New Delhi, Jan 5 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the bail applications of student activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the case concerning the alleged "larger conspiracy" behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The court found that the prosecution's evidence, when considered together, provided reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them were prima facie valid.

The detailed ruling by a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar emphasized that, at the bail stage under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court's role is not to determine guilt or weigh contradictory evidence as it would in a trial.

"The inquiry is limited to assessing whether the prosecution's evidence, as it stands and taken at face value, presents reasonable grounds for believing the accusations against the appellant are prima facie valid, thus invoking the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967," the Bench, which also included Justice N.V. Anjaria, stated.

Initially addressing Sharjeel Imam's bail request, the court noted claims that he was being penalized for his speeches and organizing protests, arguing that his ongoing detention was unjust given the trial's delays.

Imam contended that he was not in Delhi after mid-January 2020, that he was in custody from January 28, 2020, and that he wasn't present at the February 2020 riot locations. He pointed out that no weapons were seized from him, and the prosecution largely relied on speeches, pamphlets, and WhatsApp groups, which were already part of a separate FIR.

Conversely, the Delhi Police maintained that Imam was not being prosecuted for dissent or protest per se, but for a "distinct and foundational role" in an alleged conspiracy that began in early December 2019 and unfolded through identifiable stages.

The prosecution's theory, as noted by the Justice Kumar-led Bench, viewed the February 2020 riots not as an isolated incident but as the result of prior phases of mobilization, blockade, and disruption.

“In evaluating these opposing positions, the Court must adhere to two guiding principles… First, the prosecution material must be considered collectively, in its entirety, rather than in isolated parts. Second, the Court does not, at this stage, dismiss prosecution material by adopting defense interpretations or by assessing reliability, admissibility, or credibility as if conducting a trial,” the ruling clarified.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the role attributed to Imam in the charge-sheet narrative was not incidental, with the prosecution seeking to position him at the start of a mobilization strategy and tracing a consistent course of behavior from early December 2019 through January 2020.

By referencing WhatsApp groups, chats, pamphlets, meetings, and speeches, the Supreme Court concluded that such evidence could not be disregarded merely because its ultimate probative value was contested by the defense.

Disputing the defense's claim that the case was solely based on speech, the Justice Kumar-led Bench remarked: “The record, at least as presented by the prosecution, does not allow for such simplification.”

Furthermore, while the defense argued that the speech did not incite violence, “that claim cannot be adjudicated in the manner the defense proposes at this stage.”

“The statutory inquiry is not whether the Court, after a comprehensive trial, would endorse the prosecution’s interpretation. The inquiry is whether the prosecution’s interpretation is prima facie plausible on the face of the material and whether, when read in conjunction with other links, it contributes to a coherent narrative of planned disruption,” the ruling stated.

Importantly, the Supreme Court noted that even claims of non-violence do not negate conspiracy allegations at the bail stage.

“A conspirator may outwardly present their actions in the guise of non-violence while engaging in activities aimed at creating conditions for confrontation and escalation,” it remarked.

Regarding the plea of absence from Delhi during the riots, the Justice Kumar-led Bench ruled that in a conspiracy case, physical presence at the scene of the final violence is not a prerequisite.

“The prosecution's argument... is that the appellant’s role is foundational, operating at the stages of mobilization, organization, and strategy, and that physical presence at the scene of the final violence is not a prerequisite for attributing conspiracy liability,” it asserted.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that the prosecution evidence, taken collectively, depicted a role attribution that was not merely of association or protest participation, but of intentional mobilization, planned blockade strategy, and deliberate disruption of civic life.

Once the prosecution evidence, taken as it stands, surpasses that threshold, the statutory prohibition on granting bail under Section 43D(5) is fully applicable, ruled the Justice Kumar-led Bench.

In dismissing Imam’s bail request, the Supreme Court clarified that its comments were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the trial. On the issue of trial delays, the ruling stated that “the appropriate judicial response is to ensure prioritization and expedition, not to grant bail in disregard of the statutory mandate.”

“The remedy for stagnation lies in calibrated judicial oversight and directives for expedited progress, not in granting bail where the prohibition is applicable,” it added.

The Supreme Court instructed the trial court to prioritize the matter and ensure that the proceedings advance with reasonable speed.

Turning to Umar Khalid’s bail request, the apex court noted that he was described in the FIR as the principal conspirator behind the broader conspiracy, which the prosecution claims led to the riots in the last week of February 2020.

The charge-sheet alleged that Khalid evolved from being a promoter 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, according to 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 protest on December 7, 2019, at Jantar Mantar, where it was purportedly agreed to leverage social media for large-scale mobilization and enactment of a “chakka jam” as a mode of protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Before the Supreme Court, Khalid presented three broad arguments: 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 translate into offenses under the UAPA; and that the prosecution's case improperly conflated protest with terrorism.

In its decision, the Justice Kumar-led Bench reiterated that at the bail stage, it was only concerned with whether the prosecution material, read collectively, provided reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations were prima facie valid.

“Conspiracy cases, particularly those alleged to unfold in stages, do not reveal themselves through a single piece of evidence; they are constructed through a chain of circumstances, organizational decisions, communications, and role assignments,” the apex court said, noting that the law does not require every conspirator to execute the final act but necessitates a prima facie connection between the accused and the unlawful plan to be inferred from cumulative behavior.

The prosecution narrative, the ruling stated, was “architectural” rather than episodic, asserting a phased progression from mobilization and indoctrination to institutionalization 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 that of a latecomer or a peripheral sympathizer. It is that of an organizer and coordinator who, according to the prosecution, provided the ‘method’, the ‘timing’, and the ‘linkage’ between dispersed locations and actors,” the ruling stated.

Referring to the distinction made by the prosecution between a dharna and a chakka jam, the Supreme Court observed that this was not mere semantics but a strategy.

“A dharna may be expressive; a chakka jam, as alleged, is disruptive by design,” it stated, adding that the ongoing blockage of vital roads and replication of blockade sites were alleged to be calculated acts aimed at generating confrontation and creating conditions for violence.

Rejecting Khalid’s absence from riot sites and the lack of recoveries, the apex court ruled that such elements could not be decisive in a conspiracy case under a special statute.

“A conspiracy organizer may leave no recoveries because the organizers do not carry the instruments that the executors use,” the Justice Kumar-led Bench remarked, reiterating that the law does not require the personal execution of final acts but demands a prima facie connection between the accused and the unlawful design inferred from cumulative conduct.

The Supreme Court also declined to regard meetings and committees as innocuous at the bail stage, noting that the prosecution considered them as the “infrastructure of the conspiracy.”

On the reliance placed by the defense on the Amravati speech invoking non-violence, the Justice Kumar-led Bench cautioned against both criminalizing speech merely because it is politically charged and immunizing a continuing course of conduct merely because it contains the language of non-violence.

“In conspiracy jurisprudence, outward disavowal and inward design may coexist; 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 characterization of the events as mere public disorder incidental to the protest. At the bail stage, the Justice Kumar-led Bench held that the prosecution evidence could not be trivialized if 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.

Taking into account the prosecution evidence, including the chronology of meetings, the alleged articulation and promotion of the chakka jam strategy, the operation of coordinating committees and groups, protected witness statements, and the argued systemic disruption of civic life, the Supreme Court concluded that reasonable grounds existed for believing that the allegations against Umar Khalid were prima facie valid.

In dismissing Khalid’s bail application, the court held that the statutory prohibition under Section 43D(5) was applicable. As in Imam’s case, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were confined to the consideration of bail and would not influence the trial, directing the trial court to strive to proceed swiftly.

This ruling follows extensive arguments presented earlier before the Supreme Court.

Representing Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal played Khalid’s Amravati speech, asserting that it invoked Mahatma Gandhi and the principle of non-violence.

“Promoting Gandhian civil disobedience cannot be classified as a conspiracy,” Sibal contended, adding, “If this speech qualifies under UAPA, then many of us could face incarceration.”

Sibal also pointed out that Khalid had been in custody for over five years without charges being filed, questioning the public interest served by his continued detention.

For Sharjeel Imam, senior advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the prosecution lacked 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.

In opposition to the bail requests, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, asserted that the violence was not a spontaneous communal clash but a “well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated” attack on national sovereignty, relying on speeches, WhatsApp communications, and protected witness statements to claim a systematic attempt to divide society.