Supreme Court Hears Delhi Riots Accused Claiming 2024 Awareness of Probe Completion, Questioning Police Claims of Delay

Delhi Riots Case: Activists Dispute Police Claims of Delay, Seek Bail

Published November 03, 2025 06:04 pm IST

Key Developments in the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

New Delhi – Activists, including Meeran Haider, Umar Khalid, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and Gulfisha Fatima, are contesting assertions made by Delhi Police regarding procedural delays in their trial related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. the case, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), alleges a broader conspiracy behind the communal violence that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured.

Arguments were presented before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria as part of ongoing bail hearings on Monday,November 3,2025. The activists maintain they were only informed of the inquiryS completion on September 4, 2024.

dispute Over Investigation Timeline

senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Mr.Haider, asserted that the trial court officially acknowledged the investigation’s completion on September 4, 2024, based on submissions from the Delhi Police filed on August 28, 2024. He characterized this date as a critical point in the proceedings.

The Delhi Police, in an affidavit submitted on October 30, 2025, accused the accused of intentionally prolonging the legal processes, citing 39 hearings solely for document submission and nearly 50 delays in framing charges. The High Court had previously supported this claim, suggesting the defence contributed to the protracted timeline.

Mr. Agarwal refuted these allegations,pointing out his client has been in custody for over five years and seven months,and consistently sought clarification regarding the investigation’s status. He emphasized that any suggestion of delay on their part is unfounded before the prosecution formally declared the investigation closed.

Arguments for Bail and concerns Over trial Speed

advocates for the accused expressed concern over the potential for further delays, noting that 150 witnesses remain to be examined and charges have yet to be framed against seven additional accused. They argued that after five years, any further delay is unacceptable.

Mr.Agarwal further requested the court consider the cases of Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021, arguing his client’s role was even less significant in the alleged events. He also emphasized that Mr.Haider had publicly disassociated himself from co-accused sharjeel Imam.

Defense of Peaceful Protest and Allegations of False Accusations

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Shifa-ur-rehman, argued that peaceful protest is a fundamental right and should not be criminalized. He invoked the Gandhian ideology of civil disobedience as a justification for non-violent dissent.

Mr. Khurshid contended there’s no evidence directly implicating his client in any violence, characterizing the accusations as arbitrary. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, highlighted that 97 out of 116 riot-related cases have resulted in acquittals, with 17 cases involving criticism of the police investigation for alleged evidence fabrication.

Police Response and Continued Hearings

Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, objected to the presentation of acquittal statistics, alleging an attempt to prejudice the Bench. The court scheduled a continuation of the hearing for November 6 at 2 p.m.. The Delhi Police maintain that the accused conspired to exploit the anti-CAA protests to instigate nationwide unrest with potential “regime change” aims.

The accused continue to assert their constitutional right to protest and argue that the charges against them constitute a criminalization of dissent, and prolonged detention without a trial equals punishment before conviction.

Understanding the UAPA and its Implications

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), initially enacted in 1967, has been amended over time to broaden its scope and strengthen its provisions.Critics argue that the UAPA’s broad definition of “unlawful activities” and stringent bail provisions can be misused to suppress dissent and target activists.

According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the number of UAPA cases registered in India has increased substantially in recent years.

Year	UAPA Cases Registered
2018	122
2019	190
2020	357
2021	413
2022	483

Did You Know? The UAPA allows for the designation of individuals as terrorists, even without a formal conviction.

Pro Tip: Legal experts recommend seeking legal counsel immediately if facing charges under the UAPA.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Delhi Riots Case

• What is the main allegation in the Delhi riots conspiracy case? The allegation is that a coordinated conspiracy was behind the 2020 Delhi riots, aiming to incite unrest and destabilize the government.
• What is the UAPA, and why is it significant in this case? The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is a law that allows the government to designate individuals or organizations as terrorists, and it’s being used to prosecute the accused in this case.
• what is the current status of the bail pleas? The Delhi High Court previously denied bail, and the accused are now appealing to the Supreme Court, with hearings ongoing.
• What are the concerns regarding delays in the trial? Concerns have been raised about the prolonged duration of the case and the slow pace of the trial, with 150 witnesses still to be examined.
• What is the defense’s argument regarding the investigation? The defense argues that they were not properly informed about the completion of the investigation and that the police are attempting to blame them for delays.
• Has there been acquittals in other Delhi riots cases? Yes, according to advocates, 97 out of 116 concluded cases related to the Delhi riots have resulted in acquittals.
• what is the role of peaceful protest in this case? The defense contends that peaceful protest is a constitutional right and should not be equated with criminal conspiracy.

what are your thoughts on the ongoing Delhi riots case and the use of the UAPA? Share your perspectives in the comments below!

What evidence are the Delhi riots accused presenting to support their claim of knowing the investigation was complete in 2024?

The Core of the Dispute: Timelines and Openness

The supreme Court is currently hearing arguments from accused individuals involved in the 2020 Delhi riots,who allege thay were informed about the completion of the investigation as early as 2024. This directly challenges the Delhi Police’s assertions of significant delays in the investigation process and subsequent charge sheet filings. The core of the dispute revolves around the timing of facts dissemination and the transparency – or lack thereof – surrounding the investigation’s progress. Key terms related to this include Delhi riots investigation, police delay allegations, and Supreme Court hearings.

Accusations Against Delhi Police: A Timeline Challenge

Several accused have presented evidence, including alleged communication records, suggesting they were aware the investigation had concluded well before the police officially stated. This raises serious questions about the reasons behind the delayed filing of charge sheets and the prolonged detention of the accused.

* Key Allegations:

* Purposeful delay in filing charge sheets.

* Lack of transparency in communicating investigation updates to the accused.

* Potential procedural lapses in the investigation process.

* Supporting Evidence: Accused are reportedly submitting documents like RTI responses and alleged internal police communications.

* Related Searches: Delhi riots accused statements, police investigation timeline, RTI and Delhi riots.

Police Defense: Justifying the Delays

The Delhi Police maintains that the investigation was complex, involving a large number of accused and extensive evidence gathering. They attribute the delays to the sheer volume of data that needed to be analyzed, including digital evidence, witness testimonies, and forensic reports. They also cite challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted normal investigative procedures.

* Police Justifications:

* Complexity of the case and the large number of accused.

* Extensive evidence gathering and analysis.

* Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

* Counter arguments: Accused lawyers argue that these justifications don’t hold water given the alleged 2024 completion date and the subsequent delays.

* Relevant Keywords: Delhi Police response, investigation complexities, COVID-19 impact on investigations.

The Legal Implications: Bail Applications and Due Process

This dispute has significant implications for the ongoing bail applications of the accused. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the claims of early awareness of investigation completion, it could lead to the granting of bail to several individuals currently in custody. The case also highlights broader concerns about due process and the right to a speedy trial, essential principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

* impact on Bail Hearings: A favorable ruling for the accused could expedite bail approvals.

* Due Process Concerns: The case raises questions about fairness and transparency in the criminal justice system.

* constitutional Rights: The right to a speedy trial and fair investigation are central to the legal arguments.

* Search Terms: Delhi riots bail applications, due process of law, speedy trial rights.

examining Similar cases: Precedents and Comparisons

While the specifics of the Delhi riots case are unique, there have been other instances where accused individuals have challenged police investigation timelines. Examining these precedents can provide valuable context. For example, the Bilkis Bano case and the Jessica Lal case both involved scrutiny of investigation procedures and delays.

* Bilkis Bano Case: Highlighted issues of investigation integrity and delayed justice.

* Jessica Lal Case: Demonstrated the importance of witness protection and thorough investigation.

* Comparative Analysis: Examining these cases can reveal patterns and potential shortcomings in investigative practices.

* Related Searches: Indian criminal justice system, landmark criminal cases, investigation failures.

The Role of Digital Evidence: A Growing Challenge

the Delhi riots investigation heavily relies on digital evidence, including social media posts, WhatsApp messages, and CCTV footage. Analyzing this data presents significant challenges, requiring specialized expertise and robust forensic capabilities. The authenticity and reliability of digital evidence are also crucial considerations.

* Digital Forensics: The importance of verifying the authenticity of digital evidence.

* Social Media Analysis: Challenges in attributing responsibility based on social media activity.

* Data Security: Ensuring the integrity and security of digital evidence throughout the investigation.

* Keywords: digital evidence in court, social media and crime, cyber forensics.

Potential Outcomes and Future Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could set a precedent for future investigations involving complex criminal cases and reliance on digital evidence. It could also lead to reforms in police procedures, emphasizing transparency and timely communication with the accused. The outcome will be closely watched by legal experts, human rights activists, and the families of both the victims and the accused.

* Possible Supreme Court Rulings: Potential outcomes range from upholding the police’s timeline to ordering the release of the accused.

* Policy Implications: The case could prompt changes in investigative procedures and data handling protocols.

* Impact on Public Trust: The outcome will influence public perception of the criminal justice system.

* search Terms: Supreme Court judgments, *police reform India