The Supreme Court has denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case, while granting relief to five co-accused, citing prolonged incarceration and trial delays, rekindling debate on justice, liberty, and due process.
In a significant order that has drawn national attention, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
At the same time, the apex court ordered the release on bail of five other co-accused-Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed who have also spent several years in jail without the conclusion of trial.
Khalid and Imam have been incarcerated for over five years under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with the prosecution alleging that they played a central role in orchestrating violence during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a differentiated assessment of the accused, balancing concerns over individual liberty against the gravity of allegations and the stage of proceedings.
Court Flags Delay, Grants Relief to Five Accused
While hearing the bail pleas, the Supreme Court took note of the unusually slow progress of the trial, observing that despite years of incarceration, the prosecution has examined only a fraction of the listed witnesses.
The bench noted that such prolonged detention without a foreseeable end to trial risks violating the constitutional right to personal liberty.
In granting bail to the five co-accused, the court reportedly emphasised that continued custody, in the absence of timely adjudication, would be unjust. The accused have been granted bail subject to strict conditions, including restrictions on public statements, participation in protests, and regular reporting to authorities.
Legal experts view this as the court’s attempt to strike a balance-acknowledging delay and hardship while maintaining safeguards against potential misuse of liberty.
Defence lawyers welcomed the relief, calling it a reaffirmation of constitutional principles. They argued that their clients had already undergone punishment-like detention despite being under trial, not convicted.
“Liberty cannot be sacrificed indefinitely at the altar of procedure,” one defence counsel reportedly submitted before the court.
Why Bail Was Denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
In contrast, the Supreme Court declined to extend the same relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The bench observed that the allegations against them, as framed by the prosecution, required deeper judicial scrutiny at the stage of trial.
According to Delhi Police, both activists were allegedly part of a larger conspiracy that aimed to incite communal violence in the national capital.
Opposing bail, the prosecution argued that the nature of charges under UAPA, coupled with purported evidence such as call records, statements of protected witnesses, and digital material, made the case distinct from that of other accused. Officials maintained that granting bail at this stage could potentially affect the integrity of the trial.
The court, while not commenting on guilt or innocence, indicated that parity could not be mechanically applied and that each bail plea must be assessed on its own merits.
This reasoning has, however, drawn criticism from civil liberties groups, who argue that the prolonged incarceration of Khalid and Imam without conviction undermines the presumption of innocence.
The 2020 Delhi Riots: Background and Aftermath
The Delhi riots erupted in February 2020 amid polarised protests over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, leaving at least 53 people dead and hundreds injured, most of them from the minority community.
Large-scale property damage, displacement, and trauma followed, marking one of the worst episodes of communal violence in the capital in decades.
In the months that followed, Delhi Police registered multiple cases, including a sweeping conspiracy case invoking UAPA. Several students, activists, and community organisers were arrested, triggering widespread concern among rights organisations, academics, and international observers.
Critics alleged selective targeting of dissenting voices, while authorities defended their actions as necessary to maintain public order and national security.
Over the years, some accused have secured bail from higher courts, often on grounds of prolonged incarceration and delays in trial. Yet, the core conspiracy case has moved slowly, with hundreds of witnesses listed and frequent adjournments.
UAPA, Liberty, and the Question of Due Process
The Supreme Court’s latest order has once again brought the spotlight on the use of anti-terror laws like UAPA in cases involving protest-related violence. Unlike ordinary criminal law, UAPA makes bail exceptionally difficult, allowing courts to deny relief if accusations appear “prima facie true”.
Legal scholars point out that while such provisions may be intended to address grave threats, their application in cases with prolonged trials can lead to a situation where undertrials spend years behind bars without a verdict.
The court itself has, in earlier rulings, cautioned against indefinite incarceration and stressed the need to balance security concerns with fundamental rights.
Delhi Police officials have consistently stated that the case is complex and document-heavy, justifying the time taken. “The prosecution is committed to ensuring justice for the victims of the riots,” an official has said, adding that due process is being followed.
Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate
The split verdict has evoked mixed reactions. Supporters of the accused welcomed the bail granted to the five activists but expressed disappointment over the continued detention of Khalid and Imam.
Social media platforms saw renewed calls for judicial reform and faster trials, alongside counter-arguments stressing the seriousness of riot-related offences.
Families of the accused have repeatedly highlighted the human cost of prolonged incarceration-lost years, mental health struggles, and social stigma.
On the other hand, families of riot victims continue to seek accountability and closure, underscoring the need for trials to reach their conclusion.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that justice must be both firm and fair. Accountability for violence is essential, but so is safeguarding constitutional values of liberty, dignity, and the presumption of innocence.
A justice system guided by empathy, dialogue, and coexistence must ensure that laws meant to protect society do not end up punishing individuals indefinitely before guilt is proven.
