Hearing on the Delhi Riot 2020 case will have to begin afresh after the judge who was hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred. Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years now. Five accused, including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP counsellor Tahir Hussain, Shifa-ur-Rahman, and Safoora Zargar, have already completed their arguments between October and May 2025. The prosecution has also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings. However, after the completion of arguments, the trial did not begin.
The family members and lawyers of the accused state that the delay is in itself a punishment.
After the riots broke out in Delhi in 2020, which left 53 dead and around 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind this. During the investigation, the Delhi Police booked 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the IPC. According to the Special Cell of Delhi Police, the riots were the result of a month-long deep conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAA) got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019.
In the matter, the police have filed four supplementary charge sheets between 2020 and 2023, with their final charge sheet filed in June 2023 to complete the probe into the case. The case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses.
Case So Far
On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officer told ASJ Bajpai that he had completed his investigation. Following the completion of the investigation, the judge ordered the arguments on charge to commence on September 5. However, on May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following the shuffle of 135 judges across Delhi.
“With the charge sheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues, and such transfers, we don’t know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,” said Sayed Qasim Rasool, Umar’s father, who is one of the accused in the case. “The problem is that Section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be completed. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,” said advocate Rajeev Mohan, who is representing Hussain in the court.
