New Delhi: In a significant hearing related to the Delhi riots conspiracy case, accused Shadab Ahmed argued before the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 6, 2025) that merely participating in or organizing a protest cannot constitute a criminal offence.

Appearing on his behalf, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra contended that the allegations against his client are based solely on police witnesses and a few alleged photographs — none of which directly link him to any act of violence or conspiracy.

The matter is being heard by a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, which is currently discussing the issue of framing charges.

Defence Arguments

Luthra pointed out that his client has been charged under several provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), but the only basis for invoking those sections was his alleged participation in protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in Delhi.

He told the court that Shadab Ahmed was added only in the second supplementary charge sheet, and that one of the key pieces of evidence cited by the prosecution is an almost unrecognizable photograph showing him allegedly present at a Delhi Protest Solidarity Group gathering.

He further said that the entire prosecution case rests primarily on statements by two protected witnesses, codenamed “Radium” and “Sodium.”

In a light-hearted moment, Luthra remarked, “Radium and Sodium are dangerous chemicals,” to which Justice Aravind Kumar smiled and replied, “Sometimes dangerous things can also be used for good purposes.”

Question Raised Before Court

The defence counsel asked, “Is it a crime to organize or attend a protest?”

He said that according to the prosecution, Shadab Ahmed played a role in blocking a road in Chand Bagh on February 24, 2020, and in mobilizing women to support the Bharat Bandh call — yet no concrete evidence has been submitted to substantiate that claim.

Luthra also rejected the prosecution’s claim that the accused was responsible for delaying the trial proceedings, asserting that his client has consistently followed due legal procedures.

He informed the court that the case documents run over 2,000 pages, but none contain any message, video, or statement linking his client to violence, conspiracy, or any unlawful assembly.

According to him, “My client is being criminalized merely for expressing dissent against a law.”

Legal Sensitivity of the Case

The case is viewed as legally sensitive, as it involves the intersection of UAPA and the constitutional right to peaceful protest.

While the defence challenges the credibility of the protected witnesses and police investigation, the prosecution continues to defend its case on the grounds of national security and conspiracy.

Legal experts believe that the Supreme Court’s judgment in this matter could set a significant precedent for the interpretation of protest rights under UAPA and similar national security laws.

Background

The Delhi riots of February 2020, which erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

Several student activists and social workers — including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman — were also charged under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as alleged masterminds of a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots.

Umar Khalid, in his own petition before the Supreme Court, argued that there is no direct evidence linking him to violence or any conspiracy, and that the charges against him are politically motivated.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to Khalid, Imam, and seven others, observing that “conspiratorial violence cannot be tolerated under the guise of citizens’ protest” and that “an unbridled right to protest may harm the constitutional structure and public order.”

Ongoing Proceedings and Next Hearing

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the bail pleas of Shadab Ahmed and several co-accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The Delhi Police is expected to begin its rebuttal arguments on November 10 at 2 PM, during which the Court will examine the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s claims, including the credibility of protected witnesses and the applicability of UAPA provisions.

The case also covers multiple charges relating to conspiracy, murder, and rioting across Northeast Delhi, with several accused — including Shadab Ahmed — charged under UAPA based primarily on protected witness testimonies and investigative reports.

The defence maintains that organizing or attending a protest cannot be equated with terrorism or violent conspiracy, and that the right to dissent remains a cornerstone of democratic freedom.