No evidence linking me to 2020 Delhi riots violence: Umar Khalid to SC
New Delhi (PTI): Seeking bail in the UAPA case linked to February 2020 riots in Delhi, activist Umar Khalid on Friday told the Supreme Court that there is no evidence linking him to violence and denied conspiracy charges against him.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria that there has been no recovery of funds, weapons or any material evidence linking him to the 2020 Delhi riots.
"There are 751 FIRs, I am charged in one, and if it's a conspiracy, it's a bit surprising!
"If I (Umar Khalid) conspired riots. On dates in which riots took place, I was not in Delhi," Sibal said and added that no funds, weapons and physical evidence connecting me to violence have been found yet.
"No witness statement actually connects petitioner to any act of violence," he pointed out.
Sibal submitted 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.
Sibal said that the Delhi High Court, while denying bail, had termed Umar Khalid's speech at Amravati on February 17, 2020, as "inflammatory."
"It is available on YouTube. It was a public speech where I (Khalid) spoke about Gandhian principles," Sibal added.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, argued that she has been in jail for five years and five months since April 2020.
Singhvi pointed out that while the main chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2020, the prosecution has made it an "annual ritual" to file supplementary chargesheets every year.
He submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in the consideration of the bail plea of Fatima, which has been listed over 90 times since 2020.
Singhvi stated that the allegation against his client is merely that she created a WhatsApp group to coordinate or mobilise support.
"But the real test in law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, is whether there was any intent to incite violence or create disharmony," he said.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, submitted that the police took three years to complete its investigation.
"Out of the five years I have spent in custody, three went by because the probe was still ongoing.
"The speeches were delivered by me (Imam) nearly two months before the riots," Dave said and argued that there is no direct or proximate link to suggest that he could have incited the violence.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on November 3.
The Delhi Police on Thursday opposed the bail pleas of activists, saying that they conspired to strike at the sovereignty and integrity of the country by a "regime change operation" executed under the guise of "peaceful protest".
Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
