Introduction
The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi Police for failure to file counter-affidavits to the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman in the conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. This relates to the five ongoing cases against the state of Delhi. [Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi SLP (Crl) No. 14165/2025 and other cases].
Background
On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court passed orders denying bail to ten political prisoners accused in the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case. Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imaam, Athar Khan, Abdul Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Sabad Ahmed, and Tasleem Ahmed were imprisoned in 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The prosecution had invoked Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the UAPA along with Sections 147, 148, 153A, 120B, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Delhi High Court held that the riots were the outcome of a well-planned conspiracy and said that Umar Khalid’s speeches could not be seen in isolation. It also observed that the riots were deliberately timed to coincide with the visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump and therefore could not be brushed aside. The Court held that, based on the material on record, they were prima facie involved.
Following this, they moved to the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice on bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid and several co-accused.
Key Points
On delays- Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Dave, and Siddharth Agarwal appeared for the accused. They highlighted that their clients had spent almost five years in custody while the trial had been progressing very slowly. This amounts to punishment without trial. They requested that the Court not grant any extension.
On failure to file counter-affidavits- The Court expressed serious concerns over the prolonged incarceration of the accused without the completion of the trial. It criticised the Delhi Police for seeking extensions to file its counter-affidavits. It highlighted that in bail matters, there was no reason for such delays. It was observed that five years have passed, and there is a need for an expedited hearing.
On request for extension to file counter-affidavits- Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju sought two more weeks to file the counter-affidavit. He stated that he was appearing for the first time and was unaware of the earlier proceedings. The Court declined this request and observed that the police had been given ample opportunity. The Court also questioned the necessity of a counter-affidavit in bail proceedings.
Recent development
Given that the Delhi Police had repeatedly requested more time, causing delays, the Supreme Court’s criticism of the police is rightly placed. As the Court correctly noted, bail matters require prompt proceedings, and excessive delays defeat the purpose of bail.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court declined Delhi Police’s request for two weeks’ time to file counter-affidavits to the petitions. It posted the matter for hearing on 31st October, 2025.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: FARZEEN ZAMAN
