Delhi Police Claims 2020 Riots Were ‘Regime Change’ Plot; Oppose Bail for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

By prashant jain

New Delhi, India – In a major update to one of India’s most controversial cases, the Delhi Police has strongly opposed bail for student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The police say the 2020 Delhi riots were not just random violence but a planned “regime change operation” to topple the government. This claim came in a detailed 177-page affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, just days before a key hearing.

Delhi Police Claims 2020 Riots Were ‘Regime Change’ Plot; Oppose Bail for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam

The riots happened in February 2020 in north-east Delhi. They broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a new law that many saw as unfair to Muslims. The violence lasted several days. It left 53 people dead – mostly Muslims – and over 700 injured. Shops, homes, and vehicles were burned. Police registered 753 cases across the city. The events shocked the nation and drew global attention, especially as they coincided with U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India.

According to the police affidavit, the riots were no accident. They call it a “deep-rooted, premeditated conspiracy” hidden behind peaceful CAA protests. The plan, they say, was to spark fights between Hindus and Muslims. This would create chaos and make the government look weak on the world stage. “The goal was to weaponize public anger against the CAA and attack India’s sovereignty,” the document states. Police claim the timing was deliberate – to “internationalize” the unrest during Trump’s trip and paint India as a discriminatory nation.

The affidavit points to strong evidence: documents, videos, and phone records. It shows how accused people, including Khalid and Imam, allegedly coordinated the violence. Umar Khalid, a former student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and Sharjeel Imam, an activist, are accused of being key planners. They gave speeches that police say incited crowds to riot. The plot, according to police, followed a pattern seen in other states like Assam, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. “This was a synchronized attack to destabilize the government through planned riots,” it adds. The violence was meant to radicalize people under the cover of protest, leading to armed rebellion.

Khalid and Imam have been in jail for nearly five years without a full trial. They face charges under the tough Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which makes bail very hard. In September, the Delhi High Court denied bail to nine people, including them. The court said the riots were “conspiratorial violence” dressed as protests, not free speech. It noted their “grave roles” in stirring communal hate.

Now, the case is in the Supreme Court. On October 27, 2025, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard arguments. The police asked for two weeks to reply, but the court refused. Justices said, “See if you can think of something… five years are over already.” This hints at sympathy for the long wait. The hearing was moved to October 31, 2025 – this Friday.

The Delhi government filed its counter-affidavit on October 30, backing the police. It accuses Khalid of leading the plot to “destroy communal harmony” and push for armed revolt. Others seeking bail include Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and Shifa-ur-Rehman. Their lawyers argue there’s no solid proof linking them to violence. Khalid recently told a lower court he was “singled out” and there’s “no physical evidence” against him. Imam once sought bail to run in Bihar elections, but that failed.

Human rights groups worry the case is being used to silence dissent. They say UAPA is a tool to keep critics in jail forever. The riots scarred Delhi, but the endless legal fight raises big questions about justice and free speech in India.

As the Supreme Court hearing nears, eyes are on whether the judges will grant bail. A yes could free the activists after years behind bars. A no might mean more delays in a trial that’s barely started. For now, the “regime change” claim adds fuel to a fire that’s burned for over five years.