‘Ultimate aim was regime change’: Summarising 3 days of Delhi police’s arguments in 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case

OPPOSING THE GRANT of bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and other co-accused, the Delhi Police concluded its submissions on Friday, November 21, after arguing for the second consecutive day. The counterarguments had begun on November 18.

Day 1: ‘Riots were well designed, orchestrated’

Leading the charge for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Division Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar and comprising Justice N.V. Anjaria, that the 2020 Delhi riots, the deadliest religious conflict witnessed by the national capital in decades, were “not spontaneous” but rather “well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned and well-choreographed riots” which were an attack on the nation’s sovereignty.

Mehta argued that the riots were the outcome of a systematic effort to divide society along communal lines, rather than mere agitations against the Citizenship Amendment Bill that turned violent. He argued that the accused, Sharjeel Imam, was responsible for instigating the Indian Muslims to unite and block roads to prevent milk and water from reaching the households in Delhi. And that Imam’s speeches reveal that he had called for a “chakka jam” in every city where Muslims reside.

He told the Court that the evidence recovered from an accused’s devices by the Delhi Police reveals discussions on how the property was to be damaged. He added that these discussions were taking place in WhatsApp groups of which the petitioners were members. Therefore, they were all part of a larger conspiracy, and it was part of their strategy to delay the trial, elude the merits and then ask for bail.

Mehta asserted that the Delhi Police was ready to complete the trial within six months.

Taking over, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the petitioners should not be allowed to take the defence of parity with other accused persons who got bail from the Delhi High Court, since the Supreme Court had, while dismissing the appeal thereof held that the High Court’s statutory interpretation of Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) was not to be treated as precedent.

Day 2 & 3: ‘Petitioners stalled commencement of the trial’

Continuing the arguments on November 20, Raju told the Court that the petitioners are themselves responsible for stalling the commencement of the trial, as they have sought repeated adjournments before the trial court, delaying the arguments on the framing of charges.

He relied on the precedents of the Supreme Court to argue that if the delay is caused by even one co-accused, not the prosecution, the other co-accused cannot take advantage thereof to ask for bail. He further submitted that in UAPA matters, a delay in the commencement of trial is not a sufficient ground for granting bail to the accused, even if he has been in jail for five and a half years; the Court can rather direct the trial court to expedite the hearing.