New Delhi, Dec 2 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing the bail pleas of student leaders Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard rejoinder arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Dave, who represent the petitioners challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order denying them bail.

Appearing for the accused Gulfisha Fatima, senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the 32-year-old has been in custody for over five years despite facing allegations “similar to, and much lesser than” those against co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in 2021.

Singhvi submitted that Gulfisha’s case had become a “caricature of our justice system,” adding that her bail hearing had been listed 90 times in the Delhi High Court but repeatedly adjourned, 25 times because the Bench was unavailable and 26 times due to renotification.

The senior counsel said, “Without conviction, keeping someone in jail for so long makes a mockery of our criminal justice system. This is pre-trial punishment.”

Singhvi highlighted that the “regime change” theory cited by the prosecution found no mention in the main chargesheet or the four supplementary chargesheets and appeared only in the counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court—introduced solely to prejudice the mind of the top court.

Advancing arguments for Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal played the Amravati speech relied on by the prosecution, submitting that the address invoked Mahatma Gandhi and the principle of non-violence. “Advocating Gandhian civil disobedience cannot be treated as a conspiracy,” Sibal said, adding, “If this speech attracts UAPA, then many of us could be liable to go to jail.”

He submitted before the Justice Kumar-led Bench that Khalid has been in jail for five years and three months despite no charges being framed. “If bail is denied today, he may spend another 3 years without trial. What public interest does that serve? This is punitive. I am innocent until proven guilty,” Sibal said.

Questioning the prosecution’s delay, he argued that multiple supplementary charge sheets were filed over the years, preventing the commencement of arguments on the charges before the trial court.

The senior counsel, terming the student protests “legitimate forms of dissent”, said: “Chakka jams, rail rokos — they happen across India. Students agitated, rightly or wrongly. You cannot call that a terrorist act. You cannot keep someone incarcerated as if to punish them for protesting.”

Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, senior advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the prosecution had no evidence except the speeches for which he is already facing separate trials. “Sharjeel is neither a terrorist nor anti-national,” Dave said, adding: “He has not been convicted in any case, yet he has been labelled an ‘intellectual terrorist’. That is unacceptable.”

Dave highlighted that Imam was already in custody in January 2020, weeks before the February riots, making it difficult to connect him to any conspiracy linked to the violence. “If the allegation is conspiracy, the prosecution must show something beyond the speech. There is nothing,” the senior counsel said.

–IANS

pds/uk