Jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have formally moved the Supreme Court, challenging the September 30 decision by the Delhi High Court that denied them bail in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The activists, who have been behind bars since 2020, are seeking legal relief on the grounds that their prolonged detention has reached a critical stage without any substantive progression in their trial.
In their individual petitions, both Khalid and Imam contend that the prosecution has failed to examine a single witness, despite the passage of more than six years since their initial incarceration as undertrials. The legal teams for both men pointed to the looming expiration of a one-year window previously stipulated by the Supreme Court, which allowed for the filing of fresh bail applications under specific conditions. They argue that continued incarceration in the absence of an active trial violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and liberty, barring deprivation except through established legal procedures.
The current legal impasse follows the Delhi High Court’s refusal in September to grant bail, with the court citing that it was bound by judicial discipline. The High Court maintained that it could not override a previous Supreme Court directive from January 5, which had set specific benchmarks for when the accused could re-apply for bail. The top court had previously ruled that the accused could return to court once the examination of protected witnesses commenced or after a period of one year had elapsed, whichever occurred first.
The charges against the duo stem from the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi, which occurred during widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence resulted in 53 deaths and left more than 700 people injured. Police authorities have labeled both Khalid and Imam as key "masterminds" and "ideological drivers" of the alleged conspiracy, maintaining that their risk profiles are distinct from other co-accused individuals in the case.
During previous proceedings, the Delhi Police have argued against parity with other co-accused who have been granted relief, asserting that the Supreme Court previously identified Khalid and Imam as part of the "command authority" behind the unrest. In January 2025, the Supreme Court had upheld a high court order denying them bail while granting relief to five other co-accused, citing a prima facie case against them under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Legal representatives for the activists, including senior advocate Trideep Pais, had previously argued that there were significant changes in circumstances since the initial bail hearings, notably that charges have yet to be formally framed and prosecution witnesses remain unexamined. The prosecution, however, continues to oppose these pleas, relying on the severity of the UAPA charges and the initial observations regarding the alleged roles of the accused.
As the Supreme Court considers these new appeals, the case has highlighted broader concerns regarding the duration of undertrial detention in cases governed by the UAPA. The Supreme Court has previously acknowledged the need to examine the implications of long-term incarceration for those awaiting trial under such stringent conditions, and the current petitions are expected to test those legal parameters once more. For now, the matter rests with the apex court as the petitioners seek to break the cycle of repeated bail rejections at the trial and high court levels.
Comments