Student activist Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its earlier order denying him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, urging the court to hear the matter in open court instead of in chambers.
Khalid, through senior advocate Kapil Sibal, requested a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria to allow an open-court hearing for the review petition, which is currently scheduled for consideration in chambers on April 16. Sibal informed the court that an application for such a hearing has already been filed.
Responding to the request, Justice Kumar said, "We will look into the papers. If required, we will call it."
As per Supreme Court rules, review petitions are typically examined in chambers by the judges who delivered the original verdict to address any apparent error or grave injustice. However, parties can seek an open-court hearing if they believe such injustice has occurred.
On January 5, the apex court had denied bail to Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam while granting relief to five others, observing that all accused did not stand on the same footing. The court noted a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), citing their alleged role in the "planning, mobilisation and strategic direction" of the riots.
Khalid and Imam, both in custody since 2020, were given the liberty to file fresh bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order. The court had also rejected their argument that delays in trial justified bail.
While denying them relief, the court granted bail to activists Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, imposing 11 conditions and cautioning that any misuse of liberty would lead to cancellation.
The court underscored that while personal liberty under Article 21 is fundamental, it must be balanced against concerns of public order, community security, and the integrity of the trial process. It held that Khalid and Imam stood on a "qualitatively-different footing" compared to the other accused.
Referring to the prosecution’s case, the bench said it disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts."
The February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi, which erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The apex court had further clarified that delays in trial cannot serve as a "trump card" to override statutory safeguards. "All the appellants do not stand on equal footing as regards culpability. The hierarchy of participation emerging from the prosecution's case requires the court to examine each application individually," it said.
"This court is satisfied that the prosecution material disclosed a prima-facie allegation against the appellants, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.... This stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail," the court had added.
Citing Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court reiterated that bail must be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
Imam was first arrested on January 28, 2020, for speeches during anti-CAA protests and later in August 2020 in the larger conspiracy case. Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, over alleged provocative speeches delivered on February 24 and 25 during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.
Opposing their bail pleas, the Delhi Police had argued that the riots were not spontaneous but a pre-planned and orchestrated attack on India's sovereignty. All seven accused were booked under the stringent UAPA and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" behind the violence.