New Delhi, Sept 12: The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned to September 19 the hearing of bail applications filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, all accused in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria noted that the case files had been received too late for consideration and deferred the matter.
The activists have approached the apex court against the September 2 Delhi High Court verdict that rejected the bail pleas of nine accused, including Khalid and Imam. The High Court had reasoned that “conspiratorial violence” under the guise of demonstrations or protests cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy. Those denied bail alongside Khalid and Imam included Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Shadab Ahmed, and Fatima. In a separate but related order, another bench of the High Court rejected bail for accused Tasleem Ahmed on the same day.
The High Court, while recognizing that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to peaceful protest and public assembly under Article 19(1)(a), emphasized that such rights are not absolute. The court stressed that reasonable restrictions are necessary, particularly to preserve public order. “If an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would disrupt the constitutional framework and seriously affect law and order,” the order stated.
The case concerns the violent clashes of February 2020, which coincided with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The riots left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, sparking widespread outrage. Investigators have alleged that Khalid, Imam, and other accused were the “masterminds” behind the violence, orchestrating it under the guise of protests.
All the accused have consistently denied the allegations, insisting that they were exercising their democratic right to dissent and had no role in fomenting violence. They have been in jail since 2020, with their bail pleas repeatedly rejected by trial and appellate courts. Their lawyers argue that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights and that the evidence presented is insufficient to justify charges under the stringent UAPA.