UAPA and Delhi Riots Case: Bail Denials and Expanding Definitions of Terrorism (2026)

Story Summary

In January 2026, the Supreme Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots case intensified scrutiny of the UAPA's application and its expanding definition of 'terrorist act.' The court's emphasis on a 'hierarchy of participation' and the need for witness protection further complicated the bail process. Concerns persist regarding prolonged detention without trial and the balance between national security and individual liberties. Adding to these concerns, a Delhi court denied bail to three individuals in a separate conspiracy case, reaffirming the stringent bail provisions under UAPA. These decisions collectively reinforce the challenges faced by those accused under UAPA and raise questions about due process.

Key Facts

1. 1Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail by the Supreme Court on January 6, 2026.
2. 2The case involves charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
3. 3The Supreme Court emphasized a 'hierarchy of participation' in criminal conspiracy.
4. 4Concerns were raised about the expanding definition of 'terrorist act' under UAPA.
5. 5The accused have been in jail for over five years without trial.
6. 6The Supreme Court highlighted the need for witness protection against state overreach.
7. 7The case stems from the 2020 Delhi riots.