Activists Umar Khalid, Gufisha Fatima and Shajeel Imam
New Delhi: Seeking bail in the February 2020 Delhi riots case, activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday expressed anguish before the Supreme Court over being “labelled” a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a full-fledged trial or a single conviction.
“I would like to say that I am not a terrorist, as I have been called by the respondent (police). I am not an anti-national as called by the State. I am a citizen of this country, a citizen by birth, and I have not been convicted for any offence till now,” senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Imam, said.
He contended before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that the activist was arrested on January 28, 2020, which was before the riots, for his speeches which alone cannot constitute the “criminal conspiracy” offence in the riots case.
“I am being prosecuted for speeches I gave, snippets of which were played in court. This FIR was registered in March 2020. For over a month I had already been in custody. This FIR is registered for conspiracy, for riots that were committed in February 2020. Of course, it rules out my physical presence in the riots because I was in custody.
“If they have taken me in custody in January, they could have said these speeches led to the riots. But I am not named as an accused. My speeches by themselves did not lead to riots. I was already being prosecuted for those speeches,” Dave said.
At this juncture, the bench asked about the police’s case that Imam’s speeches were part of an alleged plan that “created a platform for riots to take place so that the conspiracy gets fructified”.
Justice Kumar asked, “Can we take your argument that these speeches won’t constitute a terrorist act?.
Dave contended that these speeches will not constitute the “criminal conspiracy” and the police will have to show that there is something more Imam did for conspiracy.
“I would like to say that I am not a terrorist, as I have been called by the respondent (police). I am not an anti-national as called by the State. I am a citizen of this country, a citizen by birth, and I have not been convicted for any offence till now.
“I am being labelled as a dangerous intellectual terrorist. Additional Solicitor General said intellectual terrorists are more dangerous. Not one conviction against me. The words were used against a citizen of this country. I can understand after a full-fledged trial because I lose the presumption of innocence. But this label has caused anguish to me,” Dave submitted.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, submitted that he was not in Delhi when the riots happened in February 2020, and that he cannot be kept incarcerated “as if to say that I will punish you for your protests”.
“You cannot attribute someone else’s speech to me and say I am responsible for the riots,” Sibal submitted.
“I ask myself, I am an academic in an institution. What can I do to overthrow the State?” he said.
Sibal played in court Khalid’s February 17, 2020, speech delivered in Amravati and said he spoke of responding to violence with peace and to hatred with love. “How is this a violation of the UAPA? Sibal asked.
He claimed that nothing in the Amravati speech is communal in nature. “Nobody can call his speech inflammatory in any sense of the word,” the senior lawyer added.
“These are students who agitated wrongly or rightly on certain issues. In our younger days even we used to agitate. Some of my friends from St. Stephen’s College actually joined the Naxal movement, but we did not.
“There is no use putting me in jail and for what? If you have a case against me, prosecute me or convict me and send me to jail. You can’t keep me incarcerated as if to say that I will punish you for your protests,” Sibal said.
Stressing that she cannot be subjected to “endless custody”, activist Gulfisha Fatima told the apex court that Delhi Police’s claim of a coordinated “regime change operation” finds no mention in its chargesheet.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Fatima, told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that the activist has spent under six years in incarceration and termed the delay in the trial “astonishing and unprecedented”.
“Where have you alleged regime change as the heart of your chargesheet?” he asked and added that the prosecution’s claim of a pan-India conspiracy “to separate Assam from India” is equally unfounded.
“What is the basis?” Singh said.
Strongly opposing the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others in the February 2020 riots in the city, Delhi Police said it was not something spontaneous but an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on the sovereignty of the nation.
Singhvi submitted that charges against Fatima are yet to be framed and she cannot be subjected to “endless custody” particularly when 939 witnesses have been cited.
Seeking parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021, Singhvi argued that Fatima is the only woman still in prison.
“They got bail in 2021. Mine is a much lesser case,” Singhvi submitted.
Singhvi argued that the allegation that Fatima attended a “secret meeting” was similar to the charges levelled against Narwal and Kalita.
“There is no evidence of chilli powder, acid or anything else. There was no recovery. They uploaded it on social media. How can it be a secret meeting? Singhvi asked.
He claimed that the Delhi Police has failed to substantiate its allegations against the accused.
Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Rehman were booked under the UAPA, the stringent anti-terror law, and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
This post was last modified on December 2, 2025 8:46 pm