Fatima was arrested on 9 April 2020 in the aftermath of mass unrest in North-East Delhi and remains in custody under charges including those under the Unlawful Activities Act. Prosecutors argue the violence was not spontaneous but rather a premeditated and orchestrated campaign.
Her petition follows parallel legal recourse taken by co-accused, notably Sharjeel Imam, who on 6 September also filed a plea in the Supreme Court challenging denial of bail by the same bench. The High Court notably asserted that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech,” reinforcing its stance that public demonstrations must remain peaceful and within the law.
Fatima has been detained for more than five years, enduring prolonged pre-trial custody in a case that draws intense scrutiny over the application of anti-terror legislation to dissent and protest.][7], [Wikipedia][8]) Justice Chawla and Justice Kaur, in their 2 September order, emphasised that the constitutional right to protest does not extend to conspiratorial violence—even when it masquerades as peaceful dissent.
With both Fatima and Imam now awaiting hearings before the apex court, the Supreme Court is poised to confront how its established doctrines on bail—particularly emphasizing individual liberty and the right to a fair trial—intersect with stringent provisions of the UAPA, under which obtaining bail is notably stringent.
Gulfisha Fatima Takes Bail Rejection to Supreme Court is a unique paraphrase of the headline already embedded here, underscoring the significance of her action and its departure from conventional protest narratives.