Breaking down Delhi anti-Hindu Riot bail hearing in SC: Prosecution argument on how it was a regime change operation, videos of Sharjeel Imam’s speeches, rioters mobilising and more

The “larger conspiracy” case stemming from the February 2020 Delhi anti-Hindu riots, lodged as FIR 59/2020 and prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), has been the focus of several bail petitions that have been brought before the Supreme Court. Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmad, and Mohd Saleem Khan are all accused of conspiring, planning, organizing, and funding a systematic campaign to incite Delhi anti-Hindu violence to bring about a ‘regime change’ in India, under the garb of anti-CAA protests. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria are currently considering their pleas.

These bail requests are not first ones. Every petitioner has already encountered a negative ruling on several occasions. Umar Khalid was denied bail by the trial court in March 2022 following a comprehensive ruling that, based on a preliminary review of the chargesheet, the material revealed a deliberate conspiracy behind the disturbances in which he was purportedly one of the main conspirators. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in October 2022, ruling that the accusations, which included alleged terrorist activity and criminal conspiracy under the UAPA, exceeded the high threshold of “reasonable grounds for believing” that the accusations were prima facie true as contemplated by Section 43D(5) UAPA. Most recently, on September 2, 2025, another Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Khalid, Imam, and seven others’ bail appeals in the same larger-conspiracy case, emphasizing the prosecution’s case that the violence was the result of a coordinated plan rather than a random clash.

The fundamental difference is evident even before the Supreme Court. The appellant has repeatedly emphasized that there is “no proof of violence” directly attributable to these petitioners, that some of them were not even physically present in North-East Delhi during the worst of the riots, and that the case primarily rests on memberships in WhatsApp groups, belated “protected” witness statements, and speeches that, according to counsel, fall within the acceptable bounds of dissent and political critique of the NRC and Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). However, the Delhi Police has consistently maintained in its affidavits and now in its oral arguments that what is at stake is not isolated sloganeering or disorderly protest, but rather a “deep-rooted, premeditated and orchestrated conspiracy” to weaponize anti-CAA protests as a cover for a planned attack on the nation’s sovereignty and the authority of the State, timed with the visit of then-US President Donald Trump.  

Hearing recap: Prosecution presents two videos, comprehensive arguments on how Delhi anti-Hindu Riots was a regime change operation by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and other accused

The prosecution has in the Supreme Court so far methodically argued that the violence in February 2020 was the result of a well-thought-out conspiracy rather than an out-of-control protest.

Appearing on behalf of the State, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju has done two things at once. First, he has disproved the popular narrative that the accused are innocent “activists” or “intellectuals” who have been wronged because of their political beliefs and second, he used speeches, WhatsApp conversations, and timelines to show that there is evidence of a larger plan to paralyze the capital, internationalize the unrest during the Trump visit, and, in their words, even attempting a “regime change operation.” 

Sharjeel Imam’s speeches and the conspiracy’s larger ideological framing were the main topics of discussion during the hearing on 20th November (Thursday). Before the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, ASG Raju played a number of clips in which the Imam is heard discussing a national “chakka jam” intended to choke Delhi and target the vital Siliguri corridor, also known as the “chicken neck,” which connects the North-East to the Indian mainland.

The video which was played in the Supreme Court by the prosecution was released exclusively by OpIndia.

EXCLUSIVE! Delhi Riot bail hearing

ASG Raju plays a video of Sharjeel Imam speeches. Imam referred to CAA, NRC and Kashmir. He spoke about Chakka Jam, incited violence, urging Muslims to take to streets. He spoke about cutting off Chicken’s Neck and NE

Video played in SC pic.twitter.com/FFsl1hDzin

— OpIndia.com (@OpIndia_com) November 20, 2025

The prosecution argued accuraptely and exposed how the rhetoric extends far beyond the scope of civil disobedience. Imam, who is trained as an engineer, is heard urging supporters to block important routes so that “Delhi should not get milk” and that the North-East could be cut off by seizing control of a 16 kilometer stretch. He also incorporates the repeal of Article 370, the Ayodhya ruling, and the Triple Talaq law to make the case that Muslims had not mobilized sufficiently in the past and should now take advantage of the CAA’s opportunity to launch a decisive confrontation.

The Delhi Police is utilizing this information to emphasise two things. One was that the ultimate goal was to bring the State to its knees through economic strangulation, territorial disturbance, and persistent communal strife, but the CAA and NRC were being used as a pretext, a handy banner around which to gather sympathy. Second, people like Imam are more dangerous because of their purportedly “intellectual” nature. According to ASG, there is a new and concerning trend in which educated professionals, such as doctors and engineers, “are not doing their professions but engaging in anti-national activities.” These individuals, who received their education at public expense, are more dangerous than “ground-level” actors who merely toss stones or take part in localized violence when they use their training and prestige to plan, justify, or direct illegal acts. The main argument of his submission was that the romanticized story of “persecuted scholars” is false, the State claims that the record shows intentional instigation to obstruct, interfere with necessary supplies, and weaponize protest locations as nodes in a much larger disruptive network.

The WhatsApp evidence also plays a role in this. The ASG guided the Bench through communications and group structures, including the Delhi Protest Support Group, the Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ), the Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC), and other relevant discussions. According to the State, they were coordination centers rather than informal student forums where conversations about fundraising, repairing protest locations, coordinating chakka jams, and influencing media narratives took place. According to ASG Raju, the chats, when read in conjunction with speeches and on-the-ground events, demonstrate that the petitioners and their associates were organizers and architects rather than passive participants. They used closed-door, encrypted channels to plan a nationwide escalation that would coincide with the visit of then US President Donald Trump to Delhi.

From their point of view, the term “regime change operation” that appears in the Delhi Police’s affidavit accurately describes what the communications reveal as the ultimate goal, which is to undermine the elected government by rendering the capital unmanageable and portraying India as a burning nation abroad.

OpIndia also revealed a specific message from the DPSG chat group, where all co-conspirators of the Delhi anti-Hindu riot were present, where the protests being a precursor to a ‘regime change operation’ was mentioned.

The message in question was sent by Rahul Roy on the 20th of January 2020 – a full month before the Delhi anti-Hindu riot. In the message, Rahul Roy mentions that the protest was a precursor to a regime change operation, spearheaded by the Jamia Coordination Committee.

In one significant interaction with the Bench, ASG SV Raju was asked whether the Court should be delving into such comprehensive material at all during the bail hearing. His response was measured, the defence, he said, sought to limit the debate to “delay” and build a picture of innocent dissenters languishing in jail while the prosecution, on the other hand, was required to demonstrate that there is substantial prima facie evidence of a significant conspiracy. The statutory restriction on bail applies under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA once there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are true. The court just considers whether there is sufficient evidence to meet the threshold, rather than evaluating the final reliability of each piece of evidence as it would at trial. He insisted that in that narrow sense, it was essential to play the films and point to conversations in order to refute the idea that the case is based solely on “political” or flimsy evidence.

To bolster his point, ASG Raju also showed a video which demonstrated how the protestors had mobilised, leading to the lynching of constable Ratan Lal. Through CCTV footage, he demonstrated how the rioters first, as per a planned conspiracy, covered the cameras, disconnected or damanged the CCTV cameras which were too high to cover, and then, once that was done, unleashed violence.

OpIndia reconstructed the video from the details of the chargesheet. The video can be seen below:

Important Delhi Riots EXCLUSIVE update Read More