2020 Delhi Riots| ‘Nothing Inflammatory, No Communal Content’: Sibal Defends Umar Khalid’s Speech in SC

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of Umar Khalid.

Opening his arguments, Sibal underscored that Khalid has been in custody for five years and three months, despite the prosecution not alleging his presence in Delhi at the time of the violence. “I am charged only in FIR 59 on the theory of a larger conspiracy. The only allegation is a speech I delivered in Amravati, Maharashtra,” he said.

Sibal 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.

Playing Khalid’s Amravati speech in court, Sibal submitted that it carried no communal content or incitement. “He says if you fire bullets at me, we’ll take it. He speaks of compassion. Nothing inflammatory,” he said. He also pointed out that Khalid was in Munger, not Delhi, when the violence occurred.

Challenging the UAPA charges, Sibal asked: “How is this terrorism? What have these kids done? You may say they exceeded limits during a protest, but you cannot call it a terrorist act.”

He pressed for bail on three grounds; parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal (who secured bail in 2021), prolonged incarceration, and change in law.

Sibal argued that the prosecution’s “pick and choose” approach was inexplicable. “Rahul Roy is not an accused. Yogendra Yadav is not an accused. Safoora Zargar is on bail. What is this model of investigation?” He added that WhatsApp groups cited by the prosecution did not implicate Khalid, who was not an admin and did not send messages.

Refuting the allegation that Khalid’s speech triggered violence, Sibal pointed out that he had already been discharged in FIR 101: the only case directly naming him. “If they believe bombs were thrown and people died because of my speeches, why am I not named in the other chargesheets?," Sibal submitted.

Highlighting the broader implications of prolonged incarceration under anti-terror laws, Sibal told the bench: “This is punitive. A way to deter other university students. For what? A chakka jam? We’ve seen similar protests during the Gujjar agitation, the farmers’ protests, even George Fernandes’ movement. You can’t put students in jail for five years and call it terrorism.”

Concluding, Sibal urged the Court not to allow indefinite imprisonment without trial. “Prosecute me, convict me and send me to jail; but you cannot keep me incarcerated endlessly.”

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.