Police Claim Intellectuals Were “More Dangerous” in 2020 Delhi Riots
In a controversial submission to the Supreme Court, the Delhi Police argued that “intellectuals” involved in the 2020 Delhi riots posed a greater threat than those who physically participated in the violence. The statement came during a hearing on the bail plea of Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader and key accused in the riots conspiracy case.
Key Arguments by Delhi Police
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the police, claimed that educated individuals like Khalid allegedly orchestrated the riots through speeches, social media, and strategic planning.
“Those who act on the ground can be controlled, but those who incite and plan are harder to contain,” Raju argued.
The police allege the riots—which killed 53 and injured hundreds—were part of a premeditated conspiracy by activists and opposition leaders.
Umar Khalid’s Bail Plea and Legal Battle
Khalid, arrested in September 2020 under the UAPA, has been in jail for over three years. His bail pleas have been repeatedly denied, with courts citing the “seriousness” of charges. His defense argues the case relies on “conjecture and fabricated evidence,” with no direct proof linking him to violence.
The Supreme Court bench questioned the police’s definition of “intellectual,” with ASG Raju explaining it as “those who influence minds through education, speeches, and writings.”
Broader Implications for Free Speech
The police’s stance has drawn criticism from civil rights groups, who see it as an attempt to criminalize dissent. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal warned this logic could target “anyone with an opinion.”
Political and Human Rights Concerns
- Opposition leaders accuse the government of misusing the UAPA to silence critics.
- BJP supporters argue the law is necessary to curb incitement by “privileged individuals.”
- Rights groups like Amnesty International demand Khalid’s release, citing due process violations.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s pending decision could set a precedent for how India handles dissent under anti-terror laws. A ruling favoring the police may escalate crackdowns on activists, while granting bail could curb UAPA overreach.
Follow [Your News Outlet] for updates on this pivotal case.
