Delhi HC to Sharjeel Imam & Umar Khalid: Violence in the Name of Protests Is Not Free Speech

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech” as it dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, in a detailed 133-page verdict, said,“Any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted. Such actions must be regulated and checked by the State Machinery, as they do not fall within the ambit of the Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Association.”

Court held that the role of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid is prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy, noting that they had delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilization of members of the Muslim community. The plea of parity with co-accused was also rejected. The judges said that although others were present in conspiratorial meetings and WhatsApp groups, their role was “limited when juxtaposed with these Appellants.”

The prosecution had alleged that both Imam and Khalid were masterminds of the conspiracy. It submitted that Imam either himself formed or directed others to form various WhatsApp groups linking Jamia, DU and AMU students after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed on 04.12.2019, attended conspiratorial meetings, and gave inflammatory speeches across India in Aligarh, Asanol and Chakand.

On the other hand, Umar Khalid was alleged to have delivered a speech in Amravati on 17.02.2020, urging protests to coincide with the State visit of the U.S. President, allegedly timed to provoke violence and draw international attention.

“These roles… cannot be lightly brushed aside,” the Court observed, adding that prima facie Imam and Khalid were the first to act after the CAB was passed, creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in Muslim-populated areas calling for protests and chakka-jams, including disruption of essential supplies.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that Imam and Khalid were the “intellectual architects behind the entire conspiracy”, working in tandem with other co-conspirators, each playing a specific role.

The Court noted,“Keeping in view the nature of the allegations, and specifically the submission of the learned Solicitor General and the learned SPP that the present is not a case of regular protest/riot matter, but rather a pre-meditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy to commit unlawful activities threatening the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India, it becomes the arduous task of the Court to strike a balance between individual rights and the interests of the nation, as well as the safety and security of the general public at large. Therefore, these appeals do not succeed.”

The Court also clarified that while courts are empowered to grant bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and to secure the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, “the grant of bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in trial is not a universally applicable rule in all cases.”

“Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the present appeals, that is, CRL.A. 184/2022 and CRL.A. 631/2024, are dismissed,” the Court added.

On July 9, 2025, the High Court reserved its verdict after briefly hearing submissions from the prosecution as well as from counsels representing the accused persons, namely Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shadab.

The prosecution, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, strongly opposed the bail pleas of the accused, arguing, "Imam and Khalid used this particular day (of the riots) to defame India on a global level. I will show documents to prove why the bench must not treat this as any other bail matter. The well determined and well orchestrated mechanisms will show deviations which lead to no ground of bail."

During an earlier bail hearing of Sharjeel Imam, his counsel had told the court that the accused had no relation to the place and time of the alleged conspiracy.He had contended that the speeches by the Imam, as well as WhatsApp communication, did not contain any instigation for violence.

Earlier, on October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court had dismissed Umar Khalid’s appeal against the trial court’s refusal to grant him bail. While denying relief, the court had held, "This court expresses the inescapable conclusion that allegations against the appellant are prima facie true."

Imam’s bail plea, too, had been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai on February 11, 2022, observing that his speeches were intended to create “public disorder” and “incitement to violence” while also appearing to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. The Supreme Court had more recently refused to entertain Imam’s Article 32 petition, noting that he could not have approached the top court while his bail plea was pending before the High Court.

Besides Imam, there are nearly seventeen accused in the case. Delhi Police’s Special Cell had registered FIR 59 of 2020, naming several individuals including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman.

The accused have been charged under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity, rioting, and murder.

The case stems from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act led to large-scale incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and injuring thousands.

Parallelly, proceedings continue before the trial court, which is currently at the stage of arguments on the charge. According to the prosecution, the violence that engulfed the capital was not a spontaneous outburst but a pre-planned conspiracy aimed at destabilising the government during a politically sensitive period.

The state alleges that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were among the main conspirators behind the riots. The accused, however, deny these charges, asserting that they were merely exercising their democratic right to dissent.

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam vs State and other connected matters.

Date: 2 September 2025

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur