Rehman seeks bail in Delhi riots case, says no UAPA offence made out; SC to resume hearing Thursday
New Delhi: Activist Shifa-ur-Rehman, seeking bail in a UAPA case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots, told the Supreme Court on Monday that he had been “cherry-picked” and that no offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was made out against him.
Rehman, along with Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, was booked under the UAPA and provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the violence that erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The riots claimed 53 lives and left over 700 injured.
Appearing before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Rehman, argued that no witness had linked the Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association president to any act of violence.
“There can be no dispute that citizens have the right to protest against a law they disagree with. Peaceful protest cannot be equated with criminal conduct,” Khurshid told the court.
“He has been cherry-picked and made an accused. Nothing under the UAPA is made out in any of the allegations, even if accepted as true. Please look at his background, he has worked for local body elections and considers Jamia his home,” the senior advocate said, adding that his client had “done nothing to delay the trial.”
Khurshid also argued that Rehman was entitled to bail on grounds of parity with co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in June 2021.
He further informed the court that Rehman had earlier been granted interim bail on November 25, 2023, and November 11, 2024, and that no other criminal case was pending against him.
“There have been protests across South Asia, each with its own context. But we have always been taught that when there is an unjust law, we must disobey it, but never with violence,” Khurshid said.
When the bench remarked that the case must be seen in the Indian context, he replied, “Yes, and the Gandhian method itself teaches us that if there is an unjust law, it is our moral obligation to defy it peacefully.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, submitted that out of 116 Delhi riots cases tried and concluded so far, 97 have ended in acquittals, and in 17 cases, courts have remarked on the fabrication of evidence.
When the bench asked how that related to Khalid’s case, Sibal replied that he was only placing the facts on record. “Are you shedding tears for them?” Justice Kumar asked. Sibal responded that he was merely highlighting the nature and quality of the investigation.
Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Meeran Haider, argued that three co-accused with clearly defined roles had already been granted bail, and those orders were upheld by higher courts.
“We raised the issue of parity before the High Court. My role is much lighter than theirs,” he said. Haider, arrested on April 1, 2020, has been in custody for five years and seven months, Agarwal pointed out, adding that the latest chargesheet still states that the investigation is continuing.
The hearing remained inconclusive and will resume on Thursday.
