Umar Khalid challenges Delhi Police’s conspiracy charge in 2020 riot case

Countering the Delhi Police affidavit that implicated anti-CAA protestors, including Umar Khalid, in a larger conspiracy linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid stated that despite 751 FIRs having been registered in connection with the riot, he was charged only in one case, since nowhere in his speech did he instigate violence and, being absent from Delhi during the riot, expressed surprise over his alleged involvement in the incident.

Alongside Khalid, other activists, including Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima, also contested the Delhi Police’s claim of a planned conspiracy, arguing that the investigation and subsequent charges were built on conjecture rather than concrete evidence.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Fatima, emphasised that she has been in jail for over five years since April 2020, and despite the main chargesheet being filed in September 2020, the prosecution continued to file supplementary chargesheets annually, delaying the process unnecessarily.

He said her bail plea had been listed more than 90 times since 2020 and that the sole allegation against her—creating a WhatsApp group to coordinate support—did not amount to instigating violence or promoting disharmony.

Similarly, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Imam, argued that the police took three years to complete their investigation while Imam spent five years in custody, despite his speeches being delivered nearly two months before the riots, showing no direct or proximate link to the violence.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, questioned the conspiracy claim by pointing out that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots took place and that no recoveries of weapons, arms, acid or any incriminating material had been made from him or at his instance, thereby arguing that the police narrative of conspiracy lacked substance.

He maintained that no witness statement connected Khalid to any act of violence that occurred in north-east Delhi and that the case appeared to rely solely on speculative associations rather than factual evidence.

Sibal also argued that Khalid is entitled to bail on grounds of parity, noting that fellow activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail in June 2021. He further pointed out that the Delhi High Court, while denying Khalid bail, had described his Amravati speech of February 17, 2020, as “inflammatory,” though the speech—available publicly—invoked Gandhian principles and constitutional values.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on November 3. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas of all the activists, asserting that they had conspired to strike at the sovereignty and integrity of the country by executing a “regime change operation” under the guise of peaceful protest.

Khalid, Imam, Fatima, and Meeran Haider have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the masterminds behind the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.