Delhi riots 2020: SC adjourns hearing on Athar Khan’s bail plea in UAPA case for 4 weeks
The Supreme Court of India has postponed the hearing on Athar Khan's bail application in a UAPA (Unlawful Activities Act) case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots for four weeks. Khan is accused of being a key conspirator in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries, and of inciting violence through inflammatory speeches and coordinating the destruction of CCTV cameras. The Delhi High Court previously rejected his bail request, citing evidence that he played a central role in planning and executing the violence, distinguishing his actions from other co-accused who received bail. His legal team argued that he was merely a 'local-level facilitator' and that similar cases saw bail granted. The Supreme Court has permitted Khan to respond to the Delhi Police's reply in the matter.
The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for four weeks the hearing on a bail plea filed by Athar Khan in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the "larger conspiracy" behind the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi deferred the matter after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju informed the court that a reply has been filed in the matter. The top court allowed Khan to file a rejoinder to the reply submitted by Delhi police. The apex court had previously issued a notice to Delhi Police on an appeal filed by Khan challenging a Delhi High Court judgment dated July 7, which refused him bail. The High Court had dismissed Khan's appeal against a trial court's January 29 order denying him relief, stating that he was "one of the main conspirators who conspired to cause deaths during the riots" and not a "mere local-level operator." Khan's lawyer had sought bail on the grounds that he was a "local-level facilitator" who had been in custody for six years, and that similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The High Court bench had examined the Supreme Court's rulings on the bail pleas of the co-accused and concluded that Khan's role was "clearly distinguishable" from those granted relief by the apex court. The court noted that evidence, including a protected witness statement, indicated that while others on a WhatsApp group chat advocated for non-violent protests, Khan "persisted with his objective of engaging in violent protests, to the extent of even causing death." It stated that since Khan's role in causing deaths and destruction of private and public property was established, his case did not meet the strict test for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, 1967. Khan, a former call centre employee, is accused of being one of the main conspirators and organizers of a protest at Chand Bagh in northeast Delhi and of delivering inflammatory speeches there to incite violence. According to the Delhi Police Special Cell, Khan allegedly participated in secret meetings where he declared, "the time has come to burn Delhi," and coordinated the destruction of CCTV cameras. Arrested in July 2020, Khan was charged under the UAPA for being one of the "masterminds" of the riots that resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The violence occurred during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the National Register of Citizens. Activists Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, and Umar Khalid, among others, were also booked for their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy case, which is being probed by the Delhi Police's Special Cell. The Supreme Court's decision to adjourn the hearing allows both parties to prepare further arguments before the next scheduled date. This move reflects the court's approach to ensuring thorough examination of complex legal issues involving national security and individual rights. The case remains under active consideration, with no indication of imminent resolution.
The Supreme Court of India adjourned for four weeks the hearing on Athar Khan's bail plea in a UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) case related to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi. The court allowed Khan to file a rejoinder to the Delhi Police's reply. The case stems from Khan's alleged role as a mastermind in organizing protests that turned violent, resulting in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. The Delhi High Court previously rejected his bail application, citing evidence that Khan was a 'main conspirator' rather than a 'local-level operator,' and noting his persistent push for violent protests. Khan's legal team argued that other co-accused had received bail, but the High Court distinguished his role based on evidence, including a protected witness statement.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a legal proceeding involving a high-profile case tied to the 2020 Delhi riots, which occurred amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The report presents factual details of the court proceedings, the charges against Athar Khan, and the reasoning providedby
In 2020, Delhi experienced riots that led to legal proceedings against several individuals. One such case involves Athar Khan, who is facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing regarding Khan's bail plea for four weeks. Previously, the Delhi High Court denied his bail request on July 7, prompting Khan to file an appeal. The Supreme Court has now directed the Delhi Police to respond to this appeal.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about a legal proceeding involving a high-profile individual and does not exhibit any clear ideological bias. It reports on the judicial process without apparent favoritism towards either the accused or the authorities.
The Supreme Court of India has declined to issue an immediate order regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests, specifically concerning the 'Tiranga' march organized by the country's largest opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The court expressed hope that a more reasoned approach would prevail in handling the situation. The CAA, which aims to provide citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from neighboring countries, has been a highly contentious piece of legislation, sparking widespread protests across the nation. The refusal to intervene immediately suggests the judiciary is allowing time for dialogue and resolution between the parties involved.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the Supreme Court's decision neutrally, focusing on the judicial process and the hope for a reasoned resolution. There is no evident bias toward either side of the political spectrum, and the framing remains balanced.
The Supreme Court of India has postponed the hearing on Athar Khan's bail application in a UAPA (Unlawful Activities Act) case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots for four weeks. Khan is accused of being a key conspirator in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries, and of inciting violence through inflammatory speeches and coordinating the destruction of CCTV cameras. The Delhi High Court previously rejected his bail request, citing evidence that he played a central role in planning and executing the violence, distinguishing his actions from other co-accused who received bail. His legal team argued that he was merely a 'local-level facilitator' and that similar cases saw bail granted. The Supreme Court has permitted Khan to respond to the Delhi Police's reply in the matter.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of the legal proceedings involving a high-profile case tied to the 2020 Delhi riots, which is a politically sensitive issue in India. It does not exhibit overt bias, as it reports on the judicial process, legal arguments from both sides, and the evidence used.
The Indian government has issued an apology related to recent protests, while the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has reprimanded certain actions taken during these demonstrations. The Supreme Court is currently tracking several petitions concerning the protests and the situation inside the court premises. These developments highlight ongoing tensions between the government and protesters, as well as internal judicial responses to the unrest.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on governmental actions and judicial responses to protests, which are inherently politically charged topics. However, the summary presents both the government's apology and the CJI's reprimand without overtly favoring either side, indicating a balanced approach. There is no clear
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
India
