Umar Khalid's Speech Played During Bail Hearing; 'These Are Students Who Agitated On Certain Issues', Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Playing accused Umar Khalid's Amravati speech in the open Court today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal remarked that advocating for the Gandhian way of civil disobedience can't amount to conspiracy, and no public interest would be served in keeping an academic incarcerated for years for an agitation, which may have raised certain issues, rightly or wrongly. 

"I ask myself the question. An academician in an institution, what can he do to overthrow a country or state? Even in the High Court, they relied on this speech and there is a finding of the High Court "prima facie delivered inflammatory speech on communal lines to instigate". Entire speech may be read, there is nothing stated on lines of communal riots and how does the High Court come to this conclusion?.. There are allegations of inflammatory speech against the co-accused who are out on bail..."

If a person is charged with UAPA over such a speech, then many of us would be "liable to go to jail", Sibal said. In the video clip, Khalid was heard saying that the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act will follow the methods followed by Gandhiji during the freedom struggle. He was heard saying, "we will not answer violence with violence. We will not answer hate with hate. We will meet violence with non-violence, and hate with love."

The bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and other accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy cases involving offences under the UAPA.

Sibal submitted : "What public interest would it serve? First, if I come out, I shouldn't continue to do activities which may threaten the State. Surely, I can't as a single person do that, and your lordships have enough power to make sure it doesn't happen. The other public interest to be served is, why should you let this man suffer inside for another 3 years or till the trial is over? In other words, this is punitive. I am innocent until proven guilty. This is in the nature of punitive act by the State to ensure that I remain in jail for a lesson to be learnt by other students of the university to not do any of this."

Sibal pointed out that chakka-jams and rail-roko are popular forms of protest in the country.

"Chakka jam has happened throughout the country. I remember during George Fernandandis' days, the railways were not allowed to move. This is more than chakka jam. During the Gujar agitation in Rajasthan, I remember people lying on railway tracks. The Kisan agitation, no UAPA query...

What have these kids done? It was a valid protest. You may say, it was in excess of what they should have done but you can't say this is a terrorist act! There are other ways to deal with it and not 5 years in jail and we having to argue for so long just to figure out what should be done...These are students, who agitated wrongly or rightly on certain issues. In our younger days, even we used to agitate. Some of my friends from Saint Stephen actually joined the Naxal movement, but we did not. But we were agitated, and if we protest, there is no use in putting us in jail and for what? If you have a case against me, prosecute me or convict me and send me to jail. You can't keep me incarcerated as if to say that I will punish you for your protests. That can't be a law of our country."

The petitions have been filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd.Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed  challenging the September 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which denied them bail.

Arguing on grounds of parity with other co-accused persons, co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail as early as 2021, Sibal stated that no overt or covert act has been attributed to him except for this "inflammatory speech" and being a member of the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) where he was added as a member and only admins could send messages. Furthermore, he stated that having undergone more than 5 years, it is not necessary for the Court to go into the merits.

Also from today's hearing -  Can We Accept Your Speeches Won't Constitute 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA? Supreme Court Asks Sharjeel Imam

Case Details:

1. UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14165/2025

2. GULFISHA FATIMA v STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI )|SLP(Crl) No. 13988/2025

3. SHARJEEL IMAM v THE STATE NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 14030/2025

4. MEERAN HAIDER v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No./14132/2025

5. SHIFA UR REHMAN v STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY|SLP(Crl) No. 14859/2025

6. MOHD SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 15335/2025

7. SHADAB AHMED v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI|SLP(Crl) No. 17055/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order