Questions of fact: What SC said during Umar Khalids bail hearing in Delhi riots case| Key Details
Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Rehman have been booked under the stringent anti-terror law and relevant IPC provisions, accused of being the "masterminds" behind the February 2020 riots that resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries.
New Delhi: During a crucial Supreme Court hearing on bail pleas related to the 2020 Delhi riots, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, argued on Tuesday that the violence stemming from the anti-CAA protests was a calculated "attempt to divide society on communal lines," rather than a spontaneous uprising.
Mehta also contended that the accused themselves have contributed to delays in the trial, a point that has been a significant factor in the ongoing legal proceedings.
"There was an attempt to divide society on communal lines, it was not merely an agitation against CAA," Tushar Mehta informed the top court. He presented his arguments while opposing the bail applications filed by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and other individuals currently incarcerated in connection with the riots.
Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Rehman have been booked under the stringent anti-terror law and relevant IPC provisions, accused of being the "masterminds" behind the February 2020 riots that resulted in 53 fatalities and over 700 injuries.
In parallel proceedings, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the police to provide an update on the status of their investigations into the 2020 Delhi riots. A bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain issued this directive while hearing a series of petitions concerning the February 2020 violence, including those seeking FIRs against several political leaders for alleged hate speeches.
The High Court bench orally noted that these petitions have remained pending for six years, despite the existence of an alternate legal remedy that the petitioners have not pursued. Counsel for one of the petitioners drew attention to the deaths that occurred during the riots. The bench responded that FIRs had already been registered and investigations were ongoing, suggesting there was "nothing" further for the court to address in the existing petitions.
However, the petitioner's lawyer alleged that the police probe was not being conducted fairly and urged the court to order an independent investigation. The bench advised that such challenges should be raised before a magistrate, who would supervise the process, stating that the High Court could not entertain factual disputes in writ petitions. "You can give that evidence to the magistrate, who will look into it and pass orders," the court suggested.
Reiterating that the petitioners had failed to pursue the appropriate legal route for six years, the bench remarked, "These petitions are pending for so long for no good reason. FIRs have been registered and the police are investigating." The court scheduled the next hearing for November 20 and requested the Delhi Police counsel to submit the current status of the investigation and the number of FIRs filed.