Delhi Police Alleges 2020 Anti-CAA Riots Were Orchestrated 'Regime Change Operation'
Delhi Police allege the 2020 anti-CAA riots were not spontaneous riots but part of a pre-planned, nationwide ‘regime change operation’ to destabilize India. In a Supreme Court affidavit, they claim evidence links activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others to a conspiracy involving coordinated violence timed to coincide with US President Trump’s visit for international attention. The police oppose bail, citing ongoing investigation and stringent UAPA charges, as critics raise concerns over prolonged detention and the chilling effect on dissent.
The 2020 anti-CAA riots in Delhi, which erupted during nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, are now being described by Delhi Police as an orchestrated ‘regime change operation’ rather than spontaneous public anger. In a detailed affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the police argue that their investigation has uncovered ocular, documentary, and technical evidence pointing to a far-reaching conspiracy aimed at destabilizing both India’s internal security and its international reputation. The violence is alleged to have been meticulously planned, synchronized with unrest patterns in other states like Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. The affidavit specifically implicates student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, accusing them of not only instigating violence but also deliberately weaponizing dissent against the CAA. The police claim the timing was chosen to coincide with the visit of US President Donald Trump in order to draw international media attention and portray the CAA as a government-sponsored anti-Muslim measure. The affidavit further details how the accused are alleged to have stalled the judicial process, with the case mired in procedural delays for years. The Supreme Court is set to hear the bail pleas of the accused, whose prolonged detention under the UAPA—a law that makes bail difficult in cases involving allegations of terrorism—has drawn criticism from rights groups concerned about the erosion of civil liberties. The case has become a flashpoint in the debate over India’s anti-terror laws, the distinction between peaceful protest and organized violence, and the broader implications for freedom of expression and dissent in the country.
