Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Denied Bail in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
Introduction to the 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The Northeast Delhi Riot in February 2020 was a series of violent confrontations associated with the protests against the Indian Citizenship Act and the National Register of Citizens. The violence resulted in more than 50 deaths, wounded many others, and resulted in destruction of properties. Later, the Delhi Special Cell police filed a case for a “larger conspiracy” in which a number of activists were accused of instigating the violence. Among those charged were prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Khalid and Imam were also accused under the tough Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA, and various other sections of the Indian Penal Code for being major coordinators of such unrest. They were also said to have had prior plans for such violent activities since they had speech and other forms of communications that intended to mobilize people and promote dissatisfaction.
Denial of Bail by Supreme Court and High Court
Supreme Court Denial (January 5, 2026)
On January 5, 2026, the Indian Supreme Court rejected the bail applications filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and a host of other accused defendants in the Delhi riots case. The bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria upheld the denial of bail. The bench made it clear that since the accused have serious charges levelled against them under the UAPA Act, bail cannot be granted at this stage.
The court also stated that the accused applied for bail after one year of judicial custody, which in turn serves as a precaution, considering the details of the charges brought against the accused.
High Court Denial (September 2, 2025)
Even before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, the Delhi High Court stated that bail applications from Khalid, Imam, and other defendants were denied. Their involvement in the conspiracy against Facebook was deemed “prima facie grave.” Moreover, they were told that a quick trial would only work against both the State and the accused defendants.
The court, which included Justices Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur on the bench, made the https://buzzook.com/indian-woman-killed-by-ex-boyfriend-in-the-us-police-say-motive-unknown/ point that this was no ordinary case of violence in the vicinity of a protest. Rather, the court identified a clearly orchestrated action in which the critical evidence indicated the active participation of the accused.
Legal Charges and Evidence Against the Accused
Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the accused face charges that include involvement in a criminal conspiracy that threatens India’s sovereignty, security, and unity. The prosecution has cited alleged inflammatory speeches and actions by Khalid and Imam to substantiate the case.
The Delhi Police claimed that various messages on WhatsApp groups, pamphlets distributed, and meetings held before the riots were part of the conspiracy to incite violence. They maintained that such acts could amount to unlawful activities under the UAPA.
The prosecuting agency has also pointed to over 3,000 pages of charges and 30,000 pages of digital evidence, including witness statements and investigative material, as the basis for continuing the prosecution against the accused.
Arguments from Defense and Rights Concerns
The defense for both Khalid and Imam begins with the argument https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-denied-bail-in-2020-delhi-riots-case-what-is-the-case-all-about-anti-caa-protests-10325205 that there is no direct link between the two and the violence. They draw attention to the fact that Khalid, in particular, did not participate in the rioting and focused on peaceful protest.
They also point out the fact that despite being in prison since 2020—and this is now over five years—and despite the trial, progress has been minimal. In fact, this has caused concerns regarding the trial as arrest without a conviction after a rather extended period could contravene human rights.
Human rights groups are concerned that this stringent bail provision in the UAPA could mean that people languish in preventive detention even as they wait for a trial that gets held up by procedural delays.
Broader Implications
The bail denials of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have sparked national and international attention. Critics highlight the slow pace of trial proceedings and assert that extended pre-trial detention undermines the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception”. Meanwhile, supporters of the decision argue that in cases involving alleged threats to national security, courts must act cautiously.
Additionally, the case has drawn international concern, with figures such as New York City’s mayor expressing support for Khalid, further adding scrutiny to the legal and human rights aspects of the matter.
Conclusion
The most recent ruling from the Supreme Court to withhold bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from the Delhi riots case of 2020 shows that Indian courts are taking a serious approach to UAPA laws. In this case, bail has already been denied at the High Court, as well as at the Supreme Court, and thus the two remain in jail as a trial slowly unfolds. This case is only adding to a debate on the balance between Indian law, freedoms, and security.
