According to news reports [1], arguments were heard in the Supreme Court on behalf of the six accused, including M/s Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the so-called `larger conspiracy case’ surrounding the events in the protests against the CAA and NRC in 2020. The accused reiterated that they had called for civil protests, and not violence, against the CAA and NRC. For instance, one of the accused, Sharjeel Imam, said that he had called for ‘chakka jam’, (stopping traffic) to protest against the CAA Bill that was being introduced. Moreover, his speeches were made two months prior to the riots, and hence it could not be inferred that his speeches had directly led to riots.
The accused have been detained under the UAPA for over 5 years now and counting. They have been refused bail by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court had ordered the police to present its arguments, but according to other reports, there will be an indefinite delay. The Supreme Court, which was to hear the batch of bail petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, did not hear the case on Tuesday 16th November 2025, as the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria did not sit as planned.
On November 20th, 2025, the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued [3] that the “so-called intellectuals” are a larger threat to national security than the (uneducated) terrorist on ground. He made this astounding statement to counter the narrative allegedly being created in social media in support of the bail plea of the accused since they intellectuals. The Bench however asked if the accused had specifically called for “violent protests” since only portions of the speeches of the accused were played in Court.
LRS notes with concern the inordinate delay in dealing with this important issue that lies at the heart of democratic rights, and at the heart of the freedom of expression, the right to assembly, and the right to peaceful protest. There are no grounds to suggest that any of the accused were involved in fomenting any violence, nor is there any evidence of a larger conspiracy, despite the name given to the case by the police.
We believe that the right to bail is a fundamental one, and the onus of proving guilt lies with the prosecution. Laws such as the UAPA place the absurd burden of proving one’s innocence on the accused, which is against the principles of natural justice. The ongoing proceedings in this case clearly show that the authorities are using heinous methods to deny bail to people who, by all accounts, have been protesting peacefully. We demand that the accused should be granted bail pending the investigations and the proving of charges.
References:
[3] “Intellectuals More Dangerous”: Police To Top Court On 2020 Riots Accused
by BA and Venkatesh Sundaram
