SC to hear bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and others in 2020 Delhi Riots case today
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear the bail pleas of four accused, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Gulfisha Fatima, in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on Friday.
The accused, booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), have challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny them bail in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria will hear the petitions filed by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and Gulfisha Fatima. Meanwhile, a separate bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice K Vinod Chandran will take up the bail plea of Meeran Haider.
The 2020 Delhi riots, which erupted in the backdrop of widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in the deaths of over 50 people and injuries to hundreds. The Delhi Police had alleged that the violence was part of a premeditated conspiracy, orchestrated during the anti-CAA protests, and invoked UAPA provisions against several activists and student leaders.
Sharjeel Imam, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested on January 28, 2020, from Jehanabad in Bihar for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University. He has been in custody since then and was later booked under UAPA charges for his alleged role in the riots.
Umar Khalid, also a former JNU student, moved the apex court on September 10 after the Delhi High Court rejected his bail plea in the UAPA case. Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, associated with student activism, are also facing similar charges under UAPA, which has been strongly contested by civil rights advocates and legal experts.
The case has drawn significant national attention due to the nature of the charges and the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the bail pleas is expected to have major implications for how UAPA cases linked to protest movements are interpreted and handled.