The 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” case, documented as FIR 59/2020, stands as one of the most contentious legal proceedings in recent Indian history. As of January 2026, it remains in a prolonged pretrial stage, with several high-profile activists entering their sixth year of incarceration without the commencement of a formal trial.

The case centers on allegations by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell that the communal violence in February 2020, which resulted in 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries, was not a spontaneous outburst but a meticulously planned “larger conspiracy” aimed at destabilizing the government and forcing a withdrawal of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The prosecution’s narrative, outlined across thousands of pages in multiple charge sheets, identifies individuals such as Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima as the primary architects of this unrest. The state contends that these activists used the anti-CAA protest sites as hubs for radicalization and logistical planning. Key evidence cited by the police includes internal WhatsApp group chats from the “Delhi Protest Support Group” (DPSG), call detail records, and secret meetings, such as one allegedly held in Shaheen Bagh on January 8, 2020.

According to the prosecution, the timing of the riots was intentionally synced with the state visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to maximize international embarrassment for India. A defining feature of FIR 59/2020 is the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a stringent anti-terror law that significantly alters the standards for bail. Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, a court must deny bail if the accusations are deemed “prima facie true” based solely on the police’s case file. This high evidentiary threshold has led to what critics and defense lawyers describe as “process as punishment,” where accused individuals remain detained indefinitely while the legal machinery grinds slowly toward a trial that has yet to even reach the stage of framing charges. The judicial history of the case has been marked by significant delays and institutional instability. The matter has passed through numerous judges and benches, often requiring arguments to be restarted from scratch following judicial transfers or reassignments.

For instance, substantive arguments on the framing of charges only began in September 2023, three years after the initial arrests, yet they remain unresolved in 2026. While some co-accused, like Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in June 2021—with the court notably observing that the line between the right to protest and terrorist activities had been blurred—others have been denied similar relief based on their perceived “distinct roles” in the alleged conspiracy. By late 2025 and early 2026, the case has regained significant legal and international momentum.

In December 2025, the Supreme Court of India reserved its verdict on the regular bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and several others after weeks of intensive hearings. During these proceedings, defense lawyers argued that “unpalatable speeches” do not equate to terrorist acts and that five years of pretrial detention is a violation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Simultaneously, the case has drawn international scrutiny; on January 1, 2026, eight U.S. lawmakers wrote to the Indian Ambassador, urging a “fair and timely trial,” noting that the prolonged detention without adjudication raises serious questions about due process and international human rights obligations. While the main trial remains stalled, the courts have occasionally granted minor reprieves. Umar Khalid was recently granted a 14-day interim bail from December 16 to December 29, 2025, to attend his sister’s wedding, though he was required to surrender back to Tihar Jail immediately following the event. As the legal community awaits the Supreme Court’s reserved verdict, FIR 59/2020 continues to serve as a critical focal point for debates over the use of anti-terror laws against political dissent and the efficiency of the Indian criminal justice system.

2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case: Main Victim’s Details

In the 2020 Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” case (FIR 59/2020), the “victim” is legally defined as the State (Union of India), as the prosecution alleges a deep-rooted conspiracy to destabilize the government and threaten the nation’s integrity. However, the case is inextricably linked to the individuals who died or were injured during the resulting violence.

The following details the high-profile casualties and demographic data associated with the riots that form the basis of the conspiracy allegations:

● Ankit Sharma (26): An Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer who was one of the most high-profile casualties. His body was recovered from a drain in Chand Bagh with multiple stab wounds; his death led to the arrest of several individuals, including former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain.

● Ratan Lal: A Delhi Police Head Constable who died from a bullet injury in the Gokulpuri area on February 24, 2020, while attempting to control the violence.

● Mohammad Faizan (23): A tailor whose death became a symbol of alleged police brutality. He was filmed while being forced by police to sing the national anthem while injured and died shortly after being released from custody.

● Nitin Kumar (15): The youngest recorded victim of the riots, an eighth-grade student who died after being shot while going out to buy food.

● Akberi (85): The oldest victim, who died after her house in Gamri village was set on fire by a mob.

Let’s know about the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy.”

The 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” case, officially documented as FIR 59/2020, represents one of the most significant legal battles in modern Indian history, centering on allegations that the communal violence in Northeast Delhi was a premeditated attempt to destabilize the nation. The prosecution’s narrative, led by the Delhi Police Special Cell, posits that various student activists and community leaders used the widespread Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests as a “radicalizing catalyst” to orchestrate a massive disruption aimed at a “regime change operation”. Central to this theory is the claim that the riots were intentionally timed to coincide with the February 2020 visit of U.S. President Donald Trump to garner international media attention and portray a narrative of state-sponsored pogroms.

The case is unique due to the invocation of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which significantly raises the bar for obtaining bail, requiring that the accused prove the allegations against them are not “prima facie true”. High-profile accused individuals, including former JNU student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam, have remained in custody for over five years, with their legal teams frequently arguing that prolonged pre-trial detention without the commencement of a trial violates their fundamental right to liberty.

While some co-accused were granted bail by the High Court in 2021, the judiciary has distinguished the roles of Khalid and Imam as “prima facie grave,” suggesting they were “masterminds” responsible for providing the ideological and organizational framework for the unrest. As of early 2026, the case remains in a state of high tension and global scrutiny. In late 2025, after a series of rejections from the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India reserved its final verdict on the regular bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, and several others after extensive arguments concluded on December 10, 2025. During these hearings, the prosecution emphasized that the violence, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries, was “well-designed and choreographed” rather than a spontaneous outburst.

Conversely, the defense teams highlighted factual inconsistencies and argued that provocative speeches alone do not constitute a terrorist conspiracy under the law. International attention has also intensified recently; on January 2, 2026, eight United States lawmakers urged the Indian government to ensure a fair and timely trial for Khalid, echoing sentiments from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who expressed solidarity with the detained activists. While Umar Khalid was granted a brief two-week interim bail in December 2025 to attend his sister’s wedding, he surrendered back to Tihar Jail on December 29, leaving the final decision on his regular release and the progression of the underlying trial as one of the most anticipated judicial events of 2026.

Dark story behind this 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case

The “dark story” behind the 2020 Delhi Riots, the larger conspiracy case lies in the alleged transformation of democratic dissent into a narrative of terrorism, where the legal process itself has arguably become the punishment. While the prosecution describes a “clinical and pathological conspiracy” to destabilize India, critics and defense lawyers point to a “predetermined narrative” that selectively targeted activists while ignoring inflammatory speeches by ruling-party figures that preceded the violence.

A significant controversy involves the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which makes bail nearly impossible and has kept individuals like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in pre-trial detention for over five years without charges even being framed. Judicial scrutiny has surfaced in lower court acquittals of related cases, where judges have explicitly rebuked the Delhi Police for “egregious padding of evidence,” introducing “artificial” witnesses, and presenting “fabricated” claims to bolster weak charges.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s central claim of a “regime change operation” was recently challenged in the Supreme Court for being a late-stage projection not actually found in the original 17,000-page chargesheet. In December 2025, the Supreme Court questioned the police on how peaceful speeches invoking Gandhian non-violence could be classified as “terrorist acts”. This long-standing deadlock—where the state views educated activists as “intellectual terrorists” while the defense alleges a “farcical” attempt to criminalize dissent—remains the case’s most haunting aspect as it enters 2026.

Motive behind the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case

Prosecution’s Stated Motive

The Delhi Police and the Union of India allege that the riots were not a spontaneous eruption of violence but a premeditated “regime change operation” designed to destabilize the government.

● National Destabilization: The primary motive, according to prosecutors, was to strike at India’s sovereignty and integrity by engineering large-scale communal chaos.

● Global Defamation: Investigators claim the violence was intentionally timed to coincide with former U.S. President Donald Trump’s February 2020 visit. The goal was to attract international media attention and falsely portray the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as a “pogrom” against Muslims.

● Economic Disruption: Prosecutors argue that planned road blockades (chakka jams) were intended to “strangulate” the economy and disrupt essential supplies to cities like Delhi and the entire Northeast region via the “Chicken’s Neck” corridor.

Defense’s Counter-Narrative

The defense, supported by various human rights activists and legal experts, argues that the case lacks a factual motive and is instead a “politically motivated” attempt to criminalize dissent.

● Silencing Critics: Defense lawyers contend the real motive behind filing the case was to target student leaders and activists who were peacefully protesting against the CAA/NRC.

● Selective Prosecution: Critics point out that the investigation focuses solely on protesters while ignoring inflammatory “hate speech” from ruling-party leaders that occurred just before the riots.

● “Process as Punishment”: The defense argues that invoking the UAPA was a tactical move by the state to ensure the prolonged detention of activists without a trial, effectively turning the legal process itself into a sentence.

Legal Thresholds and UAPA Application

In the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case, the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has created a distinct legal environment where traditional bail principles—such as “bail is the rule, jail is the exception”—are effectively inverted.

The “Prima Facie True” Threshold (Section 43D(5))

The most critical legal hurdle for the accused is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Under this provision :

● Mandatory Denial: A court must deny bail if it finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are “prima facie true” based on the police case diary or chargesheet.

● Presumption of Truth: Per the landmark Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) judgment, courts at the bail stage are not permitted to conduct a “mini-trial” or weigh the evidence’s merits; they must generally accept the prosecution’s narrative as true.

● Limited Scrutiny: Judicial analysis is restricted to a “surface-level” look at the evidence provided by the investigating agency, making it nearly impossible for the defense to challenge fabricated or weak claims early on.

Evolving Judicial Interpretations (2025–2026)

While the Watali standard remains influential, recent Supreme Court rulings have introduced significant nuances as of January 2026 :

● Article 21 Override: In K.A. Najeeb (2021) and subsequent 2025 rulings, the Supreme Court held that the rigors of Section 43D(5) cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. If incarceration becomes “punitive” due to extreme delays, the court may grant bail regardless of the UAPA bar.

● The “Vernon Gonsalves” Exception: A 2023 ruling (Vernon Gonsalves v. State of Maharashtra) added a layer of protection by requiring a “surface analysis of the probative value” of evidence. This means if evidence is shown to be of very low quality, the “prima facie true” bar might not be met.

● Innocent Association: In recent December 2025 hearings, the Supreme Court questioned whether attending meetings or giving “unpalatable” speeches without direct incitement to violence could legally constitute a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA.

Current Procedural Status

As of January 2, 2026, many key accused individuals have remained in custody for over five years without trial. The Supreme Court of India reserved its final verdict on bail for major figures like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam on December 10, 2025, after balancing the state’s claims of a grave conspiracy against the constitutional concern of indefinite pre-trial detention.

Constitutional Rights and Personal Liberty

In the context of the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy case, the tension between national security laws and constitutional personal liberty has reached a critical juncture as of January 2026. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, every citizen is guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty, a principle traditionally protected by the judicial maxim that bail should be the rule and jail the exception. However, the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has effectively suspended this protection for many, as Section 43D(5) creates a nearly insurmountable bar by mandating the denial of bail if allegations appear “prima facie true.

“The primary constitutional concern currently before the Supreme Court of India is whether the prolonged pre-trial detention of individuals for over five years—without the framing of charges or the commencement of a trial—amounts to ‘punishment without conviction.” Recent judicial trends in late 2025 have signaled a shift, with the courts increasingly ruling that the rigors of special statutes cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial. As the judiciary deliberates on the pending bail pleas of activists like Umar Khalid, the case serves as a definitive test of whether the state’s power to investigate a “larger conspiracy” can indefinitely supersede an individual’s constitutional right to liberty in the absence of a proven crime.

Procedural and Investigative Integrity

Investigative Integrity & Judicial Criticism

As of early 2026, the investigation has faced significant scrutiny from lower courts, despite the High Court’s generally deferential stance :

● “Theory Building” and “Guesswork”: In April 2025, a Delhi Magistrate (ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia) issued a sharp 33-page order describing the police’s conspiracy theory in FIR 59/2020 as being filled with “flaws,” “guesswork,” and “academic jargon. The court noted that the police narrative failed to identify any “immediate cause” for the rioting.

● Unequal Investigation: The same court observed that while anti-CAA protesters were charged with conspiracy, a counter-narrative involving political figures like Kapil Mishra was largely ignored by investigators. The magistrate described the police’s interrogation of Mishra as “farcical” and ordered further investigation, though this order was later stayed by a higher court.

● Lack of Physical Evidence: Defense teams have consistently highlighted the absence of recovered funds, weapons, or direct physical evidence linking high-profile accused like Umar Khalid to the violence.

Procedural Integrity & Delays

The trial has yet to formally commence over five years after the FIR was filed, leading to accusations of “process as punishment”:

● Loop of Arguments: Substantive arguments on the framing of charges began in 2023 but were reset in mid-2025 due to a routine administrative transfer of the presiding judge. The new judge directed that oral arguments must begin afresh, nullifying months of prior proceedings.

● Stalled Proceedings: As of January 2026, there have been over 510 court dates and at least 166 adjournments. The prosecution blames the accused for seeking repeated adjournments, while the defense points to the late supply of 17,000+ pages of documents and over 800 listed witnesses as the primary cause for delay.

● “Line in the Sand”: The accused only learned of the “completion” of the investigation on September 4, 2024, after years of supplementary chargesheets being filed, which the defense argues was a deliberate tactic to delay the start of the trial.

As of January 2026, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on bail, weighing these procedural failures and the 5+ years of pre-trial detention against the grave nature of the conspiracy charges.

Current status of the regular bail verdict for the key accused

As of January 2, 2026, the regular bail verdict for the key accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” case remains reserved by the Supreme Court of India.

Supreme Court Proceedings	A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria concluded 11 days of extensive arguments and reserved its judgment on December 10, 2025. The court had initially indicated it would deliver the verdict before its winter recess on December 19, 2025, but the final decision is now expected in early 2026.
Accused Status	This Supreme Court appeal follows a September 2, 2025, decision by the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, and others, describing the riots as a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy.
Interim Relief	While the regular bail verdict is pending, Umar Khalid was granted a 14-day interim bail to attend his sister’s wedding. He surrendered back to Tihar Jail on December 29, 2025, upon the expiry of this temporary release.
Previous Rulings	This Supreme Court appeal follows a September 2, 2025, decision by the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, and others, describing the riots as a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

Why was Umar Khalid granted interim bail in December 2025?

Umar Khalid was granted a 14-day interim bail from December 16 to December 29, 2025, primarily to attend his sister’s wedding scheduled for December 27. A Delhi court approved the request on humanitarian grounds to allow him to participate in family ceremonies and spend time with his elderly parents. The relief came with strict conditions, including a personal bond of ₹20,000, a complete ban on using social media, and restrictions on meeting anyone outside his family and friends. Following the conclusion of the permitted period, Khalid surrendered to Tihar Jail on December 29, 2025.

About Umar Khalid

Umar Khalid (born August 11, 1987) is an Indian student activist and former research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where he earned a PhD in history. He gained national prominence during the 2016 JNU sedition row and later as a vocal critic of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Arrested in September 2020, Khalid has spent over five years in pre-trial detention under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his alleged role in the 2020 Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy”. He has consistently denied all charges, with supporters viewing him as a political prisoner. As of January 2026, he remains in Tihar Jail while the Supreme Court reserves its verdict on his regular bail plea.

Primary charges against the accused in FIR 59/2020

In the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case (FIR 59/2020), the primary charges against the 18 accused—including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam—allege a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” to incite violence and destabilize the government.

Delhi Police’s central argument against granting bail

In the “Larger Conspiracy” case (FIR 59/2020), the Delhi Police’s central argument is that the 2020 riots were not a spontaneous communal outburst but a “well-designed, well-crafted, and pre-planned attack” on India’s sovereignty, aimed at a “regime-change operation”. Represented by the Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor Generals in hearings throughout late 2025, the prosecution contends that the accused utilized the “façade of civil disobedience” against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to mask a deeper conspiracy to destabilize the government.

The police argue that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must apply because the allegations are “prima facie true,” making “jail and not bail” the legal rule for such grave offenses. They rely on technical and documentary evidence—including WhatsApp chats and location data—to claim that the accused coordinated road blockades (chakka-jaams) and inflammatory speeches to incite violence on communal lines. Furthermore, the prosecution dismisses pleas for parity or relief based on prolonged incarceration, asserting that the delay is a result of the conspiracy’s complexity and the defense’s own legal strategies. They characterize the key accused as “dangerous intellectual terrorists” whose actions were intended to strike at the heart of national integrity.

How long have the key accused been in judicial custody without a trial?

As of January 2026, key accused individuals like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have spent over five years in judicial custody without a trial. Sharjeel Imam has been incarcerated since January 2020, while Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020.

Despite the submission of five charge sheets, the case remains stalled at the “arguments on charge” stage, with no trial dates set. Defense lawyers have repeatedly highlighted this prolonged pre-trial detention as a violation of constitutional liberty, while the prosecution maintains that the gravity of the charges justifies continued incarceration.

At what stage is the trial proceeding?

As of January 2, 2026, the trial for the 2020 Delhi Riots “Larger Conspiracy” Case (FIR 59/2020) has not yet commenced, and the case remains stuck at the stage of arguments on framing of charges. This preliminary phase, which determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a full trial, has faced significant delays for over five years. While the initial chargesheet was filed in September 2020, followed by multiple supplementary filings, substantive arguments on these charges only began in earnest in late 2023 under a new special judge.

The proceedings are currently characterized by a “glacial pace” due to several structural and procedural factors. The trial court is tasked with reviewing an immense volume of evidence, including a 3,000-page chargesheet and approximately 30,000 pages of electronic records, alongside statements from hundreds of witnesses. Judicial instability has further complicated the timeline; the case has transitioned through multiple benches, and transfers of presiding judges have occasionally forced the re-hearing of extensive arguments.

The Delhi Police and the defense trade blame for these delays. The prosecution asserts that the accused has intentionally stalled by arguing for excessive periods on the framing of charges to facilitate bail pleas. Conversely, the defense argues that the delays are a result of the prosecution’s “over-reaching” and the sheer complexity of the case. As of late 2025, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict on the bail pleas of key accused like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, following a September 2025 Delhi High Court ruling that denied bail, noting that a “hurried trial” would be detrimental to both the state and the accused. Consequently, the case remains in a pre-trial phase with no fixed date for the start of the actual trial.

Conclusion

As of early 2026, FIR 59/2020 stands as a critical litmus test for the Indian judicial system, representing a profound tension between national security imperatives and individual civil liberties. The core of the controversy lies in the prolonged pre-trial detention of the accused—many of whom have spent over five years in prison—without the trial officially commencing.

While the State maintains that the riots were a premeditated act of terror under the guise of democratic protest, the defense argues that the stringent provisions of the UAPA are being used to criminalize dissent. The eventual verdict from the Supreme Court, which was reserved in late 2025, will be a landmark moment. It will determine whether “the process itself has become the punishment” or if the “larger conspiracy” theory holds legal water.

Ultimately, the integrity of the case rests on the judiciary’s ability to balance the gravity of the allegations with the fundamental right to a speedy trial, ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done promptly.