For years, a powerful cabal of lawyers, journalists, former judges, and activists tried to build a halo around Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others accused in the 2020 Delhi anti-Hindu riots conspiracy. From Kapil Sibal’s courtroom tactics to Prashant Bhushan’s interventions, the campaign was relentless. Former judges like Madan Lokur issued factually dubious “citizens’ reports” while media platforms hosted podcasts lobbying for bail. Yet, despite this enormous pressure, the Delhi High Court on September 2 dismissed Khalid and Imam’s bail applications, reaffirming that overwhelming evidence cannot be buried under propaganda.
Court’s Firm Stand
The Delhi High Court, in its order, made it clear that prima facie evidence linked both Umar Khalid and Imam to the planning and mobilisation of protests that spiraled into violence. The division bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur noted that unlike other accused who were granted bail, the role of these two was far more central and sinister.
The court observed that soon after the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in December 2019, it was Khalid and Imam who took the earliest steps to ignite unrest. They allegedly created WhatsApp groups, distributed pamphlets, and encouraged Chakka-Jaams, including the disruption of essential supplies. The bench underlined that this was not “routine political dissent,” but a deliberate attempt to mislead the Muslim community into believing CAA and NRC were anti-Muslim laws, thereby sowing fear and preparing the ground for violence.
By characterising them as “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy, the court recognised their role as more than mere participants they were planners. The speeches and communications attributed to them, when read with other materials, revealed a pattern of deliberate incitement cloaked as activism.
Kapil Sibal & Delay Tactics
The courtroom drama stretched for years, largely due to the strategies adopted by Umar Khalid’s lawyer, Kapil Sibal. The pattern is revealing:
Trial court denied bail.
High Court denied bail.
Appeal made to Supreme Court.
Multiple adjournments sought, delaying trial.
When faced with Justice Bela Trivedi, Sibal withdrew the bail plea from SC.
Tried his “luck” again in trial court, but bail was denied.
Returned to High Court denied again.
Now, the plan is to go back to Supreme Court.
This endless loop of adjournments and withdrawals was not lost on the judiciary. Even former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud publicly questioned the reluctance of Khalid’s counsel to argue the case on merits. He highlighted how at least seven adjournments were sought before eventually withdrawing the plea. Chandrachud rightly noted that while the narrative outside the courts painted a picture of judicial unfairness, the reality was that the defense repeatedly dodged arguments.
The Karkardooma Court too had warned counsels to stop seeking constant adjournments and be prepared to argue charges. But instead of addressing evidence, the defense preferred delay, hoping to win in the court of public opinion what they could not inside the court of law.
The Ecosystem’s Lobbying: Pressure Without Substance
The rejection of bail is not just a legal setback for Umar Khalid and Imam it is a political defeat for the entire ecosystem that rallied around them.
Prashant Bhushan, Harsh Mander, and other activists made repeated interventions, portraying the accused as victims of state oppression.
Media platforms like The Wire, and certain journalists ran emotional pieces, questioning the fairness of the judiciary.
Arfa Khanum Sherwani and others offered sympathetic monologues painting Khalid and Imam as idealistic youth punished for dissent.
Former judge Madan Lokur authored a so-called “citizens’ report,” riddled with factual inaccuracies, and amplified it through podcasts and interviews.
Despite this orchestrated campaign, the judiciary held firm. The High Court judgment is a reminder that courts function on evidence, not emotional blackmail. The attempt to build public sympathy by misrepresenting facts and demonising the justice system has now backfired, exposing the double standards of the liberal cabal.
Why This Verdict Matters: People Saw Through the Propaganda
The importance of this verdict goes beyond Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam. It demonstrates that India’s judicial system cannot be hijacked by pressure tactics, no matter how loud the lobbying. The so-called “civil society” may dominate airwaves and op-eds, but their narratives crumble against documented evidence.
The people, too, have played a role. The ecosystem may have louder megaphones, but ordinary citizens collectively countered with facts, refusing to let propaganda go unchallenged. The Delhi riots of 2020 were not spontaneous protests they were orchestrated violence. Attempts to whitewash this reality have been exposed again and again in court.
Evidence Defeats Propaganda
The Delhi High Court’s rejection of bail for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others is a landmark moment in the larger conspiracy case. It underscores that while activists, lawyers, and journalists can spin narratives outside, courts weigh facts, not fiction.
Kapil Sibal’s courtroom theatrics, the Left ecosystem’s lobbying, and the former judges’ motivated commentaries all collapsed before the hard truth: Khalid and Imam were not innocent dissenters they were, prima facie, architects of a dangerous plot that weaponised misinformation and incitement.
In the end, the pressure failed because the truth was too stark to be ignored. Justice may move slowly, but this verdict reaffirms that propaganda cannot triumph over evidence.
