SC Hearing Bail Pleas of Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Today
Supreme Court to hear bail petitions of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima in UAPA case linked to alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to hear on September 12 the bail petitions of three well-known activists — Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Gulfisha Fatima — in connection with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case tied to the February 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy allegations.
The matter will come up before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. The activists have challenged the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order which had refused them bail.
High Court’s StandOn September 2, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to nine accused persons, including Khalid and Imam. The court observed that acts of “conspiratorial” violence carried out under the garb of citizens’ protests or demonstrations could not be permitted.
The judges stressed that while the Constitution guarantees the right to protest, such rights are not absolute. Any protest, the court underlined, must remain peaceful, orderly, and within the framework of law. The verdict sent a strong signal that violent means cannot be justified in the name of democratic rights.
The Case Against the ActivistsThe case dates back to the February 2020 riots in Northeast Delhi, which left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured. The violence broke out amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
According to the prosecution, Khalid, Imam, Fatima, and several others were “masterminds” behind the riots. They have been charged under the stringent provisions of the UAPA, along with various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police allege that they were part of a larger conspiracy to orchestrate the riots under the cover of anti-CAA protests.
Accused Deny AllegationsThe accused, however, have consistently denied these allegations. Lawyers representing Khalid, Imam, and Fatima argue that the activists are being falsely implicated for their role in organizing protests and voicing dissent. They insist there is no direct evidence linking them to incitement or violence.
Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has often spoken about constitutional values and democratic rights. Imam, a research scholar, gained prominence for his fiery speeches during the anti-CAA protests. Gulfisha Fatima, meanwhile, emerged as a local activist in Northeast Delhi, known for mobilizing women in sit-in protests.
All three have been in judicial custody since 2020. Their bail pleas were earlier rejected by the trial court, following which they approached the High Court, only to face another setback. Now, the Supreme Court will examine whether their pleas deserve reconsideration.
The upcoming hearing is being closely watched not just by the legal community but also by civil rights activists, student groups, and political observers. The outcome may shape the way protest-related cases under UAPA are handled in the future.
Critics of the government argue that laws like the UAPA are being misused to stifle dissent and criminalize protests. They say prolonged incarceration without trial has become a tool to silence voices critical of state policies. On the other hand, the prosecution maintains that national security and public order cannot be compromised, and strict laws are necessary to deal with alleged conspiracies behind mass violence.
For Khalid, Imam, and Fatima, the past four years have been marked by uncertainty, long stretches behind bars, and repeated legal battles. Their families and supporters continue to campaign for their release, highlighting the human cost of prolonged detention without conviction.
As the Supreme Court bench hears their bail pleas on September 12, the stakes are high. If granted bail, the decision could be seen as a relief for activists across the country. If rejected, it would underline the judiciary’s cautious approach in dealing with cases involving serious charges under UAPA.
For now, all eyes remain on the apex court, which will decide whether the three activists will get temporary freedom or continue their long wait for justice behind bars.