---

Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, describing the riots as an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on national sovereignty

---

Activist Sharjeel Imam told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that he had been unfairly branded a “dangerous intellectual terrorist”, as he sought bail in a case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots, reported PTI

Imam’s counsel, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, argued before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria that his client had been jailed since January 28, 2020 — before the riots broke out — and that his speeches alone could not establish the criminal conspiracy alleged by police.

Dave said Imam had been “labelled” a terrorist without any conviction. “I am not a terrorist. I am not an anti-national. I am a citizen by birth and have not been convicted of any offence till now,” he submitted.

“I am being labelled as a dangerous intellectual terrorist. The 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.

The bench asked whether the police case that Imam’s speeches “created a platform” for the riots could constitute a terrorist act. Dave responded that the speeches did not amount to conspiracy and that the prosecution must show further acts linking Imam to the violence.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for co-accused Umar Khalid, said Khalid was not in Delhi during the riots and could not be held responsible for others’ speeches. Sibal played a recording of Khalid’s February 17, 2020 speech in Amravati, arguing that it advocated peace and did not violate the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Sibal said the accused were students protesting government policies and could not be kept in custody indefinitely. “If you have a case against me, prosecute me or convict me. You cannot incarcerate me for my protests,” he said.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing activist Gulfisha Fatima, told the court she had spent nearly six years in jail and that charges had yet to be framed. He said police claims of a “regime change operation” or a pan-India conspiracy “to separate Assam from India” did not appear in the chargesheet.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing activist Gulfisha Fatima, told the court she had already spent nearly six years in prison without charges being framed. Calling the delay “astonishing and unprecedented”, Singhvi said Fatima “cannot be subjected to endless custody”.

“They got bail in 2021. Mine is a much lesser case,” he said. He also dismissed accusations that she attended a “secret meeting”, noting: “There is no recovery, no evidence of chilli powder or acid. They uploaded everything on social media — how can that be a secret meeting?”

Fatima sought parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021.

“They got bail in 2021. Mine is a much lesser case,” he said. He also dismissed accusations that she attended a “secret meeting”, noting: “There is no recovery, no evidence of chilli powder or acid. They uploaded everything on social media — how can that be a secret meeting?”

Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas, describing the riots as an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on national sovereignty.

Imam, Khalid, Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman were charged under the UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the riots, in which 53 people were killed and more than 700 injured during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.