Why was bail denied to Umar and Sharjeel? | Explained
The story so far: The Supreme Court on January 5 refused to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case even though they were kept in jail for nearly six years without trial being initiated.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty is not “absolute” and remains subject to the stringent bail regime prescribed under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). However, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria granted conditional bail to the other five accused; It observed that the allegations made against them indicated conduct of a secondary or facilitating nature and therefore warranted different treatment.
How was the ‘hierarchy of roles’ created?
The court found that the prosecution evidence placed Mr Khalid and Mr Imam on a “qualitatively different footing” from the other defendants and required a different assessment of the “hierarchy of participation”. The court observed that the two do not stand on equal footing in terms of culpability as they were the “ideological driving forces” who allegedly devised the strategy of turning protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act into destructive road blockades aimed at paralyzing the national capital.
Hierarchy of roles: The Hindu editorial on which Umar Khalid was not granted bail
In contrast, the court ruled that the five defendants who were released on bail were “local-level facilitators” whose alleged role was limited to logistical arrangements at protest sites. He said their involvement was “derivative” in nature because they were merely carrying out the instructions of those higher up in the chain of command. Under these circumstances, the judges found that continuing to detain such “minor participants” would be disproportionate.
Why did prolonged detention not justify release on bail?
The defendants claimed that their long-term detention without trial violated their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in 2021 Union of India vs KA NajeebIt had held that the rigidity of the strict bail ban under the UAPA may “melt away” in cases where there is no realistic prospect of the trial being completed within a reasonable time as continued detention would be contrary to constitutional safeguards. The court, however, differed from the precedent by observing that it did not lay down a “mechanical rule” whereby delay alone could override the statutory restrictions on bail under the UAPA. He emphasized that Section 43D(5) provides for a strict threshold for granting bail which departs from the general principles applicable under ordinary criminal law.
After finding that Mr Khalid and Mr Imam at first glance They observed that because the judges took a “central role” in the alleged crime, the degree of caution required before constitutional safeguards were allowed to override the legal embargo on bail was “correspondingly greater.” In contrast, in the damages award to the co-defendants, the court noted that the claims against them were limited to facilitating duties. The court held that in the absence of any “commanding authority” or capacity to intervene in the proceedings, the balance tipped in favor of granting them liberty. The judges also rejected the defense contention that the delay in the trial was attributable solely to the Delhi Police and noted that perusal of the trial court records showed that while numerous procedural objections were raised on behalf of the accused, the prosecution had expressed readiness to initiate arguments on framing of charges at various stages.
How broad is the court’s interpretation of ‘terrorist act’?
Article 15 of the UAPA defines “terrorist act” as conduct that threatens or is likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or is carried out with the intention of creating terror among the population or any section thereof. While the provision refers to the use of weapons such as bombs, explosives or firearms, it also covers acts committed “by any other means”.
The defense argued that in the absence of overt violence, the protest organizations and ‘chakka jams’ (road blockades) attributed to the accused constitute a constitutionally protected form of protest and cannot fall under Section 15. The defense argued that the remaining phrase “by any other means” should be read. generally with reference to previous violent methods (of the same kind).
Rejecting this contention, the court agreed with the prosecution that Section 15 cannot be read as limited to the use of conventional weapons only. The court observed that this provision could be applied if actions leading to “persistent blockage of major roads” and “systemic disruption of social life” threatened economic security or disrupted basic services. The judges also ruled that if such blockades were timed to coincide with major international events such as the 2020 visit of U.S. President Donald Trump, at first glance It constitutes an act of terrorism under the UAPA.
What happens next?
Against the five defendants whose appeal was granted, the top court imposed harsh conditions to prevent the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Each of them was directed to sign a personal bond of ₹ 2,00,000 with two local sureties and was restrained from leaving the national capital without prior permission of the court. Specifically, they were prohibited from addressing or participating in any meeting and distributing any materials, including postings in electronic or physical form, until the conclusion of the hearing, including but not limited to the case. In the case of Mr Khalid and Mr Imam, the court gave them a limited time to revive their bail application and allowed them to approach the trial court after the interrogation of the protected witnesses relied on by the prosecution had been completed or after one year had passed from the date of judgment, whichever was earlier.
What are the consequences of this?
Lawyer Vrinda Grover told Hindu It is stated that the decision indicates a serious deviation from established judicial jurisprudence. “The presumption of innocence continues to operate when a person is subject to pretrial detention. In such cases, any decision that subordinates personal freedom to the interests of the state is unconstitutional,” he said. Ms Grover also warned that treating alleged road closures as “terrorist acts” risked emboldening governments to use the law as a weapon to criminalize dissent. “There is no case law to support this claim.” chakka jams could be considered an act of terrorism. “On the contrary, past precedent consistently holds that the more draconian the law, the greater the degree of judicial review required to ensure that it fits all four corners of the allegations,” he added.
It was published – 11 January 2026 04:50 IST
