Delhi riot was not spontaneous but pre-planned, Solicitor General tells Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 18, 2025) that the communal violence witnessed in Delhi in February 2020 must not be viewed as a “spontaneous” aftermath of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar, Mr. Mehta said the court should not buy into the “false narrative” being weaved in the media and other outlets in the public domain.

Delhi riots case hearing on November 18, 2025

He said the Delhi riot was nothing less than an “attack on the sovereignty of the nation”. The version of spontaneity being peddled was a “myth”.

“I would like the myth to be busted. This was not a spontaneous riot but well-designed, well-crafted, orchestrated, preplanned, choreographed riots, and this will emerge from the evidence collected,” Mr. Mehta argued briefly at the beginning of the hearing.

‘Police have evidence’

The top law officer said the police had evidence of “speech after speech, WhatsApp after WhatsApp, statement after statement” to show that there was a clear and discernible attempt to divide the society on communal lines.

“It was not a mere agitation on one act of the government,” he submitted.

The court was hearing the police’s response to bail pleas filed by former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and his co-accused Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rahman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Gulfisha Fatima in the Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case. They are facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for conspiring to instigate communal riots and armed rebellion. Khalid has been incarcerated for five years now.

Mr. Mehta, joined by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the police, said the delay in trial was caused by the accused themselves.

“We are ready to complete the trial in six months. But for every charge filed, the accused will argue for five years. On facts, these accused do not deserve to be released, so they delay the trial to gain a ground for bail,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

He referred to a photograph collected from the accused themselves showing all of them sitting together hatching the conspiracy.

Mr. Raju argued that there was no “material change in circumstances” in the case of Mr. Khalid that required the apex court to relook the earlier rejection of his bail pleas.

“A delay in trial proceedings caused solely due to the accused cannot be later used as a ‘material change in circumstances’ by him to seek bail. Khalid cannot cite five-year incarceration as a ground for bail,” Mr. Raju argued.

He further contended that there was no scope for a relook at Mr. Khalid’s bail plea on the ground of parity.

The accused persons had sought parity with Natasha Narwal, Devyangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha, who had got bail from the Supreme Court in the Delhi riots case in June 2021 after a year’s incarceration.

Mr. Raju said the earlier grants of bail in the case were erroneous as persons accused under the UAPA, a crime against the integrity of India, should be allowed his or her personal liberty only if they meet the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the Act. He said bail could not be granted solely on the basis of the provisions of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure when the additional rigours of UAPA also applied to the case in question.

The police affidavit in the apex court had accused Mr. Khalid and his co-accused of conspiring to use the “sponsored” CAA protests as a camouflage and a “radicalising catalyst” to engineer nation-wide communal riots to achieve the final goal of a regime change.