In a significant ruling concerning the 2020 Delhi riots case, the Supreme Court on Monday, January 5, 2026, declined to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Both individuals are accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their alleged involvement in the "larger conspiracy" behind the riots.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria delivered the verdict, emphasizing that Khalid and Imam stand on a "qualitatively different footing" compared to other co-accused in the case. While denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the court allowed the release of five other co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. The court specified conditions for their release.
The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on December 10, 2025, after hearing extensive arguments from all parties involved. The legal challenge arose from a previous decision by the Delhi High Court, which had denied bail to the accused. The High Court had reasoned that an "unfettered right to protest" could impinge upon public order and that the evidence suggested a coordinated conspiracy underlying the riots. The 2020 riots resulted in 53 fatalities and hundreds of injuries in the capital.
During the proceedings, the defense argued that the accused have already been in custody for over five years, and there was little likelihood of the trial commencing soon. It was also argued that there is no concrete proof that the accused instigated violence during the riots. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, argued that the prosecution's case heavily relies on speeches delivered by Imam, which, according to Dave, cannot be directly construed as a "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the UAPA. Another advocate, A.M. Singhvi, questioned the "public interest" served by the continued detention of an accused, Gulfisha Fatima, who has spent nearly six years in custody.
Conversely, the Delhi Police argued that the speeches delivered by the accused incited the "choking of essential supplies" in the capital and amounted to a "clear terrorist act". Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, contended that the calls for "chakka jams" were not harmless political slogans but directives intended to disrupt essential services. The Delhi Police further argued that the alleged offenses involved a deliberate attempt to destabilize the state and were part of a well-orchestrated "pan-India" conspiracy aimed at "regime change" and "economic strangulation". They claimed the conspiracy was planned to coincide with the visit of the then US President, intending to draw international media attention to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The Supreme Court's decision comes in the wake of the Delhi High Court observing that the role of Imam and Khalid in the conspiracy was "grave," citing their inflammatory speeches that allegedly incited communal mobilization. The apex court's verdict is expected to significantly impact the ongoing UAPA proceedings related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
