Supreme Court rejects the bail plea of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has rejected the bail plea of former JNU students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who were accused of conspiring and orchestrating the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed their bail petitions.

In the same case, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rahman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. Umar Khalid and others were arrested in connection with the Delhi riots of 2020, charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for alleged conspiracy.

In 2020, incidents of communal violence broke out in Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Fifty-three people were killed in the violence and more than 700 were injured. Umar Khalid was charged with conspiracy in connection with these incidents and was booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Delhi Police. He has been in jail since then.

The Delhi Police have claimed that Umar Khalid was “one of the main conspirators” behind the Delhi violence. A former JNU research scholar, he was also charged with sedition for allegedly making “provocative” speeches. Umar Khalid had sought bail in the Delhi High Court, but after his plea was rejected there, he approached the Supreme Court. Appearing for Umar Khalid, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Khalid was not present in Delhi at the time of the riots and that the speeches cited by the prosecution only called for peaceful protest.

On Monday, however, the Supreme Court made it clear that issues of national security and public order outweigh arguments based on human rights or prolonged detention. Opposing the bail, Delhi Police told the court that the Northeast Delhi violence was not spontaneous but a “pre-planned and carefully executed conspiracy,” the primary objective of which was to undermine India’s sovereignty.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the ongoing tension between safeguarding national security and upholding civil liberties. As the legal proceedings continue, the case prompts reflection on how a democracy balances the right to dissent with the need to maintain public order.