The Delhi Police on Friday strongly opposed the bail pleas of former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the Supreme Court, asserting that their conduct during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act squarely falls under terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
What the accused describe as political speech, the police cast as calls for upheaval, a coordinated conspiracy that allegedly drew inspiration from mass uprisings in Bangladesh and Nepal and sought to engineer a similar regime change moment in India.
Appearing before a bench hearing the challenge to prolonged incarceration and trial delays in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, said the two accused were part of a deeply coordinated conspiracy that went beyond dissent and entered the domain of violent subversion.
According to the police, Khalid, Imam and other co-accused had instigated the use of petrol bombs, firearms and coordinated attacks, including a plot to target the capital’s sensitive chicken-neck points—narrow, high-value intersections whose blockade could paralyse movement and law-and-order response. Such actions, the ASG said, were not spontaneous acts of protest but calculated steps to engineer mass violence.
The police told the top court that speeches delivered by the accused were not mere political expression but were part of a larger conspiracy to provoke regime change, drawing parallels with political uprisings in Bangladesh and Nepal. The reference, officers argued, underscored the intention to destabilise the elected government through orchestrated civil disorder.
“This is terrorism,” the ASG emphasised, arguing that the UAPA’s definition of terrorist acts using violent methods to threaten the country’s security, intimidate the public or destabilise the government squarely applies. “The gravity of the offence cannot be washed away by citing delays in trial,” he said.
On the issue of prolonged incarceration, Khalid has spent over four years in jail and Imam nearly as long, the Delhi Police insisted that the delay was attributable to the accused themselves. They alleged a brazen abuse of the judicial process through frivolous applications, repeated pleas designed to stall progress, and coordinated non-cooperation during the trial.
“They cannot now take advantage of the delay they engineered,” the ASG told the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria. He further assured the court that if the accused cooperate, the police would ensure that the trial is completed within two years. But the nature of the case, he argued, involving a multi-layered conspiracy, dozens of protected witnesses and thousands of pages of digital evidence, necessitated a careful and time-consuming process.
The Bench, which continues to hear arguments on both bail pleas, is examining whether the allegations centred on speeches, WhatsApp groups and mobilisation for anti-CAA protests meet the threshold of terrorist acts under UAPA, and whether prolonged custody without conclusion of trial can justify release. |
