Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case
Supreme Court rejects bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Delhi riots case.
Photo by Ryoji Hayasaka
Key Facts
Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
Case relates to 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy
Accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Delhi High Court found prima facie truth in allegations
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper 2: Indian Constitution - Fundamental Rights (Article 21, 22), Judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, Bail Jurisprudence), Government Policies and Interventions (UAPA).
GS Paper 3: Internal Security - Linkages between development and spread of extremism, Role of external state and non-state actors in creating challenges to internal security, Challenges to internal security through communication networks, Role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges, Basics of cyber security, Money-laundering and its prevention, Security challenges and their management in border areas – linkages of organized crime with terrorism, Various security forces and agencies and their mandate.
Legal Frameworks: Understanding specific acts like UAPA, CrPC, and their interplay.
Ethics and Governance: Balancing national security with individual liberty and human rights.
Visual Insights
Key Events: Delhi Riots, UAPA & Bail Proceedings
This timeline illustrates the chronological sequence of significant events related to the Delhi Riots, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the legal proceedings concerning Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, leading up to the Supreme Court's bail denial in January 2026.
The Delhi Riots of February 2020 occurred in the backdrop of widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The subsequent arrests of activists like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) initiated a prolonged legal battle. The Supreme Court's recent decision in January 2026 to deny bail marks a significant point in this ongoing legal saga, highlighting the challenges of securing bail under UAPA's 'prima facie true' test.
- 2019Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by Parliament; widespread protests begin across India.
- Feb 2020Delhi Riots erupt during protests against CAA, leading to significant loss of life and property.
- Sep 2020Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam arrested under UAPA for alleged conspiracy in Delhi Riots.
- 2021-2023Various lower court proceedings and bail applications, largely denied, prolonging detention.
- Mar 2024Rules for the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) are notified by the Central Government.
- Oct 2024Delhi High Court upholds the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing prima facie evidence under UAPA.
- Jan 2026Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, reinforcing stringent UAPA provisions.
More Information
Background
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was originally enacted in 1967, primarily to enable the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression, and to form associations, in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India. Initially, it dealt with 'unlawful associations' and activities threatening India's territorial integrity. However, its scope significantly expanded over the decades, particularly after major amendments in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019.
These amendments transformed UAPA into a comprehensive anti-terrorism law, incorporating provisions to deal with terrorist acts, funding of terrorism, and designating individuals as terrorists. This evolution reflects India's response to growing internal security challenges and international commitments to combat terrorism, moving from a focus on sedition and secession to a broader anti-terror framework, replacing earlier stringent laws like TADA and POTA which were repealed due to concerns over misuse.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the application of UAPA has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. There has been a noticeable trend of increased arrests and prolonged detentions under its stringent provisions, particularly concerning the 'prima facie true' test for bail, which places a significant burden on the accused. Several High Courts and the Supreme Court have, in various judgments, emphasized the need for a cautious approach in applying UAPA, particularly regarding the evidentiary threshold for denying bail.
For instance, the Supreme Court in the 'Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb' case (2021) observed that prolonged incarceration without trial would infringe upon fundamental rights, even under UAPA, if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
This has led to a nuanced interpretation of the 'prima facie true' test, requiring courts to look beyond mere allegations. However, the government continues to defend UAPA as an essential tool for national security, citing its necessity in combating terrorism and extremist activities. The ongoing debate revolves around balancing national security imperatives with the protection of civil liberties and due process.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. With reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), consider the following statements: 1. The Act was originally enacted to deal with terrorist activities and was significantly amended in 2004 to include 'unlawful associations'. 2. Under UAPA, the central government can designate an individual as a terrorist without requiring a judicial review. 3. The 'prima facie true' test for bail under UAPA makes it mandatory for the court to deny bail if the prosecution's allegations appear true on the face of it, irrespective of the duration of incarceration. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.None of the above
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. UAPA was originally enacted in 1967 to deal with 'unlawful associations' and activities threatening India's integrity. It was significantly amended in 2004 to include 'terrorist acts' and related provisions, not the other way around. Statement 2 is correct. The 2019 amendment to UAPA empowered the central government to designate individuals as terrorists without requiring a judicial review, which can only be challenged later in court. Statement 3 is incorrect. While the 'prima facie true' test is stringent, the Supreme Court in 'Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb' (2021) clarified that prolonged incarceration without trial would infringe upon fundamental rights, even under UAPA, if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, thereby allowing for bail in exceptional circumstances despite the 'prima facie true' test.
2. Consider the following statements regarding the bail provisions in Indian criminal law: 1. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), bail is generally the rule and jail is the exception, especially for bailable offenses. 2. The 'prima facie true' test for bail, as seen in UAPA, shifts the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate their innocence. 3. Article 22 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, which is explicitly overridden by UAPA for certain offenses. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is correct. A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, often reiterated by courts, is 'bail, not jail', especially for bailable offenses where bail is a matter of right. For non-bailable offenses, courts still consider factors like the nature of the offense, evidence, and flight risk. Statement 2 is correct. The 'prima facie true' test under UAPA (Section 43D(5)) requires the court to deny bail if, upon perusal of the case diary or report, it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is 'prima facie true'. This effectively shifts the burden onto the accused to show why bail should be granted despite the prosecution's 'prima facie true' allegations. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 22(2) mandates production before a magistrate within 24 hours (excluding travel time) for all arrests, including those under UAPA. UAPA does not explicitly override this constitutional guarantee; rather, it allows for extended police custody (up to 30 days) and judicial custody (up to 180 days without charge sheet) *after* the initial production before a magistrate, but the 24-hour rule for initial production remains intact.
3. Which of the following statements correctly describes the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019? A) It grants Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, specifically excluding Muslims. B) It provides a pathway to citizenship for all refugees, including Rohingya Muslims, who have entered India illegally. C) It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, to allow illegal migrants from any country to apply for Indian citizenship after 6 years of residence. D) It aims to deport all illegal immigrants from India, irrespective of their religion or country of origin.
- A.It grants Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, specifically excluding Muslims.
- B.It provides a pathway to citizenship for all refugees, including Rohingya Muslims, who have entered India illegally.
- C.It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, to allow illegal migrants from any country to apply for Indian citizenship after 6 years of residence.
- D.It aims to deport all illegal immigrants from India, irrespective of their religion or country of origin.
Show Answer
Answer: A
Option A correctly describes the CAA, 2019. It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, to provide a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan and entered India on or before December 31, 2014. It explicitly excludes Muslims from this fast-tracked citizenship process. Option B is incorrect as it does not include all refugees or Rohingya Muslims. Option C is incorrect as it specifies certain countries and religious minorities, not 'any country', and reduces the residence period for naturalization from 11 to 5 years for these specific groups, not 6 years for all. Option D is incorrect as the primary aim of CAA is to grant citizenship, not to deport, although it has been linked to concerns about the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
4. In the context of judicial review and fundamental rights in India, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review is explicitly mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution. 2. The 'doctrine of proportionality' is often invoked by courts to balance individual rights with state interests, particularly in cases involving restrictions on liberty. 3. A writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359 of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. While Article 13 declares laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void, the explicit power of judicial review is not solely derived from Article 13. It is also derived from Articles 32 (SC) and 226 (HC) which empower courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, and Articles 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 143 which define the appellate and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The term 'judicial review' itself is not explicitly mentioned but is an inherent power derived from various constitutional provisions. Statement 2 is correct. The doctrine of proportionality is a key principle used by courts to determine if a restriction on a fundamental right is legitimate, necessary, and proportionate to the aim it seeks to achieve. This is crucial in cases involving laws like UAPA. Statement 3 is correct. Article 359 allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights (except Articles 20 and 21) during a Proclamation of Emergency. This includes the writ of Habeas Corpus.