The Supreme Court on Monday sent notice to the Delhi police on the bail plea of Delhi 2020 riot accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gul Fiza Fatima, Miran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rahman. All of them are charged as conspirators in the Delhi riots.

A notice was issued by the bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria. The matter was last listed before a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Manmohan on 19th September, but was not taken up. Justice Kumar explained on Monday that it was not taken up that day “because my bench partner was disabled.”

Justice Manmohan had practised in the office of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is also a lawyer representing the accused in the case.

The plea of the accused in the case says that the Delhi riots were not a regular protest, but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy.”

Finally, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard the plea of Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Haider, and Rahman. The plea challenged the High Court’s order.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Sanghvi, appearing for Fatima, said that the petitioner was a student kept in prison for over five years. He urged the court to consider issuing notice on the plea for interim bail, saying that it has been five years.

“We will hear you,” the bench said, stating that it would dispose of the petition at the earliest.

Urging the court to cure the plea at the earliest possible date, Sanghvi said, “It’s a liberty matter. We have all waited for five years. The court… has made us wait for five years. I’m really sorry to say that… shocking that a student has to be held behind bars for five years.”

Changed Under UAPA

Khalid, Imam, and the others were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA, for allegedly being the masterminds of the February 2020 riots in Delhi. The violence erupted during the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.

The Delhi High Court denied the bail plea earlier this month and said, “… In the inspection of the allegations levelled, it emerges that the role of the appellants Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilisation of members of the Muslim community.”

The High Court also said, “If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law and order situation in the country. Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the state machinery as they do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression, and association.”