Delhi riots case: HC breaks from SC’s stance on UAPA detentions

On September 2, 2024, the Delhi high court denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and seven others in the larger conspiracy case arising from the February 2020 Delhi riots. The court invoked Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which restricts bail if the accusations are found to be prima facie true.

- Ayesha Arvind and Shruti Kakkar

The judgment, running 133 pages, set out in detail the prosecution’s material, witness statements, WhatsApp chats, pamphlets, and public speeches. Its central reasoning rests on the prosecution's theory of a “conspiracy.”

The court accepted the aforementioned theory broadly, treating a range of political activities as part of a design to instigate violence.

The prosecution's case

The prosecution relied primarily on two categories of evidence.

The first was anonymous witness statements. Protected witnesses, referred to by pseudonyms such as “Golf, Bravo, and Helium,” alleged Khalid spoke at secret meetings about stockpiling weapons and preparing for violence during US President Donald Trump's visit.

The second was circumstantial evidence, which included Khalid’s public speeches, his alleged participation in meetings, WhatsApp group discussions, pamphlets, and videos.

On this basis, the prosecution described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act, with their speeches and coordination seen as giving strategic direction to the protests.

The court accepted this narrative. For instance, it treated a January, 2020 public meeting in Seelampur in Northeast Delhi, where Khalid allegedly spoke of “riots with bloodshed” as a significant incriminating event.