SC had directed all compilations to be submitted on or before December 18, 2025 so that the Court can take a decision during the winter break.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set firm time limits as it continued hearing the bail pleas of UAPA-accused; Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria resumed proceedings with Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appearing for Sharjeel Imam.


Dave informed the Bench that he, along with two other senior lawyers, would require at least an hour to complete submissions.

Justice Kumar declined the request. “Conclude in 30 minutes, take it or leave it,” he said, adding that the matter had gone on long enough for what was, at its core, a bail hearing. The Bench advised the defence to place detailed arguments in a written synopsis.

Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid, Siddharth Agarwal and Siddharth Luthra are slated to argue for the remaining accused once Dave concludes.

The Bench ultimately adjourned the hearing to December 9, directing all counsel to submit the “erstwhile address” of each of the seven accused in writing.

It also clarified that at the rejoinder stage, only 15 minutes each would be allotted to the defence lawyers.

On December 2, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Umar Khalid, argued that at the current pace, Khalid would remain in prison for “eight years without trial”, noting that the prosecution alternates between predicting six months and two years for the trial’s completion. He emphasized repeated supplementary chargesheets and delay not attributable to the defence.

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Gulfisha Fatima questioned the Delhi Police’s assertion that the riots were part of a coordinated “regime change operation,” pointing out that “not a word of it appears in the chargesheet.”

Notably, on November 21, ASG Raju had strongly opposed the bail requests, asserting that the violence that rocked Northeast Delhi was not a peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act but part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to spark unrest and destabilise the government. On November 20, Raju had argued that the narrative of Imam and others being “educated scholars” unfairly targeted by the state was misleading, and that those who intellectually guide violence are “far more dangerous” than ground-level actors.

Earlier, Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Mehta had launched a sharp attack on what he described as “myths” surrounding the riots. “This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned and well-choreographed riot,” he told the Bench, adding that the violence amounted to “an attack on the sovereignty of the nation.”

On November 3, the six UAPA accused, concluded their arguments before the Court in their pleas seeking bail.

All the five UAPA Accused have filed a Special Leave petition (SLP) before the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2, order denying bail to them.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State of NCT of Delhi

Hearing Date: December 3, 2025

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria

Tags: