Activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that he was being unfairly branded a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” despite having no convictions and without the conclusion of a full-fledged trial, as he sought bail in a case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots.

Appearing before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam, said the activist had been arrested on January 28, 2020, before the riots and that his speeches alone could not constitute participation in a “criminal conspiracy”.

“I am not a terrorist or an anti-national. I am a citizen of this country and have not been convicted of any offence,” Dave submitted, adding that Imam was already in custody when the FIR invoking conspiracy charges was registered in March 2020. “My speeches did not lead to the riots. I was already being prosecuted for them,” he said.

The Bench sought clarity on the police’s contention that Imam’s speeches formed part of an alleged larger plan that “created a platform for riots to take place”, with Justice Kumar asking whether such speeches could amount to a terrorist act.

Dave argued that the prosecution must establish a clear act beyond speech to sustain a conspiracy charge.

Imam also expressed anguish over being labelled an “intellectual terrorist”, telling the Court that such terms undermine the presumption of innocence. “These words were used against a citizen without a single conviction. After a trial, I can understand. But this label has caused me deep anguish,” Dave said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for activist Umar Khalid, argued that Khalid was not even in Delhi during the riots.

Playing a recording of Khalid’s February 17, 2020 speech in Amravati, Sibal said the speech emphasised peaceful resistance. “How is this a violation of the UAPA?” he asked, noting that “nothing in it is communal or inflammatory”.

“You cannot attribute someone else’s speech to me and say I am responsible for the riots,” Sibal said, adding that Khalid could not be kept in jail “as if to say that I will punish you for your protests”.

Appearing for activist Gulfisha Fatima, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that she had already spent nearly six years in custody while charges were yet to be framed.

Calling the delay “astonishing and unprecedented”, Singhvi said the prosecution’s claims of a coordinated “regime change operation” or a plot “to separate Assam from India” found no mention in the chargesheet.