While opposing the bail pleas of anti-CAA activists in the Delhi violence larger conspiracy case, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) labelled them “anti-nationals donning the facade of intellectuals,” claiming that every time their bail is heard, “The New York Times writes something and social media rushes to defend them without realising who they are.”
This comes as the Delhi Police on Thursday continued opposing the bail petitions of anti-CAA activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Md Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed in the conspiracy case, in which they have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The prolonged incarceration of anti-CAA activists, now exceeding five years and more than 2,000 days for many, has drawn serious criticism, with many arguing that it represents a grave assault on democracy, as the activists continue to languish in jail under the draconian UAPA without trial or bail.
The Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that “when intellectuals become terrorists, they become more dangerous than those working on the ground.”
Appearing for the prosecution, ASG S.V. Raju played several video clips of speeches delivered by Sharjeel Imam, telling the court that they formed part of the evidence.
The clips showed Imam advocating chakka jams across major Indian cities, calling on Muslims to unite to cut off the “Chicken’s Neck” connecting mainland India to the Northeast, urging disruption of essential supplies to Delhi, and stating that the government must be paralysed and the courts could not be trusted.
Sharjeel Imam’s counsel countered that the prosecution was presenting selectively edited excerpts without providing the full context of the speeches.
When the bench asked whether these videos were indeed part of the case record, the ASG confirmed they were.
Sharjeel Imam’s counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, reiterated that the prosecution was relying on selectively edited portions while withholding context essential to an accurate understanding of the speeches.
Referring to WhatsApp messages circulated in groups such as the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and the Jamia Awareness Campaign Team, the ASG argued that the accused had conspired to “overthrow the Government” and bring about a “regime change” through orchestrated violence.
He submitted that the alleged conspiracy was timed to coincide with the visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump.
Calling the accused “anti-nationals and nuisances donning the facade of intellectuals and activists,” the ASG remarked that each time their bail pleas are heard, “The New York Times carries something,” and social media becomes active “without realising that they are anti-nationals under the facade of being intellectuals.”
He also relied on statements from protected witnesses to support the prosecution’s case.
At this stage, Justice Kumar asked whether the court could assess evidence during a bail hearing. The ASG responded that the court need not go into the correctness of the material but only be satisfied that a prima facie case exists.
Earlier in the week, the Delhi Police had argued that Umar Khalid could not seek parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021.
The prosecution submitted that the High Court’s order in their favour was based on an incorrect interpretation of the UAPA. Before the ASG began, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had briefly addressed the bench, asserting that the public statements made by the accused indicated a pre-planned conspiracy aimed at attacking the nation’s sovereignty.
The petitioners have already concluded their arguments, and the court will continue hearing the matter.
The 2020 Delhi violence left 53 people dead, 38 of them Muslims. It was an anti-Muslim riot in which BJP leaders, including Kapil Mishra, were recorded instigating crowds shortly before the violence broke out.
Many observers argue that instead of prosecuting those who incited and carried out the attacks, the state targeted activists and students who had peacefully opposed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), with critics alleging that these dissenters were falsely implicated in a distorted narrative of a “conspiracy” to incite the violence.
 labelled them “anti-nationals donning the facade of intellectuals,” claiming that every time their bail is heard, “The New York Times writes something and social media rushes to defend them without realising who they are.”){kind=link}