The Supreme Court refuses bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case under the UAPA. Here’s what the court said, why bail was denied, and what it means for free speech, protests, and undertrial prisoners in India.
Table of Contents
The Verdict: Two Activists Remain Behind Bars
On January 5, 2026, India’s Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in the Delhi riots case. The court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two prominent student activists who have been in jail since 2020. However, the court granted bail to five other accused in the same case. This split decision has sparked intense debate about justice, national security, and the rights of protesters in India.
Khalid and Imam have spent more than five years in custody waiting for their trial to begin. Despite their prolonged imprisonment, the Supreme Court found that the evidence against them meets a special legal threshold under India’s anti-terrorism law, known as UAPA. The court said both activists had central roles in an alleged conspiracy to plan the 2020 Delhi riots, which killed 53 people and damaged thousands of homes and businesses.
Who Are the Accused and What Are the Allegations?
Umar Khalid was a doctoral student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) studying political science. He became known as a vocal critic of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which promised fast-track citizenship to religious minorities from neighboring countries except Muslims. Sharjeel Imam was also a graduate student at JNU and participated in anti-CAA protests.
Both men were arrested in 2020 under UAPA, India’s stringent anti-terrorism law. According to the police, they conspired to organize violent riots during anti-CAA protests. The prosecution claims these were not spontaneous protests but carefully planned disruptions designed to damage the government’s credibility, especially during US President Donald Trump’s visit to India in February 2020.
The specific strategy the court discussed involves something called “chakka jam,” which is a form of road blockade or sit-in protest. Unlike a typical dharna, which is a peaceful sit-in, the prosecution alleges that chakka jams were designed to disrupt essential services and create conditions that would lead to communal violence. The police claim Khalid and Imam organized these through WhatsApp groups and strategic meetings to coordinate protest activities across multiple locations in Delhi.
What Did the Court Say? Breaking Down the Judgment
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, made several important observations about the case. The judges said they deliberately avoided treating all accused alike, recognizing that each person’s role was different. They conducted an “accused-specific” analysis, which is why some got bail while others did not.
For Umar Khalid, the court found that he played a “central and formative” role in the alleged conspiracy. The evidence included witness statements describing his involvement in meetings where protest strategies were discussed, his participation in WhatsApp groups, and his speeches during anti-CAA demonstrations. The court noted that Khalid allegedly explained the difference between a dharna and a chakka jam to other protesters and gave directions to organize 24-hour blockades at various locations.
Importantly, the court acknowledged that Khalid’s speeches consistently advocated non-violence. However, the judges said that in conspiracy cases, speeches cannot be viewed in isolation. They explained that when examined together with his organizational activities, meeting attendance, and use of coordination structures, the overall narrative suggested he played a planning and directing role rather than just a protesting role.
For Sharjeel Imam, the court found similar evidence of a foundational role in the conspiracy. The prosecution presented evidence that Imam created WhatsApp groups, delivered speeches calling for road blockades in December 2019 and January 2020, and participated in planning meetings. The court noted that even though Imam was not physically present in Delhi when the actual riots occurred, this did not protect him from prosecution. In conspiracy cases, the judges explained, a person need not commit violent acts themselves. Organizing, planning, and coordinating are sufficient.
The UAPA Law: Why This Matters for Bail and Free Speech
The central legal provision in this case is Section 43D(5) of UAPA. This rule makes it extremely difficult for people accused of terrorism offenses to get bail. According to this provision, bail can only be granted if the court believes the accused is innocent of the charges. In contrast, regular criminal law requires that a person be considered innocent until proven guilty. This inverted standard has made UAPA cases among the most difficult for defendants to secure bail.
The UAPA was originally enacted to deal with actual terrorist organizations. It was strengthened in 2008 after terrorist attacks. However, critics argue the law has been increasingly used against student activists, journalists, and political protesters rather than genuine terrorists. When the law uses terms like “terrorist act,” it does not require actual violence or death. The prosecution can claim that organizing road blockades, giving speeches, or planning protests constitute terrorist activity if these actions allegedly disrupted government functioning.
At the bail stage, courts examining UAPA cases are supposed to take the prosecution’s version of events at face value. The judges said they cannot examine the defense’s arguments or test the credibility of witness statements. This asymmetrical process means that police narratives, protected witness accounts, and intercepted messages form the entire basis of the bail decision. The accused cannot effectively challenge these at the bail stage.
What Happened to Khalid After the Verdict?
When the Supreme Court announced its decision, Khalid’s partner shared what he said in response. Khalid told her, “Good, good, aa jana. Ab yahi zindagi hai,” which means “Come, come. This is life now.” The statement reflected his acceptance of continued imprisonment. He was reportedly happy that five co-accused had won their freedom, even as he remained incarcerated.
This moment underscores the emotional toll of prolonged detention without trial. Khalid has spent over five years in custody in Tihar Jail, Delhi’s largest prison, without his trial reaching the stage where the actual trial evidence is examined. He cannot cross-examine witnesses or present his evidence because the trial has not progressed beyond the preliminary stage. The court acknowledged that this prolonged detention is serious, but ruled that the UAPA’s statutory restrictions override considerations of delay when prima facie evidence appears to exist.
The Supreme Court did offer one potential opening. It stated that Khalid and Imam could reapply for bail after one year or after the examination of protected witnesses, whichever comes first. This suggests that once some procedural progress occurs, the courts might reconsider the bail question.
The Bigger Picture: Free Speech, Protest, and Undertrial Prisoners
This case touches several important questions about how democracy functions in India. When protests against government policies are prosecuted as terrorist conspiracies, the line between dissent and terrorism becomes dangerously blurred. Civil rights organizations have expressed concern that the UAPA is being weaponized to suppress legitimate political speech.
The case also highlights the situation of undertrial prisoners in India. An undertrial is someone accused of a crime but not yet convicted. In UAPA cases, many undertrials spend years in jail waiting for trial because the law makes bail nearly impossible. Some experts argue this amounts to “punishment without trial,” violating the fundamental principle that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
The Delhi High Court previously granted bail to three other student activists in related Delhi riots cases: Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita. That court made pointed observations about the line between protest and terrorism. Justice Rajnesh Bhatnagar and Justice Siddharth Mridul wrote: “In its anxiety to suppress dissent, it seems the state’s mind has blurred the line between constitutionally guaranteed rights to protest and terrorist activity. If this gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Khalid and Imam’s case shows a different approach. While acknowledging the seriousness of prolonged detention, the court said that where Parliament has chosen to impose strict bail conditions under UAPA, the courts should not override these through constitutional principles alone.
The Evidence and the Conspiracy Theory
According to the prosecution, the conspiracy involved four phases. First, people organized anti-CAA protests starting in December 2019. Second, they created WhatsApp groups and coordination committees to expand these protests. Third, they planned to escalate protests into road blockades specifically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit. Fourth, during February 2020, these blockades allegedly transformed into communal riots.
The police rely heavily on WhatsApp chats, speeches, and testimony from “protected witnesses,” which means witnesses whose identities are kept secret from the accused. No weapons or incendiary devices were allegedly found in Khalid’s or Imam’s possession. Neither man was physically present at sites where the actual violence occurred. Instead, the prosecution builds the case on alleged planning, coordination, and direction of others.
The Supreme Court stated that in conspiracy cases, a person who plans and organizes does not necessarily have to be physically present when violence occurs. Planners and coordinators can be held liable alongside those who execute violent acts. This interpretation significantly expands who can be prosecuted for conspiracy, moving away from requiring direct involvement.
National Security Versus Justice: The Public Debate
India faces a genuine challenge with communal violence and security threats. The 2020 Delhi riots resulted in deaths and injuries that deserve serious investigation and accountability. However, the question of how to balance national security with individual rights remains contested.
Civil society organizations argue that using anti-terrorism laws against student protesters fundamentally transforms what the laws were designed to address. Terrorism laws should target organized armed groups planning mass casualty attacks, they contend. When applied to activists organizing peaceful protests that may have escalated into violence, the laws become tools for suppressing dissent.
Others, including the government and national security officials, maintain that large-scale disruptions designed to destabilize the government represent a genuine threat. They argue that an organized conspiracy to create communal violence must be prosecuted seriously, regardless of whether the organizers physically committed acts of violence themselves.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam case captures a deep tension at the heart of India’s democracy. On one hand, the state has a legitimate duty to investigate violence and prevent large-scale disorder. On the other hand, the use of an anti-terror law to justify years of imprisonment without trial raises troubling questions about fairness, proportionality, and free speech. By prioritizing statutory limits under UAPA over concerns of prolonged detention, the court has reaffirmed a harsh legal reality where the process itself can become punishment. The judgment draws a wide net around protest organizing, blurring the line between dissent and criminal conspiracy, and risks creating a chilling effect on civic participation. At the same time, it leaves a narrow door open for future relief, signaling that procedural progress may matter. Ultimately, this case is not only about two individuals, but about how a constitutional democracy balances security with liberty, and whether justice delayed can still be called justice.
Source: Umar Khalid arrested under UAPA in Delhi riots case: What is this tough anti-terror law? & Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy’: Why the Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam
Read Also: From Jail Letters to City Hall: A Story of Hope and Solidarity & Tragic Death of Tripura Student in Dehradun: A Hate Crime That Shakes India
