A ‘Culture of Convenience’: A Critical Look at the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case and Judicial Abdication in Denial of Bail
Oct 01, 2025By PUCL National
On September 7, 2025, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) hosted a critical online discussion following the Delhi High Court’s rejection of bail for ten activists accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. A panel of lawyers and activists analyzed the judgment, articulating the systemic issues plaguing the ‘decolonial’ Indian criminal justice system they see as increasingly abdicating its role as a protector of fundamental rights. The panelists’ painted a grim picture of a judiciary where process has become punishment, dissent is systematically criminalized, the disturbing trend of judicial deference to the executive, and where demands for accountability are shut down through the tools of the state, especially the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Nadeem Khan, National Secretary of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, opened the discussion by detailing the prolonged five-year-long incarceration of the accused. He stated that the “UAPA had been weaponized in order to ensure that those who were arrested could not secure bail.” Expressing a deep-seated disappointment, Nadeem noted that while one had come to expect little relief from the lower judiciary, the real shock was seeing the higher judiciary follow suit. “We are seeing that even the higher judiciary is passing similar orders,”… This, he argued, highlights the severe problems we are “facing today with the criminal justice system, with how the judiciary is looking at the right to bail and with how the judiciary is treating political prisoners.”
Advocate Shahrukh Alam analyzed the prosecution’s case through what she called the “register of cynicism and despair.” She argued that “any state’s commitment to rule of law can be gleaned by the way its prosecutors frame their cases” and “how much social and political prejudice against the accused’, they draw from. Shahrukh Alam drew a chilling parallel to the colonial-era trial of Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, quoting the British prosecutor: “Gentlemen… if we had no other evidence of a plot… the very nature of the outbreak itself must convince us of the existence of a plot. Does that sound familiar?”
She dismantled the prosecution’s theory that the accused had a “diabolical” plan to provoke violence through peaceful protest. “That’s a very badly planned conspiracy,” she noted, explaining that under criminal law, “grave and sudden provocation… is a defence,” not a crime to be prosecuted for. Alam argued that the state’s case is designed to send a clear message: “Muslim mobilization is inherently dangerous to the unity and integrity of India.” It is a political and legal shift, she concluded, “to criminalize political mobilization of Muslims as Muslims.”
Advocate Gautam Bhatia delved into the legal reasoning, or lack thereof, in the bail orders. He emphasized that in a country where criminal trials can drag on for over a decade, bail is often the only hope for liberty. He described the court’s approach as an “extreme version of the eyes wide shut approach,” where “not only is the court not giving the evidence any kind of serious scrutiny, but actually it is filling in the gap where there are gaps in the prosecution’s case.” He criticized the “eyes wide shut” approach adopted by the courts in UAPA cases, where they conduct a mere “surface level light touch” examination of the evidence. In the Delhi riots case, he argued, the court has gone a step further, actively “filling in the gaps” in the prosecution’s case to justify the denial of bail.
Bhatia provided stark examples of judicial misapplication of mind. He pointed to the court’s suspicion of a “flurry of phone calls” between activists when the riots broke out, noting, “The most logical thing you would do would be to call each other. In fact, silence would be the more suspicious outcome.” He highlighted the order concerning Shifa-ur-Rehman, (who was the president of Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association) where bail was denied because “the possibility of misuse of the position cannot be ruled out.” Bhatia was unequivocal in asserting that it was possible to engage with some legal reasoning, but how does one engage with no reasoning at all? “
Bhatia concluded that the court’s decision depends upon the vague and uncorroborated testimony of anonymous witnesses, to effectively deny bail and end up keeping people in jail for more than five years. In Bhatia’s analysis, with respect oto the allegation of conspiracy, the court itself fills in the gaps of the prosecution with completely unsubstantiated assertions.
On the court’s analysis of a speech by Umar Khalid, Bhatia described it as putting “language in a torture rack and torturing it until it gives you the answer you want.” The court faulted Umar Khalid for not specifying a “bloodless revolution” when he offered “revolutionary greetings.” “Because you didn’t say bloodless revolution,” Bhatia paraphrased the court’s logic, “therefore the inference is you meant a bloody revolution.” He compared the proceedings to the “infamous Moscow trials” under Stalin, where mere association with a perceived conspiracy was enough for conviction.
Advocate Harshit Anand argued that “in the government’s eye, this case is to serve as an exemplary case for creating a larger chilling effect in the Indian society.” He asserted that the judiciary has fostered a “culture of convenience,” characterized by “a complete disregard for existing precedent,” a refusal to engage with the merits of allegations, and interpreting judgments “against their very clear intent.”
Anand noted the Supreme Court’s own repeated judgments that long incarceration is a ground for bail, even in UAPA cases. Yet, the High Court sidestepped these precedents. He decried the “lack of real engagement with allegations,” where being the “heads of WhatsApp groups” or “printing of pamphlets” is presented as evidence of a terror conspiracy with “no proximate connection” to the actual violence. He concluded that “the validity of your speech is now tested on whether or not the executive wants you to make those speeches.” He also drew a parallel with the historical use of seemingly neutral laws to target specific communities, as was the case with the incarceration of Black people in the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries. Anand urged the courts to not turn a blind eye to the political realities that inform such cases.
The discussion concluded with a call to action. Advocate Mihir Desai stressed the need to not only continue the legal fight in the Supreme Court but also to mount a campaign to keep the case in the public eye. “It’s not enough to say that these people should be released on bail,” he argued, “it’s also important to talk about repeal of UAPA.” Kavita Srivastava of PUCL echoed this, proposing a “national campaign for judicial accountability” to “restore bail is the rule and jail the exception.” Mihir advocated for a multi-pronged strategy, including writing to the Chief Justice, circulating critiques of the judgment, and organizing public demonstrations. Crucially, Mihir called for a broader campaign for the repeal of the UAPA itself, arguing that it is a draconian law that has no place in a democratic society. The consensus was clear: without sustained public pressure and a direct challenge to the draconian framework of the UAPA, the degradation of justice will continue unabated.
The discussion organized by the PUCL served as a stark reminder of the challenges confronting the Indian criminal justice system. The Delhi riots conspiracy case is not merely about the denial of bail to a few individuals; it is about the erosion of fundamental rights, the criminalization of dissent, and the systemic degradation of justice. It is a testament to the urgent need for judicial accountability and a robust defence of civil liberties. In the words of the panelists, the fight for the release of these political prisoners and the repeal of draconian laws like the UAPA is a test of the collective conscience of Indian citizens and a trial of India’s democratic commitment to the principles of justice and equality.
Watch the full discussion here: