New Delhi: Five years ago, the national capital witnessed one of the deadliest Hindu-Muslim riots in post-Partition history. For three days, northeast Delhi burned as Muslim neighbourhoods were ravaged. Bodies lay on the streets, houses were smashed, and people hid in absolute terror, at a time when Donald Trump, during his first stint as US President, was in the city, just a few kilometres away.
The Hindu-Muslim riots followed Delhi BJP leader Kapil Mishra’s decision to hold a pro-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) rally in Northeast Delhi’s Jaffrabad. During the rally, Mishra gave the Delhi Police a “three-day” ultimatum to get the roads cleared of anti-CAA protesters.
Today, he is Delhi’s law minister. In April this year, a Delhi court ordered a probe against Mishra in connection with the violence. Days later, the probe was stayed after Mishra moved a plea.
At least 53 people died and over 600 were injured while the rest of the country watched in horror. By the time the forces moved in three days later, this part of the city had been reduced to rubble—burnt cars, charred shops, desecrated religious places, damaged schools, empty bullet cartridges and stones scattered across the streets. Then chief minister Arvind Kejriwal came under sharp criticism for his government’s response.
According to the police, 755 FIRs were lodged and 1,818 people arrested. But it was FIR 59/2020—which invoked the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—that garnered the most attention. Specifically because of names like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, all student leaders, who were accused of involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the deadly violence.
Cut to present day, and the trial is yet to gather pace. Justice and closure have been nowhere in sight for the past five years. The trial is currently in the arguments on charge phase—a preliminary stage where the court is still hearing arguments as to whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.
With a total of 18 accused, judicial proceedings in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case began on 16 September, 2020, almost seven months after the communal violence. The trajectory of the case has been a saga of delays, procedural disruptions, disputes, missing paperwork, disagreement among defence counsels of the multiple accused, and an unending cycle of ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ for many of the accused, like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others, who have seen multiple bail plea rejections. Their bail pleas are currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Over the last five years, the courts have dealt with over 17,000 pages of chargesheets, multiple bail pleas by each accused, and a host of other applications—sometimes grappling with as many as 10 a day.
There have been more than 510 court dates and at least 166 adjournments, substantiated by 1,156 copies of judicial proceedings and orders, as of 10 September. This excludes strikes and unforeseen incidents like a courtroom fire.
Of the 18 accused, six are out on bail. Many of the others have been incarcerated for nearly or more than five years. They are accused by the prosecution of being conspirators engaged in unlawful activities against the nation. And while a city court last year placed the onus of the delay in proceedings on them, the Delhi High Court ruled earlier this month that prolonged incarceration and trial delays alone cannot be grounds for bail.
However, ThePrint’s exclusive analysis of nearly 1,500 copies of orders and judicial proceedings listed till 10 September this year—including interlocutory applications such as bails, applications filed under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleas against harassment in jail, medical treatments, e-mulakats, and other personal requests like keeping the Quran in prison—highlights that no one factor can explain the many delays, more so because of the numerous phases in this sprawling case.
Also Read: 4 yrs since Delhi riots — ‘shoddy probe, erroneous charge sheets’, 183 acquittals & 75 discharges
166 adjournments and counting
Of the 18 accused, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Tahir Hussain, Saleem Malik, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Tasleem Ahmed, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Salim Khan and Shadab Ahmed are in jail. Ishrat Jahan, Mohammad Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha have been released on bail.
Of the 166 adjournments in the case, at least 98 were on technical grounds, while the number of adjournments sought or ordered on various petitions is much higher.
In some instances (besides the 166 adjournments), part arguments were heard in one or more pleas and then the matter was adjourned either on technical grounds, or on a multitude of other factors, like the defence counsel or public prosecutor having to leave for other matters, or counsels seeking more or a different time to argue on a particular petition or interlocutory matter.
At least 36 of the 166 adjournments arose because of defence counsels’ absence at hearings on account of unrelated court matters, family emergencies, illness, and so on; unavailability of both main and proxy counsels with pleas/main matter listed; and even disagreements among counsels in coming up with a sequence to make arguments on charge.
Meanwhile, at least 26 adjournments can be directly attributed to delays on part of the prosecution, including special public prosecutor’s absence due to factors like illness or other matters in other courts, and requests for more time to file replies due to personal difficulties, hospitalisation of relatives, and others.
Compliance under Section 207 of CrPC—which mandates that the accused must be provided copies of police reports and other relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution, without delay and free of cost, so they are aware of the evidence against them and prepare their defence—is necessary for the trial to move to the stage of addressing arguments on charge. But counsels’ absence on multiple dates, late responses and other concerns slowed the process down.
Even with respect to arguments on charge, which had begun to be heard in 2023 and are yet to be completed, there have been several delays owing to frequent adjournments over defence counsels’ absences, them not reaching a consensus on the schedule, strikes, and even because on multiple occasions, no counsel came up to address arguments.
‘Pehle aap’ standoff
On 11 September 2023, when Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad was ready to start arguments on charge, the counsels of Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal—who are out on bail—had cited a Delhi High Court judgment to object that before doing so, the prosecution must clarify if the investigation is complete. To this, Prasad had said that the date had been given a month and a half ago, and that this should have been moved in time.
However, Tasleem Ahmed said that he wanted the arguments to begin. Other proxy counsels said they would seek instructions on this from their seniors and inform the court.
“He (SPP) further submits that his objection may also be recorded since counsels who are pressing for this objection, their clients are on bail in this case, while other counsels whose clients are in judicial custody, would later on claim bail due to delay in trial,” reads a copy of the proceedings.
On the next date, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal’s counsel filed an application seeking clarity on the status of investigation before arguments on charge, while Asif Iqbal Tanha’s counsel filed an application seeking directions to the investigating agency, Delhi Police.
A week later on 18 September, Meeran Haider’s counsel also sought directions to the investigating agency regarding its investigation, while Athar Khan’s counsel requested deferment until the probe was complete.
Counsels for Khalid Saifi, Faizan Khan, Ishrat Jahan, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Saleem Malik, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmad and Gulfisha Fatima adopted these arguments. Salim Khan and counsels for Tasleem Ahmad, Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain asked that arguments begin. The SPP here noted that applications were filed and supplied to court only on the day the matter was being brought up in court, despite prior directions to provide advance copies.
Since this was followed by bail applications, and arguments between the SPP and Tasleem Ahmed’s advocate Mehmood Pracha amid the hearing of his bail plea, it was only on 20 September next year that things in the main case showed signs of movement—only to come to a halt once again.
The SPP filed a brief, outlining the role of each accused, with copies for their counsels, who then agreed to figure out a sequence among themselves regarding who would start the arguments and who would follow, and requested a date in October.
But on 4 October 2024, as the court began hearing the matter, it found that the counsels were “not ready” even as “more than sufficient time was given”. Many of them submitted that a consensus on the sequence could not be reached due to factors like “personal difficulty” or “unavoidable circumstances”, and sought more time with the assurance of asking for no more adjournments later.
Tahir Hussain’s counsel, for instance, said that he had been recently engaged and needed time with the bulky records. Ishrat Jahan’s counsel said he would speak last due to his client having a minor role.
Hearing these submissions, the court expressed surprise as day-to-day hearings had been ordered. “The accused persons are warned that the matter should not get delayed further unnecessarily on their part and any delay will be viewed by the court seriously.”
Meanwhile, Devangana Kalita’s counsel moved an application for inspection of the malkhana—a designated space to store evidence and other materials seized by the police during investigations.
Finally, on 21 October last year, Tahir Hussain’s counsel began the arguments on charge, and on 6 December, an adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel as the senior counsel was appearing in other riot matters. Khalid Saifi’s arguments followed Hussain’s, but on 15 January this year, the court said the arguments could not be heard as interim bail applications for Tahir Hussain and Shifa Ur Rehman’s Delhi assembly poll nominations were pending. On 24 January, Saifi’s proxy counsel sought adjournment as the main counsel was busy in another court.
On 12 February, as Saifi’s counsel concluded his arguments, Gulfisha’s counsel requested adjournment as the main counsel was out of town. On 26 February, the SPP objected, submitting that counsels of the accused were not following day-to-day hearing directions or a coordinated sequence. While those who were ready were allowed to address their arguments that day, the next two dates—17 February and 21 February—saw no progress due to strikes in court.
Following Gulfisha Fatima’s conclusion of arguments, Tasleem Ahmed’s counsel argued on 4 April that there was no evidence against him and requested that the prosecution specify material in the chargesheet. To this, the SPP said he would give a rebuttal after completion of arguments of all accused. When Safoora Zargar’s counsel said he wouldn’t be able to address arguments as he would be out of town the following week, the SPP suggested other counsels start arguments.
But a copy of the judicial proceedings from the next date, four days later, noted, “Nobody on behalf of the accused persons is ready to address arguments.” Umar Khalid’s counsel mentioned that the counsels would reach a consensus on further sequence by the next date. On 16 April, Safoora’s counsel sought 21 April to address arguments, and Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Asif Iqbal Tanha’s counsels said they would follow.
Again on 27 May, after Safoora Zargar’s arguments were concluded, and the prosecution was asked to give its rebuttal in writing on her role and evidence specific to her, the proxy counsel for Shifa-Ur-Rehman said that the main counsel was out of town and sought 5 June as the next date. However, SPP said the matter should be taken up amid Tahir Hussain’s bail application hearing on 29 May, and the court agreed. But similar issues persisted on this date.
On 2 June, after Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who was hearing the matter, was transferred out and the new judge took over, the arguments on charge couldn’t be heard as all concerned parties needed to consult on the new schedule. ASJ Lalit Kumar noted that considerable time had lapsed and directed that arguments be expedited. On 6 June, when the matter was listed for filing of schedule for fresh arguments on charge by SPP and the counsels, it was decided that the matter shall be resumed on 2 July after summer vacations.
However, by then, ASJ Bajpai’s transfer was revoked and he was brought back. On this date, Shifa-Ur-Rehman’s proxy counsel said the main counsel would be available only five days later, and that the Shahdara Bar Association was also on strike. The SPP contested this by saying that Rehman’s counsel could argue via virtual conferencing. But the counsels of even the other accused were not ready to start their arguments.
Again on 22 July, after Asif Iqbal Tanha’s arguments began, the proxy counsel submitted that the main counsel was busy in the Supreme Court, adding that the main counsel had appeared via virtual conference a day prior, and requested adjournment to 24 July. The SPP opposed the adjournment, citing unnecessary delays.
On 1 August, after Shadab Ahmed’s arguments were concluded, counsels for Ishrat Jahan and Faizan Khan contended that they would be arguing last. Meeran Haider had had no communication with his advocate on when they would begin the arguments which was also the case for Saleem Malik. Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal’s counsel too said they would address arguments as an order of this court had been challenged in the high court.
Moreover, Salim Khan’s counsel said his bail application was pending in the high court, and would be addressed the next month. Athar Khan, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam also said they would speak to their counsels. Imam added that since he was the second last accused in the chargesheet, he wanted to address arguments in the end. The SPP again objected, saying that only eight of the total accused had addressed arguments so far.
Four days later, on the next date, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal’s counsel said he was ready to address arguments, subject to the outcome of his pending high court petition, with liberty to re-argue if needed after its disposal. The counsel concluded the arguments on 5 August, and Khalid, Malik and Salim Khan’s counsels gave their dates starting 18 August.
However, on the next two consecutive dates—7 August and 12 August—the court noted yet again that nobody came up. On 22 and 27 August, there was a strike in court, and according to the request by Umar Khalid’s counsel, the matter was adjourned.
Amid all this, those in jail continue to try for bail, even as procedural snarls and courtroom standoffs impact the trial.
Also Read: A burnt shop & ‘blunder’: How Akram Malik was charged, then acquitted in a Delhi riots case
Disputes, missing paperwork & scheduling issues
The case has seen at least six adjournments that can be directly attributed to both counsels, apart from instances where both parties didn’t turn up at the court, or had incomplete paperwork.
A key episode of adjournment occurred while the court was hearing Tasleem Ahmed’s bail application on 26 August 2023—back when the case hadn’t reached the arguments on charge stage—when his counsel Mehmood Pracha and SPP Amit Prasad entered a shouting match, making things “ugly and acrimonious”. The matter had to be adjourned as the court said it couldn’t “hear both the parties in such an ugly atmosphere”.
The tiff between the two spilled over to further hearings, leading to more adjournments or deferrals. A copy of the proceedings in November 2023 mentions that Pracha claimed that he had had “private investigations done” on Prasad, and found that the SPP had “in an underhand manner, taken money in cash from the police”.
SPP Prasad in turn pointed out that advocate Pracha “cannot represent an accused in this case as he himself has been mentioned in the statement of one public protected witness namely ‘SMITH’ and there is conflict of interest”, and without this issue being decided, he could not address arguments in the case. However, Tasleem Ahmed insisted that he wanted to be represented by Pracha.
“As far as the court is concerned, the proceedings must continue as it impacts/hampers the case of all other accused persons and even the case of prosecution,” the court had noted, putting up the pending applications for different dates.
The tension between the two was also evident on another date back in 2021, when Pracha was representing both Gulfisha Fatima and Tasleem Ahmed. SPP Prasad was an hour and a half late, and the matter had to be adjourned. The court noted that the SPP would have to “make suitable arrangements as there are matters for arguments on bail application in the present case almost every day”, adding that the adjournment had been necessitated due to the SPP’s absence even as the date had been given at both their convenience. After the SPP finally arrived and mentioned that he had been stuck in a traffic jam, an argument ensued between him and Pracha.
Among the 98 technical adjournments, there’s an instance of lack of coordination between the SPP and the counsel in a hearing of Salim Khan’s interim bail plea on 6 November 2023. While the proxy counsel said the main counsel would be joining soon, SPP Prasad submitted that he had to appear in the Shraddha Walker murder case trial in Saket court that had been fixed in advance. He alleged that even though he had informed the proxy counsel about the issue in advance and asked him not to take up that date, the other counsel had apparently insisted.
Other technical adjournments took place because of petitions of the accused being listed in Delhi High Court or Supreme Court, and counsels having to appear for them, besides pending orders (bail, etc.) in some instances, or other cases against the accused being heard in other courts.
Further, more adjournments were because of confusions in paperwork, presiding officer being on leave or unavailable due to other events, change of presiding officer, investigators catching Covid, the court being busy—with bail applications in the same matter or other riot cases, or dictating other orders—and court seeking responses from stakeholders, or being unhappy with responses and seeking clarifications.
In some instances, the ahlmad—the court’s record keeper—was also asked to file responses over confusions in paperwork by the court.
Section 207 & procedural delays
The 1,156 copies of judicial proceedings and orders indicate how the larger conspiracy case has grown into a massive file.
On several occasions, it was argued that between September 2020 and August 2023, the accused kept filing applications, including under CrPC Section 207, and delaying the stage of arguments on charge. Even the Kakardooma court, rejecting Umar Khalid’s bail plea last year, had observed that the defence was delaying the trial by moving separate applications demanding the prosecution be asked if the investigation was complete, before considering framing of charges.
Even as the court had ordered day-to-day hearings on the charges, getting the arguments started was difficult.
Among the many documents sought under Section 207 were hard copies of chargesheets, digitally searchable copies, clear copies of illegible documents, relied and unrelied documents, chats from Whatsapp groups of police groups, chats of other accused, data of accused as well as witnesses, CCTV footage, redacted statements of protected witnesses, video recordings of statements of unprotected and protected witnesses with necessary redactions, and issues with supplied documents in connection with the five chargesheets filed in the case.
Courts dismissed many such applications if they were filed after the accused had already submitted that they had completed the process under Section 207.
In multiple instances when the matters linked to this process were to be heard, either the counsels of the concerned accused or the SPP, or both, remained absent. At other times, replies and responses were not filed, which then resulted in the matters being stretched on to next hearings, causing further delays.
For instance, in August 2021, for applications filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha and Devangana Kalita seeking data and electronic records, the SPP said that the reply couldn’t be prepared due to “personal difficulties”, seeking more time to segregate the various “voluminous” records.
On 18 May 2022, when multiple applications were to be heard—including 207s moved by Salim Khan, Shadab Ahmad, Meeran Haider, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Umar Khalid, Athar Khan, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, Safoora Zargar and Gulfisha Fatima—counsels of some of the accused were absent. Even the SPP was unavailable due to illness.
Proxy counsels for the accused have also asked for adjournment in Section 207 matters, citing absence of main counsels. No counsel turned up for the 207s of Umar Khalid and Shadab Khan multiple times “despite repeated calls”.
“It is seen that nobody had appeared for accused Umar Khalid even on the last date of hearing. In fact, when the interim bail application of the accused was listed yesterday, the counsel for the accused was present and was also apprised about the pending application for today. The conduct of the accused is not proper. While he wants the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour in an interim bail application, he does not want to argue his application under Section 207 CrPC despite being specifically aware of the same,” the court had said in December 2022.
This issue has not been limited to absences, or delay in filing replies to applications. For example, in response to a CrPC Section 207 application, the Investigating Officer sought 15 days to obtain fund sanction for hard copies of the chargesheet. On 21 October 2020, ASJ Amitabh Rawat directed the investigating agency to supply the chargesheet promptly to all accused. On 3 November, the prosecution said the order had been challenged in the High Court, which stayed it a week later, and then vacated the stay in March 2021 after the IO confirmed that the copies were ready.
Moreover, in several instances pertaining to 207s filed for electronic data, the prosecution raised privacy concerns, saying collective mobile phone data meant one accused’s private information could be accessed by others. Some counsels, however, argued that since this was a conspiracy case, they needed access to the mobile phone data of other accused, and that supply of personal data, including videos and photos, should remain open as they were stated to be related to each other. On the other hand, some accused “categorically denied and protested” against sharing the mobile data.
In October 2020 too, Devangana Kalita’s counsel had noted that a reply to a CrPC Section 207 application had not been filed for five months. The SPP said that the requested data was voluminous and involved multiple accused and witnesses, raising privacy issues and adding that the investigation was still underway.
On 5 April 2023, the court said compliance under Section 207 for all accused except Devangana Kalita had been completed, adding that the prosecution could give each accused only their own mobile phone data, not others. The entire process was finally completed for all accused on 5 August that year.
Personal requests—from milk to medical care
Over the last five years, beyond bail pleas and superdaris for mobile phones, the accused have repeatedly approached the court over issues ranging from alleged mental torture and harassment by jail officials, to requests for shoes, newspapers, books, medical treatment, family phone calls, electric kettles, milk brands and even KYC for bank accounts, among others. These too were marked by procedural delays and late replies.
In July 2023, Shadab Ahmed had sought directions for tuberculosis tests. Four days later, the court noted that the jail superintendent had not filed the reply as directed, and another four days later, it expressed dissatisfaction with the reply filed, requiring the plea to be listed again.
In December, while questioning the chief medical officer about his health, the court noted that the SPP had not responded to his interim bail application despite directions. In another instance, the court recorded that the jail superintendent had not filed a report on Athar Khan’s application for a five-minute phone call with his family, and issued a fresh notice.
Umar Khalid’s application for interim bail to attend sister’s wedding function was heard last year, where his counsel said only the function in Delhi, which he wished to attend, needed verification. But the SPP requested two–three days for verification of the Delhi addresses. Khalid’s applications for appropriate dental treatment and care came up on at least five dates till the court granted him relief. His application for electric kettle from outside for himself and others in the ward came up at least six times till it was disposed of.
Apart from approaching the court for shoes and newspapers, Tasleem Ahmed also had approached the court in September 2024, seeking change in the brand of milk as the one provided did not suit him. The court then asked the jail superintendent to provide him with a different brand, if it was practically available. A similar application was moved again seeking the Mother Dairy/Amul brand instead of Nova in April this year.
Sharjeel Imam approached the court in May last year after the jail authorities didn’t allow the book Kulliyat-E-Akbar. His counsel said the book wasn’t allowed on grounds that it was in Persian language and was a photocopied version. The court directed that the book be provided after his counsel submitted that it contained just poetry and “no objectionable material”.
Similarly, Salim Khan approached the court after jail authorities confiscated two of his books—Quran Sharif and Hadees—at the time of his surrender from anticipatory bail. The court directed the jail superintendent to see if they could be provided to in accordance with jail rules. The court also directed the jail authorities to give him the books and question papers required for his exams.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Unending nightmares, bitterness — how Delhi riots changed a Muslim & a Hindu forever