the widespread communal violence that gripped Delhi in February 2020, resulting in over 50 deaths and extensive property damage.

The Delhi Police's Special Cell had implicated numerous individuals, alleging a larger conspiracy behind the riots, particularly linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Khalid and Imam, among others, were arrested and charged under the stringent provisions of UAPA, typically reserved for terrorism-related offenses, along with sections of the Indian Penal Code related to murder, sedition, and criminal conspiracy.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notices comes after the Delhi High Court had previously rejected the bail pleas of both Khalid and Imam.

The High Court, in its detailed judgments, had observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the petitioners were prima facie true, citing their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy to orchestrate the riots. The current appeals before the apex court challenge these High Court rulings, arguing for their right to bail given the prolonged detention and complex nature of the evidence.

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been in judicial custody since September 2020, while Sharjeel Imam, an activist and research scholar, was arrested in January 2020.

Both have consistently maintained their innocence, asserting that the charges against them are politically motivated and designed to suppress dissent. Their legal teams have highlighted the absence of concrete evidence directly linking them to the violence and have raised concerns about the fairness of proceedings under the UAPA, which places a high bar for bail.

The Supreme Court's intervention is particularly significant as it reopens the judicial scrutiny of the application of UAPA in cases of alleged political conspiracy.

The outcome of these bail pleas could have far-reaching implications, not only for the accused in this specific case but also for the interpretation of UAPA provisions and the balance between national security concerns and individual liberties. The legal community and human rights organizations will be keenly watching the Delhi Police's response and the subsequent proceedings, as this case continues to be a touchstone for justice and due process in India.