Delhi riots accused argues before Supreme Court that mere presence at protest is not a criminal act
Shadab Ahmed, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, told the Supreme Court that organizing or attending protests is not a criminal offense. Represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Ahmed argued that charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) lack direct evidence linking him to violence. The defense called for bail, emphasizing that peaceful protest is a democratic right, and challenged the prosecution's conspiracy narrative.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments from Shadab Ahmed, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, regarding the criminality of his presence at protest sites. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Ahmed, contended that mere attendance and organization of protests, specifically anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) demonstrations, do not constitute criminal acts under the UAPA or other charges. Luthra highlighted that Ahmed's inclusion in the conspiracy case stemmed mainly from testimonies of protected witnesses and a faint photograph, without direct evidence of violence such as videos or messages. Ahmed’s defense emphasized his role in supporting peaceful protests and questioned why he remains in custody despite bail granted in related cases. The prosecution alleges Ahmed’s involvement in blocking roads and supporting strikes, but the defense argued that these acts amount to legitimate exercise of democratic dissent rather than conspiracy or violence. The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, reserved further hearings for November 11 when Delhi Police will respond. The case reflects broader tensions over balancing protest rights with law-and-order concerns after riots that resulted in deaths and injuries in February 2020. The defense plea underscores constitutional protections for peaceful protest and critiques use of anti-terror laws against dissenters.
