Supreme Court denies bail, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel remain jailed
Court grants bail to Gulfisha Fatima and others, offering brief relief after long legal struggle for families involved
The Supreme Court on Monday, January 5, delivered a closely watched verdict in the 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, refusing to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while allowing relief to five other accused. The decision once again highlighted the sharp legal and emotional divide surrounding one of the most contentious criminal cases linked to the violence that shook northeast Delhi nearly six years ago.
Anjaria held that there was a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The judges said the material placed before the court met the statutory threshold required to deny bail at this stage of the proceedings.
At the same time, the court granted bail to five other activists—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad—providing them significant relief after years of incarceration. For their families and supporters, the order brought a sense of long-awaited breathing space, even as the larger case remains unresolved.
The verdict followed extensive hearings in which the Supreme Court had reserved its decision on December 10. The arguments saw some of the country’s most prominent legal minds facing off. Raju appeared for the Delhi Police, strongly opposing bail and asserting that the accused played a central role in orchestrating the violence. On the other side, senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Siddhartha Dave, Salman Khurshid and Sidharth Luthra argued that the allegations were speculative and that prolonged incarceration without trial violated personal liberty.
Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and the other accused were booked under UAPA—India’s principal anti-terror law—along with provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Investigators have alleged that they were among the “masterminds” behind the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), protests that had already polarised public opinion across the country.
The accused had approached the apex court challenging a Delhi High Court order dated September 2, which had denied them bail in the “larger conspiracy” case. The High Court had earlier held that the prosecution’s material, at a preliminary level, pointed to a coordinated plan to incite violence under the cover of protests.
Monday’s ruling is likely to deepen debate around the use of UAPA, particularly its strict bail provisions, which make release difficult once a court finds prima facie evidence. Supporters of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have repeatedly argued that the law is being used to stifle dissent and keep activists behind bars for extended periods without trial. The prosecution, however, maintains that the seriousness of the charges and the scale of the violence justify continued custody.
For the five activists granted bail, the decision marks a crucial turning point. While legal proceedings will continue, their release offers a chance to reunite with families and rebuild a sense of normalcy after years spent in prison.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court’s split decision underscores the complexity of balancing national security concerns with individual liberty. Nearly six years after the Delhi riots, the legal, political and human questions surrounding the violence remain deeply unsettled, continuing to echo far beyond the courtroom.