Northeast Delhi riots: After judge's transfer, where does the ‘larger conspiracy' case stand?

Arguments on charge in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case will have to begin afresh as the judge who had been hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred.
Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years.
From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings.
After the remaining persons finished their arguments, the trial of the case would've begun.
Family members and lawyers of the accused called the delay a 'punishment'.
Shortly after the riots broke out, which left 53 dead and 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind them. During its investigation, it booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC.
The case of the Special Cell was that the riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019.
Between 2020 and 2023, police filed four supplementary chargesheets. With their final chargesheet in June 2023, they marked the completion of their probe into the case. Their case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses.
In October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had directed that arguments on the charge be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Two months later, ASJ Rawat was transferred and ASJ Sameer Bajpai replaced him.
On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officially told ASJ Bajpai that they had completed their investigation. Following this, the judge ordered that arguments on charge would commence from September 5.
On May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following a reshuffle of 135 judges across Delhi.
'With the chargesheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues and such transfers, we don't know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,' said Umar's father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas.
'The problem is that section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent bail conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be complete. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,' said advocate Rajiv Mohan, who represented Husain in court. Along with Mohan, advocate Tara Narula also appeared for Husain. Asif Iqbal Tanha, one of the six accused out on bail, told The Indian Express, 'For the people who are in jail, the delay in trial is very problematic. But even those who are out on bail have various restrictions.'
On June 2, ASJ Lalit Kumar, who replaced ASJ Bajpai, heard the case for the first time. The Delhi Police and the accused persons were directed by the judge to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments. The court also stated that arguments on charge must be 'expedited'.
On June 6, ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution and the defence how long they would take to conclude the arguments. 'I will take 25-27 hours to outline the entire conspiracy… we have submitted a 1,200-page compilation. For the assistance of the honorable Court, I will keep it very concise,' Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said.
The 18 accused persons in this case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

30 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Telugu actor Vijay Deverakonda booked under SC/ST Act for derogatory remarks against tribals

Telugu actor Vijay Deverakonda has been booked under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the Raidurgam police for allegedly making derogatory remarks against tribal communities during a public event. The case was booked following a complaint filed by Nenavath Ashok Kumar Naik, State President of the Joint Action Committee of Tribal Communities, citing the comments made by the actor on April 26, 2025, during the pre-release event of the film Retro. According to the First Information Report (FIR), seen by The Hindu, the actor allegedly referred to tribal people as lacking intelligence and common sense and likened them to Pakistani terrorists. 'He insulted their tribal community by saying that they had beaten them 500 years ago without any intelligence and minimum common sense. Moreover, he made comments comparing them to Pakistani terrorists,' the complainant said. Attaching the YouTube link in the written complaint, Mr. Naik stated that these comments were not only offensive but deeply insulting to the dignity and self-respect of the tribal community. He said that the content was shared across multiple media channels, including YouTube via Sithara Entertainment's channel, drawing widespread criticism. Investigation is under way.

Hindustan Times

33 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Vijay Deverakonda booked under SC/ST Act over his remarks about tribal people during Retro pre-release event

Actor Vijay Deverakonda has found himself in trouble as a case has been registered against him under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for his remarks about tribal people during the pre-release event of Retro. The police confirmed the development to PTI on Sunday. Vijay Deverakonda faces trouble as police registers case against him for remarks against tribal people.(PTI) Case registered against Vijay Deverakonda Police stated that although the remarks, which likened the recent terror attack in Pahalgam to tribal conflicts from 500 years ago, were made in April, a case under the SC/ST Act was registered against the actor on 17 June following a complaint. "The actor made comments in April. However, based on a complaint, a case under the SC/ST Act was booked against him on 17 June,' a police official told PTI. The complaint was lodged by Nenavath Ashok Kumar Naik, also known as Ashok Rathod, who serves as the State President of the Joint Action Committee of Tribal Communities. He alleged that during the pre-release event of the film Retro, which stars actor Surya, the actor made statements that hurt the sentiments of tribal communities and caused serious offence. Rathod further claimed that the actor's comparison of tribal people to Pakistani terrorists was racially insensitive. What Vijay Deverakonda had said During the pre-release event of Surya's film Retro, Vijay addressed the Pahalgam terror attack and said, 'The solution to what is happening in Kashmir is also to educate them (terrorists) and ensure they don't get brainwashed. What will they achieve? Kashmir belongs to India, and Kashmiris are ours. India doesn't even need to attack Pakistan because Pakistanis themselves are fed up with their government and will attack them if this continues. Asalu 500 years back tribals kokkutunnatu, veelu buddi lekunda, minimum common sense lekunda chese panulu.' (They behave like tribals did 500 years ago, fighting without common sense). After facing backlash on social media for his comments, the actor expressed regret. He took to X and wrote, "It has come to my attention that a remark I made during the Retro audio launch event has caused concern among some members of the public. I wish to sincerely clarify: there was absolutely no intention to hurt or target any community, especially our Scheduled Tribes, who I deeply respect and consider an integral part of our country." The actor clarified that his intention was to promote unity, emphasising that India is one, its people are one, and the nation must progress together. He expressed disbelief at the idea that, while advocating for national solidarity, he would deliberately target or discriminate against any community, all of whom he considers part of his larger family. He concluded, "If any part of my message was misunderstood or hurtful, I express my sincere regret. My only aim was to speak of peace, progress, and togetherness. I remain committed to using my platform to uplift and unify — never to divide. Vijay Deverakonda."

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

In landmark order, Calcutta HC says transgender ID can be submitted while applying for passport; ‘big victory' says petitioner

Following an order by the Calcutta High Court after a battle lasting over a year, Anuprabha Das Majumdar, a transgender woman, can now apply for a passport with her transgender identity card. Directing the passport authority to consider the transgender identity card of Majumdar, Justice Amrita Sinha said on Wednesday, 'Transgender identity card of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of petitioner's passport application.' The ruling came after Majumdar filed a writ petition after the passport office denied her application for a passport even though she had a transgender identity card. Majumdar had applied for a passport in 2023 after getting her transgender identity card in February 2022. The Calcutta High Court's ruling effectively mandates the Regional Passport Office to recognise the transgender identity card as a valid document when processing Majumdar's fresh application, marking a significant acknowledgment of transgender individuals' rights under the 2019 Act. Speaking to The Indian Express, Majumdar's counsel Suman Ganguly said, 'As per my knowledge, this is a first case regarding the issuance of a passport on the basis of a transgender identity card. So this particular judgment will act as a precedent for the community in the future. They are being deprived of a lot of basic rights. The fight will go on, but this judgment will open a lot of doors.' Speaking to The Indian Express, Majumdar said, 'I had also faced the same issue while trying to obtain an Aadhaar card. They did not accept the transgender card but I contacted the authority under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019. After discussions, they (Aadhaar authority) took some time but they changed it.' 'Slowly, I changed everything, from my Aadhaar card to voter's card to PAN card. The passport authority said it is a major change so I have to go through the old process of gazette notification and all. They said they have not received any notification regarding the transgender ID card. We tried to contact the regional officer, sent emails, notices, etc. As a transgender person we only have this as the proof. After not getting a positive response, we moved the high court,' Majumdar added. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, enacted by the Indian government in December 2019 and with rules notified in September 2020, is a landmark legislation aimed at protecting transgender individuals' rights. It mandates equal treatment in areas such as education, employment, and access to public services, including the right to self-perceived gender identity. The Act also requires authorities to issue transgender identity cards, which serve as official recognition of an individual's gender identity. However, as Majumdar's case illustrates, implementation at the ground level has been inconsistent, often leaving transgender individuals struggling to access basic rights. During the hearings, Justice Sinha had expressed surprise at the passport authority for not knowing whether Majumdar had applied for a passport in 2023. 'The application was made in 2023. How can your authority say that she has not applied? That means they did not check it properly. How could the authority not have the knowledge of the application being made? These are online applications; they must be knowing it,' Justice Sinha had observed. Majumdar's counsel had also submitted a supplementary affidavit stating that she had applied for a passport, thus the counsel for the passport department sought time to take instructions. On Wednesday, the counsel for the passport office informed the court that the application had elapsed and if she reapplied, it will be considered. The transgender certificate and ID card are nationally recognised and provided by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Following this, the court ordered Majumdar to reapply for the passport. Majumdar told The Indian Expess, 'I am feeling very positive after the judgment. What all happened two years ago was very disturbing. As an Indian citizen, these are basic documents. This is a big victory for all transgender people. We face hurdles because of low awareness in society, but this is a law and any form of discrimination is a crime.' She said the fight will go on so that future generations do not have to face such hurdles. She has been invited for a senimar in the UK in July by an organisation that works for the legal rights of women. 'I will be applying for my passport via Tatkal once again and then a visa so that I can go for the seminar,' Majumdar said.