Will the Supreme Court Rule on the Bail Pleas in the Delhi Riots 'Larger Conspiracy' Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court's upcoming judgment on January 5 concerning the bail pleas of seven accused in the Delhi riots case is stirring significant attention. This case involves serious allegations of orchestrated violence and conspiracy, raising critical questions about justice and national integrity.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will announce a verdict on bail pleas on January 5.
- Accused include notable activists linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.
- The case is tied to serious allegations under the UAPA.
- Prosecution argues the violence was premeditated.
- Previous bail applications were denied by the Delhi High Court.
New Delhi, Jan 3 (NationPress) On January 5, the Supreme Court is set to announce its ruling regarding the bail applications of seven defendants, including student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, tied to the purported 'larger conspiracy' associated with the 2020 Delhi riots.
The court's schedule, as indicated on its official site, reveals that a panel comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale will deliver the verdict on this date.
The bail applications have been submitted by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd. Saleem Khan, all of whom face serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and have been incarcerated for over five years.
Previously, on December 10, the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on a series of special leave petitions (SLPs) contesting the Delhi High Court's denial of bail to the accused in this significant case.
After considering arguments from both sides, the bench led by Justice Kumar instructed the petitioners and the prosecution to submit any supplementary documents supporting their positions by December 18.
Opposing the bail applications, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the violence was not merely a spontaneous communal conflict but rather a 'meticulously orchestrated and premeditated' assault on the nation's sovereignty.
He asserted, 'This was not a spontaneous act of violence; it was an assault against the sovereignty of the nation,' relying on speeches, WhatsApp messages, and other evidence to argue a 'clear and intentional effort to divide society along communal lines.'
He further contended that delays in trial proceedings were due to the accused's lack of cooperation, as they had each contested the framing of charges for several days.
'In cases where it's challenging to defend on factual grounds, the strategy is to delay the trial rather than address the merits and request bail. This has become a recurring pattern,' SG Mehta expressed.
Earlier, on September 2 of the previous year, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Khalid, Imam, and other defendants, stating that a prima facie case under the UAPA was established against them.
Point of View
It's evident that the upcoming Supreme Court verdict holds immense significance for the legal landscape of our nation. Balancing justice with societal stability is crucial, especially in cases with profound implications like the Delhi riots. The ruling will not only impact the accused but also set a precedent for future cases involving national security.
NationPress
04/01/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling on January 5?
The ruling will determine the bail status of several individuals accused in a high-profile case related to the 2020 Delhi riots and could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Who are the main accused in this case?
The main accused include student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with several others facing serious charges under the UAPA.
What are the charges against the accused?
The accused face charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which includes serious allegations of orchestrating violence during the Delhi riots.
Why was the bail previously denied?
The Delhi High Court previously denied bail, stating that a prima facie case under the UAPA was established against the accused.
What arguments were made by the prosecution?
The prosecution argued that the violence was a well-planned attack on the nation's sovereignty, rather than a spontaneous communal clash.
