New Delhi, Oct 27: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to give two weeks to Delhi Police for filing its reply on bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider in the UAPA case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi.
As the hearing commenced, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, sought time to file a counter-affidavit.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria refused to grant two weeks and said it will hear the matter on October 31.
“We have given you enough time. Last time while issuing notice we had said in open court that we will hear this matter on October 27 and will dispose it off.
“Frankly speaking, in bail matters there is no question of filing counter,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, submitted that the petitioners have been in jail for over five years.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the whole case is about the delay in trial and there should not be further delay in the hearing.
The top court on September 22 had issued notice to the Delhi Police and sought its response.
The activists have moved the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court order passed on September 2.
The high court denied bail to nine people, including Khalid and Imam, saying “conspiratorial” violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed.
Besides Khalid and Imam, those who faced bail rejection are Fatima, Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Shadab Ahmed.
The bail plea of another accused, Tasleem Ahmed, was rejected by a different high court bench on September 2.
The high court said the Constitution affords citizens the right to protest and carry out demonstrations or agitations, provided they are orderly, peaceful and without arms, and such actions must be within the bounds of law.
While the high court said the right to participate in peaceful protests and to make speeches in public meetings was said to have been protected under Article 19(1)(a), and couldn’t be blatantly curtailed, it observed the right was “not absolute” and “subject to reasonable restrictions”.
“If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law and order situation in the country,” the bail rejection order said.
Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused persons were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the erstwhile IPC for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
The violence erupted during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.
The accused, who have denied all the allegations against them, have been in jail since 2020 and had moved the high court after a trial court rejected their bail pleas. (PTI)
