Singhvi concludes his arguments. Hearing to continue at 12:30 pm.

Kapil Sibal appearing for Umar Khalid to begin his rejoinder arguments.

Singhvi: There is no delay by me. It’s a false representation. Can it be that any delay is caused by me? See the FIR date, see the date of the chargesheets. Accused were to argue sequentially. Adjournment was sought by Tahir Hussain. They can’t take me out of turn. I am waiting. I am not delaying. I completed my arguments in 1 month. Therefore the generality… all the sermons we give about liberty, jail and bail… There is no possibility of any triple test being violated. It will be 6 years. What public interest are they serving by keeping them in?

Singhvi: The allegation of regime change is quite extraordinary. Where have you alleged regime change as the heart of your chargesheet? They say it’s a pan-India conspiracy to separate Assam from India? What is the basis?

Justice Kumar: This was with respect to Sharjeel Imam

Singhvi: 120B stares at your lordships' face. Regime change was never argued in the high court or trial court. They suddenly say regime change to make it sound more serious. The person who says regime change in the WhatsApp group is not an accused person. He is real, mythical, or someone they pulled out of their pocket.

Singhvi: Then the other allegations, they find place in his counter, but they don’t argue it. I don’t understand why. Natasha is on bail since 2021. They call me an “insider”. This is a very general statement. Yes, there was a 24-hour sitting in Madina masjid, but there are no allegations of violence there. I am supposed to be clubbed entirely with Natasha and Devangana, though my role is lesser. I should get it on that ground alone.

Singhvi: Let them show something. They are saying I have provided stones and chilli powder to women in Jahangirpuri. This is very, very unfortunate. Let them show something. Then they say I have received funds from Tahir Hussain. The protected witness’s statement is recorded 6 months later. He does not say when and how much money was given by Tahir to me. This incident allegedly relates to a prior period. There is no connectivity between Tahir Hussain and me.

Singhvi: Whenever there is an exculpatory thing, it goes into unrelied documents.

Singhvi: There is nothing individuated qua me. Chakka Jaam is nothing but at the most a legitimate form of protest.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: We have, in fact, filed an application saying release the Jaffrabad video, but they are not releasing and saying they are not going to rely upon it. But it is part of the chargesheet.

Singhvi: Then in the second secret meeting, Devangana and Natasha were also present and had more prominent roles than me and were granted bail. And coming to the code word. I don’t understand it. What is the sequitur? Chakka Jaam started much earlier. It started when the BKD was formed. Chaudhary Charan Singh’s party. He innovated the concept of Chakka Jaam in 1970. Now it is putting a 32 year old woman under UAPA… it’s very unfortunate.

Singhvi: Your lordships had clearly given me an option to make out parity in the other order. They said I attended a secret meeting with all the other ladies. So this is parity. It’s the same allegation made for Natasha and Devangana. There is no evidence of the use of chilli powder, acid, etc. There was no recovery. They uploaded it on social media. How can it be a secret meeting?

Singhvi: They were part of a conspiratorial WhatsApp group, DPSG (Delhi protest support group). I was not a part of it. They funded women protestors I did not. I was a local resident of seelampur they were not. Gulfisha was mentioned by Mr. Raju’s arguments only twice. His arguments are broadly 3. Parity cannot be consideration. Bail on delay can’t be because I have caused it. And more serious that the protests were for regime change.

Singhvi: They also had very serious allegations apparently and were released in one year (referring to bail of Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita).

Singhvi: Now please come to parity. I am the only lady under incarceration. The other ladies got bail in 2021. My case is a much lesser case. They were arrested in 2020, released in 2021 and bail was upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2023.

Singhvi: This will make a caricature of our criminal justice system. Nobody needs to be punished like this unless they are convicted. This is pre-trial conviction.

Singhvi: There is no trial ending in sight, therefore you keep intoning that it’s a serious crime. “Hurried trial would be detrimental to the rights of the appellant and state” - this is misplaced consideration for the petitioner. I would rather not have this consideration by the High Court. “To care which is almost maternal in nature” - this was a line in ADM Jabalpur. This hurried trial is misplaced consideration for me. I’d rather not have it.

Singhvi: All the judgments we have, all declarations regarding liberty etc have become naught when we see 5-6 years behind bars. What can she do if she is released into society?

Justice Kumar: Is she resident of Delhi? Is she living in the same address?

Singhvi: Yes. In Seelampur. In other countries, the liberty is ensured with anklets and GPS. What public interest are we serving by keeping her in jail? What will she do? Will she try to flee?

Singhvi: I seek parity, the High Court keeps it pending. Then a new bench takes over. Then the appeals were listed with 8 other co-accused. Then it was released from that bench…whatever reasons, let’s not go into that. Then comes the impugned judgment.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Gulfisha Fatima): I have been in jail for just under 6 years. There is a chargesheet filed on 16.9.2020 but as if it’s a ritual of chargesheets, the supplementary chargesheets are filed continuously…till now we have got 4 supplementary and 1 main. The arrest was in 2020. Even after 2023, the delay is sad, astonishing and unprecedented.

The Supreme Court is hearing the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the larger conspiracy case in relation to the 2020 North East Delhi riots.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.

Khalid and others moved the top court against the Delhi High Court's September 2 order denying them bail. The top court had issued notice to the police on September 22.

The riots occurred in February 2020 following clashes over the then-proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As per the Delhi Police, the riots caused the death of 53 persons and injured hundreds.

The present case pertains to allegations that the accused had hatched a larger conspiracy to cause multiple riots. The FIR in this case was registered by a Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA.

Most of the accused were booked in multiple FIRs, leading to multiple bail petitions before different courts. Most have been in custody since 2020.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and charged with criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, as well as several other offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

He has been in jail since then.

The trial court had first denied him bail in March 2022. He then approached the High Court, which also denied him relief in October 2022, prompting him to file an appeal before the top court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court sought the response of the Delhi Police in the matter. His plea before the top court was then adjourned 14 times.

On February 14, 2024, he withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court,  citing a change in circumstances.

On May 28, the trial court rejected his second bail petition. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on September 2, prompting the present plea before the apex court.

Imam too was booked in multiple FIRs across several States, mostly under sedition and UAPA charges.

In the case registered over speeches he gave at Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, he was granted bail by the Delhi High Court last year. In the sedition cases registered in Aligarh and Guwahati, he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in 2021 and the Gauhati High Court in 2020, respectively. He was also booked in FIRs in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur.

The Court had earlier pulled up the Delhi Police for failing to file its response to the bail pleas.

Subsequently, the Delhi Police filed a 389-page affidavit detailing why the accused should not be granted bail.

The Delhi Police claimed irrefutable documentary as well as technical evidence that pointed to a conspiracy for a "regime-change operation" and plans to incite nationwide riots on communal lines and kill non-Muslims.

During the hearing of the case on November 20, the Delhi Police told the top court that the accused are anti-nationals who tried to overthrow the regime through violence.

Similar arguments were made on November 21 as well, when the police contended that the accused had tried to effect a regime change in India through riots like those which took place recently in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Live updates from today's hearing here.