Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Delhi High Court's order that denied him bail in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Imam is accused of being part of a larger conspiracy behind the riots and faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Delhi High Court, on September 2, 2025, rejected the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam and eight other co-accused, including Umar Khalid, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed. The High Court bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, had reserved its order on July 9, after hearing petitions filed between 2022 and 2024.

The case against Imam and the other accused pertains to the riots that occurred in February 2020, triggered by clashes over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). According to the Delhi Police, the riots resulted in 53 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The police allege that the accused individuals hatched a larger conspiracy to instigate multiple riots. The First Information Report (FIR) in the case was registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police under various provisions of the IPC and the UAPA.

The prosecution has argued that the violence was not spontaneous but a pre-planned conspiracy with a sinister motive. They claim that the accused were key conspirators in the riots. The Delhi High Court, in its order, observed that, prima facie, the role of Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy appeared "grave," noting that they delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines aimed at mobilizing members of the Muslim community.

Imam has been booked in multiple FIRs across several states, facing charges including sedition and UAPA. While he has been granted bail in some cases, including those registered over speeches he gave at Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, he remains in custody due to the seriousness of the charges against him in the Delhi riots case.

The High Court stressed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restricts bail. The court said bail cannot be granted if the accusations appear prima facie true. It also pointed out that witness testimony is still underway and the risk of witness tampering remains. Arguments based on prolonged incarceration were rejected, with the court stating that lengthy custody alone is not sufficient for bail in UAPA cases.