Supreme Court Adjourns Bail Hearing for Delhi Riots Accused
In a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots, the Supreme Court of India has once again postponed the bail hearings for student activist Sharjeel Imam, former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Umar Khalid, and three other co-accused. This marks the second consecutive adjournment, as Justice Manmohan recused himself from the case, leading to a delay in the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The Delhi riots, which erupted in February 2020, resulted in the tragic loss of 53 lives and left hundreds injured. The violence was largely attributed to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which many viewed as discriminatory towards Muslims. The accused, including Imam and Khalid, have been implicated in a conspiracy that allegedly incited the riots through mobilization efforts and inflammatory speeches.
The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Manmohan, was informed by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khalid, that he would be leading the arguments in the case. However, due to Justice Manmohan’s prior association with Sibal, he opted to recuse himself, prompting the adjournment of the hearing to September 22.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The adjournment comes on the heels of a previous delay on September 12, when the court noted that the extensive case records had arrived too late for adequate review. The petitioners-Imam, Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman-are among nine individuals whose bail pleas were denied by the Delhi High Court on September 2. The High Court characterized their roles in the alleged conspiracy as “prima facie grave,” particularly under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal have argued that the prolonged detention of their clients-Imam since January 2020 and Khalid since September 2020-constitutes punishment without trial. They contend that the trial is far from conclusion, with numerous supplementary charge sheets and witnesses yet to be examined.
High Court’s Rationale
The Delhi High Court’s decision to deny bail was based on the assertion that the accused played significant roles in orchestrating the riots. The court highlighted that both Imam and Khalid were instrumental in mobilizing protests following the passage of the CAA in December 2019. They allegedly utilized social media platforms, pamphlets, and public speeches to incite communal tensions.
The Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, described Imam and Khalid as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy. Despite Khalid’s absence from the riot sites during the violence, the High Court maintained that this did not mitigate their involvement, emphasizing that the planning and mobilization had already occurred.
The Accused’s Defense
In their defense, the accused have argued that they were not involved in any meetings where violence was allegedly planned. They have also pointed out that their prolonged detention violates the principle that bail should be the norm, not the exception. They sought to draw parallels with fellow student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021.
Imam has stressed that he was in custody prior to the riots and that his speeches were not linked to the violence. Khalid, too, has defended his remarks made during a speech in Amravati on February 17, 2020, asserting that they were innocuous and unrelated to the subsequent unrest.
Implications of the Adjournment
The adjournment of the bail hearing raises questions about the judicial process and the implications for the accused. With the case’s complexity and the high-profile nature of the individuals involved, the legal proceedings are under intense scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for fresh listing indicates the need for a thorough examination of the case.
The ongoing legal battle reflects broader societal tensions surrounding the CAA and the protests that erupted in its wake. The Delhi riots have become emblematic of the deep divisions within Indian society, raising critical questions about freedom of expression, the right to protest, and the limits of state power.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court adjourns the bail hearing for Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and their co-accused, the legal and societal ramifications of the Delhi riots case continue to unfold. The adjournment not only prolongs the uncertainty for the accused but also highlights the complexities of navigating justice in a politically charged environment. The upcoming hearings will be pivotal in determining the future of those implicated in this high-stakes case, as well as the broader implications for civil liberties in India.
