New Delhi – In a significant legal development stemming from the tumultuous 2020 North East Delhi riots, the Supreme Court of India on Monday rejected the bail applications of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The apex court’s decision marks a critical juncture in the protracted legal battle for the duo, who stand accused in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence. Interestingly, while denying relief to Khalid and Imam, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria granted bail to five other co-accused in the same case, underscoring a nuanced approach to individual culpability.
The Supreme Court’s pronouncement comes after months of deliberation, with the judgment having been reserved on December 10, 2025. The court affirmed the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision of September 2, 2025, to deny bail, stating that a prima facie case exists against both Khalid and Imam under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The bench observed that the prosecution material disclosed a “central and formative role” played by Khalid and Imam in the alleged conspiracy, thereby attracting the statutory bar to bail enshrined in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This section imposes strict conditions on the grant of bail in cases involving terror-related offenses, stipulating that bail must be denied if the court finds reasonable grounds, after reviewing the chargesheet, to believe that the accusation is prima facie true.
The court explicitly distinguished the roles of Khalid and Imam from those of the other five accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—who were granted bail subject to twelve strict conditions. This differentiation highlights the judiciary’s assessment that not every individual involved in a complex case stands on the same footing regarding culpability and the gravity of their alleged actions. The bench emphasized that bail adjudication necessitates an individual assessment of the role attributed to each accused, as identical treatment could lead to unjust pre-trial detention.
Umar Khalid, a former research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and a prominent voice during the anti-CAA protests, has been in judicial custody since September 2020. Sharjeel Imam, another student activist, was arrested earlier in January 2020. Both have consistently maintained their innocence, arguing that their detention, now extending over five years for some, without the commencement of a full-fledged trial, infringes upon their right to personal liberty. Their legal teams had contended that prolonged incarceration warranted bail, especially given the delays in the trial proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a delay in trial automatically serves as a “trump card” for granting bail in UAPA cases. It clarified that while prolonged incarceration triggers heightened judicial scrutiny, the UAPA, as a special statute, reflects a legislative judgment on the conditions for bail in the pre-trial stage. The court held that the continued period of incarceration for Khalid and Imam had not yet crossed the constitutional impermissibility threshold to override the statutory embargo. The court has, however, provided them with the liberty to renew their bail applications after the examination of all protected witnesses by the prosecution, or upon the expiry of one year from the date of the current order, whichever is earlier.
The 2020 Delhi riots, one of the deadliest communal clashes in the national capital in decades, erupted in February 2020, primarily between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence claimed the lives of 53 people, predominantly from the Muslim community, and left hundreds injured. The Delhi Police, through multiple charge sheets, have consistently alleged a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots, portraying them as an “orchestrated, pre-planned, and well-designed” attack on India’s sovereignty. They have charged Khalid and Imam, among others, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder, rioting, sedition, criminal conspiracy, and promoting communal enmity, in addition to the UAPA’s anti-terror provisions.
The prosecution’s case against Khalid has largely relied on his alleged “provocative speeches” made during the anti-CAA protests and his purported involvement in creating WhatsApp groups for planning the disturbances. Similarly, Imam faces accusations related to his speeches, which the police claim incited violence and constituted part of the wider conspiracy. Both activists have vehemently denied these allegations, with Imam expressing anguish in court over being labeled a “dangerous intellectual terrorist” without a conviction. Khalid’s defense highlighted that he was not even present in Delhi when the riots broke out.
This latest ruling from the highest court of the land reiterates the severe legal challenges faced by individuals accused under the UAPA, particularly in cases where the prosecution asserts a pre-planned conspiracy. While the denial of bail extends the custody of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the granting of bail to other co-accused indicates the court’s careful consideration of the specific evidence and alleged roles attributed to each individual, rather than a blanket application of the UAPA provisions. The trial in the larger conspiracy case continues to be a closely watched legal battle in India’s judicial landscape.
#UmarKhalid #SharjeelImam #SupremeCourt #DelhiRiots #BailDenied #UAPA #IndiaLegal #JusticeSystem #DelhiViolence #AntiCAAPROTESTS #IndianJudiciary #NewsReport #ONN
