In a significant hearing before the Supreme Court, activist Gulfisha Fatima has pointed out a major discrepancy in the case against her related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Her legal counsel informed the court that the sensational police allegation of a 'regime change operation' is completely absent from the official chargesheet filed in the case.
'Astonishing and Unprecedented' Delay in Trial
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Fatima, brought this critical omission to the notice of a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. Singhvi emphasized that his client has already spent nearly six years in incarceration since her arrest, while the trial has seen little progress. He described this prolonged delay as "astonishing and unprecedented".
The hearing, which took place on December 2, 2025, centered on the protracted legal proceedings faced by the activist. The core of Singhvi's argument was that while the investigating agency had publicly floated serious accusations like planning a 'regime change operation,' these claims did not find a place in the formal document that forms the basis of the prosecution's case—the chargesheet.
Disconnect Between Allegations and Formal Charges
This revelation highlights a potential gap between the initial narratives presented by the police and the actual evidence compiled for the judicial process. The absence of such a grave allegation from the chargesheet raises questions about the evidentiary basis for the claim that was widely reported in the media during the investigation phase.
Gulfisha Fatima is among the several individuals arrested in connection with the communal violence that engulfed parts of northeast Delhi in February 2020. The riots resulted in over 50 deaths and widespread property damage. The police have previously alleged a larger conspiracy behind the violence.
Legal Battle and Incarceration
The activist's plea before the Supreme Court seeks relief in light of the extended period she has spent in jail without a conclusion to her trial. The argument underscores the right to a speedy trial, a fundamental aspect of the Indian justice system. The court's attention was drawn to the tangible human cost of the delay—years of a person's life spent behind bars while awaiting a verdict.
The bench, after hearing the submissions, is expected to deliberate on the matter. The outcome could have implications not only for Fatima's case but also for the legal standards concerning trial delays in other complex cases. The hearing marks a crucial juncture in a legal saga that has stretched on for years, with the accused challenging the very foundations of the charges against them.
