Vehemently opposing bail pleas the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, the Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the violence was not a sudden flare-up but a “well-designed, well-crafted and pre-planned attack” aimed at destabilising the country’s social fabric and sovereignty.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opened his arguments by asserting that the commonly circulated view of the riots being a reaction to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) needed to be dismantled at the outset.
“This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well designed, well crafted, well orchestrated, pre-planned riot,” he told the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. He said the evidence collected showed a deliberate effort to inflame communal tensions.
According to him, “speech after speech” delivered in the lead-up to the violence pointed to a systematic attempt to divide communities rather than merely express dissent against legislation.Citing one such instance, Mehta referred to Sharjeel Imam’s purported remark expressing a “heartfelt wish for a ‘chakka jaam’ in every city where Muslims reside”, adding that the messaging was neither confined to Delhi nor restricted to peaceful protest.
The Solicitor General also pushed back against claims circulating on social media suggesting that the accused were being unfairly targeted or subjected to extraordinary delays. He contended that the delays in trial proceedings were “of their own making”, emphasising that the accused had filed repeated applications and petitions that slowed progress in the lower courts.
He added that a narrative portraying the matter as a crackdown on youth was being fuelled online, but insisted that the legal process had been hampered primarily by the defence.The police told a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria that the six accused persons cannot seek parity with three other co-accused who were granted bail earlier by the Delhi High Court and which was confirmed by the top court.
This was because the Supreme Court had clearly said that the bail order of co-accused Natasha Narwal, Devangna Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha cannot be treated as a precedent."The bail orders were not supposed to be used as precedent. That is clear. The law which was enunciated (by the High Court) was not approved by this court (Supreme Court)," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju said.
Pertinently, the issue of parity was raised even before by accused like Umar Khalid and was rejected by the Court in his previous bail petitions.Hence, he cannot raise the same issue by filing repeated bail petitions unless there is some material change in circumstances, it was argued by ASG Raju.
The police’s arguments came as the court began hearing bail pleas filed by activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Rehman. All five have been charged under the anti-terror law UAPA and former IPC provisions for allegedly acting as “masterminds” behind the February 2020 violence.Additional Solicitor General S V Raju also appeared for the Delhi Police, continuing the government’s opposition to the grant of bail.
Follow us
