Delhi riots larger conspiracy case: Accused conclude rejoinder arguments in Supreme Court; Delhi Police to respond tomorrow
With all defence submissions now complete, the Court will hear ASG Raju’s reply on Wednesday.
Parmod Kumar
Published on: 9 December 2025, 02:34 pm
THE SIX ACCUSED in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case on Tuesday completed their rejoinder arguments before the Supreme Court in their appeals for bail charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) and the provision of the India Penal Code.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard the rejoinder arguments of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd. Saleem Khan, and fixed December 10 for the response of Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for Delhi Police.
Siddharth Dave: Sharjeel Imam spent six years in custody despite no physical involvement
Appearing for Imam, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave argued that while certain portions of Imam’s speeches “may be unpalatable,” they had already been granted bail in those cases. Dave emphasised that Imam was not named in any of the 750 FIRs concerning actual riot incidents.
Dave conceded that “some of the language could have been better worded,” but stressed Imam has spent six years in custody while not being physically present at any riot site.
“He made no call to pick up weapons,” Dave said, adding that Imam was being prosecuted “not twice or thrice, but perhaps eight to ten times” for the same set of speeches.
When Justice Kumar asked him to read the Asansol speech, Dave conceded that “some of the language could have been better worded,” but stressed Imam has spent six years in custody while not being physically present at any riot site. He also underscored that Imam was arrested before the riots began and was not part of the WhatsApp groups alleged to have coordinated the violence.
“As an undertrial in a conspiracy case of this volume, six years is far too long,” Dave submitted.
Salman Khurshid: Rehman has no previous antecedents
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-Rehman, disputed allegations that Rehman received ₹8 lakh to manage a protest site. “A protest site being supported is not illegal if the protest is peaceful,” he said. Rehman has no criminal antecedents, Khurshid added.
“I am a respectable citizen, no previous antecedents but I have admitted that I have sympathy for the protest against CAA-NRC," and sympathy for a movement is not a crime,” he remarked.
Sidharth Agarwal: Haider not present in Delhi during meetings
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, for Meeran Haider, said Haider was not present in Delhi during the meetings said to form the core of the conspiracy. “My mother was unwell; we have train tickets and records,” he told the Court.
He countered the prosecution’s assertion of delay, saying the last chargesheet came three years after the FIR, and the accused only sought clarity on whether investigation was complete.
