Delhi riots larger conspiracy: “Where must we draw the line on the right to protest?”, accused ask, in second day of hearings

THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY, on November 3, 2025, continued hearing the arguments of the petitioners: Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rahman, Meeran Haider, and Mohd. Saleem Khan, in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The petitions have been filed against the impugned September 2 order of the Delhi High Court, dismissing their bail applications. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria is hearing the matter. 

Petitioners’ Argument

Sibal: 97 of 116 concluded trials ended in acquittal

The day’s hearing commenced with senior advocate Kabil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, continuing with his arguments. He shed light on the fact that of the 751 FIRs filed in connection with the riots, 116 have concluded, with 97 ending in the acquittal of the accused persons. In 16-17 of these, the trial courts have pulled up the police for fabricating evidence. Admitting that these are not directly related to the case at hand, Sibal argued that the facts highlight the ‘nature of the investigation’. 

Khurshid: No witness associated Shifa-ur-Rehman with any unlawful activity 

Appearing for Shifa-ur-Rehman, senior advocate Salman Khurshid began his arguments by drawing lessons from the Chicago 7 trials against the anti-Vietnam War protestors, reminding that the right to protest remains an incontrovertible right in a democracy. The crucial question, he said, is where we must draw the line on the exercise of the right to protest. He continued that Shifa-ur-Rahman had been ‘cherry-picked’, and no case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) can be made out even if the accusations are accepted on their face. Statements of witnesses, Khurshid argued, referred to actions of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia (‘AAJMI’), not to the accused individually. All decisions of the AAJMI are taken collectively, he noted, adding that the prosecution has handpicked the accused without any fault. 

Khurshid emphasised that while there is no denying that the accused was present during the protests, no witness has associated any violent or unlawful activity with him. Even during the incident of the police ransacking the Jamia Millia Islamia campus, there were no allegations of violence made against Rehman despite his presence at the campus. He added that certain protected witness statements merely note that Rehman attended meetings, without mentioning any discussion or attributing any act of incitement. At best, it may be asserted that the accused participated in the protests, which in itself is insufficient to invoke the UAPA.

Khurshid, invoking the principle of parity, averred that Rehman is entitled to bail on the same grounds as co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021. Though the Supreme Court, on appeal, clarified that this judgment was not to be treated as a precedent, it held it to be pertinent in the context of parity.