New Delhi, Jan 5 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the bail pleas of student activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the “larger conspiracy” case behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, holding that the prosecution material, taken at face value and read cumulatively, disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against them were prima facie true.
In its detailed judgement, a Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar stressed that at the stage of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court is neither required to determine guilt nor to weigh competing interpretations of evidence as in a trial.
“The enquiry is confined to determining whether, on the prosecution material as it stands and taken at face value, there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true, thereby attracting the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,” added, the Bench, also comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria.
Dealing first with Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea, the apex court noted that arguments were made claiming he was being punished for making speeches and organising protests, and that his continued incarceration would be oppressive given the delays and scale of the trial.
It further noted that Imam had urged that he was not in Delhi after the second week of January 2020, that he was already in custody from January 28, 2020, that he was not present at the sites of the February 2020 riots, that no weapons were recovered from him, and that the prosecution was substantially founded on speeches, pamphlets and WhatsApp groups which were already the subject matter of a separate FIR.
On the other hand, the Delhi Police consistently maintained that Imam was not being prosecuted for dissent or protest as such, but for a “distinct and foundational role” in what was alleged to be a calibrated conspiracy commencing in early December 2019 and progressing through identifiable phases.
The prosecution theory, the Justice Kumar-led Bench noted, did not treat the February 2020 riots as a sudden eruption, but as the culmination of earlier phases of mobilisation, blockade and disruption.
“In considering these rival positions, the Court must keep in view two controlling principles… First, the prosecution material must be read cumulatively, in its total setting, and not in isolated fragments. Second, the Court does not, at this stage, reject prosecution material by adopting defence explanations or by testing reliability, admissibility or credibility as though conducting a trial,” the judgment said.
The Supreme Court noted that the role attributed to the Imam in the charge-sheet narrative was not episodic, with the prosecution seeking to place him at the inception of a mobilisation strategy and tracing a continuing course of conduct from early December 2019 through January 2020.
Referring to WhatsApp groups and chats, pamphlets, meetings and speeches, the Supreme Court held that such material could not be brushed aside merely because its ultimate probative value was disputed by the defence.
Rejecting the argument that the case rested solely on speech, the Justice Kumar-led Bench observed: “The record, at least as placed by the prosecution, does not permit such reduction.”
It further said that while the defence had urged that the speech did not contain a call for violence, “that contention cannot be adjudicated in the manner the defence invites at this stage.”
“The statutory enquiry is not whether the Court, after a full trial, would accept the prosecution’s interpretation. The enquiry is whether the prosecution’s reading is prima facie plausible on the face of the material and whether, read cumulatively with the other links, it contributes to a coherent narrative of planned disruption,” the judgement said.
Significantly, the Supreme Court said that even assertions of non-violence do not neutralise allegations of conspiracy at the bail stage.
“A conspirator may outwardly couch the conduct in the language of non-violence while engaging in acts intended to create conditions of confrontation and escalation,” it said.
On the plea of absence from Delhi during the riots, the Justice Kumar-led Bench held that in a conspiracy case, physical presence at the scene of final violence is not a condition precedent.
“The prosecution case… is that the appellant’s role is foundational, operating at the stage of mobilisation, organisation and strategy, and that physical presence at the scene of the final violence is not a condition precedent for attributing conspiracy liability,” it said.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court said that the prosecution material, taken cumulatively, reflected a role attribution not of mere association or protest participation, but of deliberate mobilisation, planned blockade strategy, and intentional disruption of civic life.
Once the prosecution material, taken as it stands, crosses that threshold, the statutory embargo on grant of bail under Section 43D(5) operates with full force, ruled the Justice Kumar-led Bench.
Rejecting the Imam’s prayer for bail, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not influence the trial. On the issue of delay in trial, the judgment said that “the appropriate judicial response is to ensure prioritisation and expedition, not to grant bail in disregard of the statutory mandate.”
“The remedy for stagnation lies in calibrated judicial supervision and directions for expeditious progress, not enlargement on bail where the embargo is attracted,” it added.
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to accord due priority to the matter and ensure that the proceedings are carried forward with reasonable expedition.
Turning to Umar Khalid’s bail plea, the apex court noted that he was described in the FIR as the principal conspirator behind the larger conspiracy, which, according to the prosecution, culminated in the riots during the last week of February 2020.
The charge-sheet alleged that Khalid progressed from being a propagator of the slogan “Bharat Tere Tukde Honge, Insha Allah Insha Allah” to playing a central role in the formulation and execution of the alleged conspiracy.
The first overt act attributed to Khalid, as per the prosecution, was stated to have occurred on December 5, 2019, when Sharjeel Imam created the WhatsApp group “Muslim Students of JNU” at his direction.
It was further alleged that Khalid participated in the December 7, 2019, protest at Jantar Mantar, where it was purportedly agreed to utilise social media for large-scale mobilisation and enforcement of a “chakka jam” as a mode of protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Before the top court, Khalid pressed three broad propositions: that no overt act of violence was attributed to him and no recoveries were made; that his alleged presence in meetings and a speech at Amravati could not be transmuted into offences under the UAPA; and that the prosecution’s case impermissibly conflated protest with terrorism.
In its decision, the Justice Kumar-led Bench reiterated that at the bail stage, it was concerned only with whether the prosecution material, read cumulatively, furnished reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were prima facie true.
“Conspiracy cases, particularly those alleged to unfold in phases, do not disclose themselves through a single piece of evidence; they are built through a chain of circumstances, organisational decisions, communications, and role allocation,” the apex court said, adding that the law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act, but demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design to be inferred from cumulative conduct.
The prosecution narrative, the judgment said, was “architectural” rather than episodic, asserting a phased progression from mobilisation and indoctrination to institutionalisation through committees and digital platforms, expansion of protest sites into permanent blockades, preparation for escalation, and culmination in coordinated chakka jams and widespread violence.
“The role attributed to Umar Khalid is not of a late entrant nor of a peripheral sympathiser. It is that of an organiser and coordinator who, according to the prosecution, supplied the ‘method’, the ‘timing’, and the ‘linkage’ between dispersed sites and actors,” the judgement said.
Referring to the distinction drawn by the prosecution between a dharna and a chakka jam, the Supreme Court observed that this was treated not as semantics but as a strategy.
“A dharna may be expressive; a chakka jam, as alleged, is disruptive by design,” it said, adding that the sustained choking of arterial roads and replication of blockade sites were alleged to be calibrated acts meant to generate confrontation and create conditions for violence.
Rejecting Khalid’s absence from riot sites and the lack of recoveries, the apex court held that such factors could not be decisive in a conspiracy case under a special statute.
“A conspiracy organiser may leave no recoveries because the organisers do not carry the instruments that the executors use,” the Justice Kumar-led Bench observed, reiterating that the law does not require personal execution of terminal acts, but demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design inferred from cumulative conduct.
The Supreme Court also declined to treat meetings and committees as innocuous at the bail stage, noting that the prosecution viewed them as the “infrastructure of the conspiracy”.
On the reliance placed by the defence on the Amravati speech invoking non-violence, the Justice Kumar-led Bench cautioned against both criminalising speech merely because it is politically charged and immunising a continuing course of conduct merely because it contains the language of non-violence.
“In conspiracy jurisprudence, outward disavowal and inward design may co-exist; public caution does not necessarily negate private preparation. That is why the law insists on cumulative assessment,” it said.
The apex court further rejected the characterisation of the events as mere public disorder incidental to the protest. At the bail stage, the Justice Kumar-led Bench held, the prosecution material could not be trivialised where it alleged sustained, coordinated and scalable disruption of civic life, movement of protests into mixed-population areas, and a design to provoke confrontation and fracture communal harmony.
Having regard to the prosecution material as placed, including the chronology of meetings, the alleged articulation and propagation of the chakka jam strategy, the operation of coordinating committees and groups, protected witness statements, and the pleaded systemic disruption of civic life, the Supreme Court concluded that reasonable grounds existed for believing that the accusations against Umar Khalid were prima facie true.
Dismissing Khalid’s bail plea, it held that the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) was attracted. As in the Imam’s case, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were confined to the consideration of bail and would not influence the trial, directing that the trial court endeavour to proceed expeditiously.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of extensive arguments advanced earlier before the apex court.
Appearing for Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal had played Khalid’s Amravati speech, submitting that it invoked Mahatma Gandhi and the principle of non-violence.
“Advocating Gandhian civil disobedience cannot be treated as a conspiracy,” Sibal had argued, adding, “If this speech attracts UAPA, then many of us could be liable to go to jail.”
Sibal had also highlighted that Khalid had been in custody for over five years without charges being framed, questioning the public interest served by continued incarceration.
Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, senior advocate Siddharth Dave had argued that the prosecution had no evidence beyond speeches for which Imam was already facing separate trials, and that Imam was in custody weeks before the February riots, making it difficult to connect him to any conspiracy linked to the violence.
Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, had submitted that the violence was not a spontaneous communal clash but a “well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated” attack on national sovereignty, relying on speeches, WhatsApp chats and protected witness statements to allege a systematic attempt to divide society.
–IANS
pds/dan
