SC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case
Supreme Court upholds 'hierarchy of participation' principle, denying bail to key Delhi riots accused.
Photo by Harsh Vardhan Yadav
Key Facts
Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
Decision on January 5, 2026
Case related to 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy
Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
Cited 'hierarchy of participation' principle
Five other accused granted bail
Allegations under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper 2: Fundamental Rights (Article 21), Judiciary (Bail jurisprudence, role of Supreme Court and High Courts), Constitutional Law (Interpretation of special laws)
GS Paper 3: Internal Security (Terrorism, Law Enforcement, Anti-terror laws like UAPA), Challenges to Internal Security (Communalism, Radicalization)
GS Paper 2 & 3: Governance (Balance between state power and individual rights, due process)
Visual Insights
Delhi Riots 2020: Location and Impact
This map highlights North-East Delhi, the primary location of the 2020 riots, which led to significant casualties and became the focus of the UAPA conspiracy case.
Loading interactive map...
Delhi Riots Case: Key Figures & Judicial Outcome (As of Jan 2026)
This dashboard summarizes the critical statistics and the latest judicial decisions related to the Delhi Riots conspiracy case.
- Deaths in Delhi Riots
- 53
- Bail Denied (SC, Jan 2026)
- Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
- Bail Granted (SC, Jan 2026)
- 5 other individuals
The human cost of the violence that erupted in North-East Delhi in February 2020.
Supreme Court upheld Delhi High Court's decision, citing 'hierarchy of participation' and prima facie evidence under UAPA.
The Supreme Court differentiated roles, granting bail to others, emphasizing varied levels of involvement in the conspiracy.
More Information
Background
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was originally enacted in 1967, primarily to deal with associations engaged in secessionist activities. Its scope was significantly expanded over the years, particularly after the repeal of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in 1995 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2004. The 2004 amendment brought 'terrorist acts' under UAPA's purview, making it India's principal anti-terrorism legislation.
Subsequent amendments in 2008, 2012, and 2019 further strengthened its provisions, including allowing the designation of individuals as terrorists. This evolution reflects India's ongoing struggle with various forms of internal security threats, from insurgency to cross-border terrorism, leading to a legal framework that prioritizes national security, often at the cost of stringent bail conditions. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), enacted in 2019, itself amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, offering a path to Indian citizenship for religious minorities (excluding Muslims) who fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan before a specific cut-off date.
This Act sparked widespread protests, forming the backdrop of the Delhi riots case.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the application of UAPA has been a subject of intense debate, with civil rights organizations and legal experts raising concerns about its stringent bail provisions (Section 43D(5)) and the low conviction rates, often leading to prolonged incarceration without trial. The Supreme Court, in its 2021 judgment in *Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb*, emphasized that while bail conditions under UAPA are stringent, they do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration and violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). However, the present ruling denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting it to others in the same case, highlights the judiciary's nuanced approach, distinguishing between levels of involvement based on the 'hierarchy of participation' principle. This indicates a continuing judicial effort to balance individual liberty with national security concerns, often leading to varied outcomes based on the specific facts and evidence presented.
Future developments are likely to involve further legal challenges to UAPA's constitutional validity and more precise judicial interpretations regarding the threshold for denying bail in complex conspiracy cases.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. With reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), consider the following statements: 1. UAPA was originally enacted to deal with terrorist activities and replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). 2. Under UAPA, both organizations and individuals can be designated as terrorists. 3. The stringent bail provisions under UAPA are often criticized for potentially violating the 'presumption of innocence' principle. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect. UAPA was originally enacted in 1967 to deal with unlawful associations, primarily secessionist activities. It was later amended in 2004 to include 'terrorist acts' and effectively replaced POTA, but it was not originally enacted for terrorist activities. Statement 2 is correct. The 2019 amendment to UAPA allowed the central government to designate individuals as terrorists, in addition to organizations. Statement 3 is correct. The stringent bail provisions, particularly Section 43D(5), which states that bail cannot be granted if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true, are often criticized for making bail extremely difficult and potentially undermining the presumption of innocence.
2. Which of the following statements best describes the 'hierarchy of participation' principle as applied in criminal conspiracy cases?
- A.All individuals involved in a conspiracy are treated equally regardless of their role or contribution.
- B.It differentiates between the roles of various accused, applying stricter conditions to those with a more central or significant role.
- C.It mandates that only the primary orchestrator of a conspiracy can be held liable for the crime.
- D.The principle is exclusively used in cases involving financial fraud and not in cases of public disorder.
Show Answer
Answer: B
The 'hierarchy of participation' principle, as highlighted in the news, suggests that courts may differentiate between the roles of various accused in a criminal conspiracy. Those with a more central, significant, or orchestrating role may face stricter legal consequences, including more stringent bail conditions, compared to those with peripheral involvement. This principle acknowledges that not all participants in a conspiracy contribute equally to the crime.
3. Consider the following statements regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019: 1. It seeks to grant Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. 2. The Act includes Muslims who have faced persecution in these countries. 3. It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, and applies to those who entered India before December 31, 2014. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.1 and 3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is correct. The CAA aims to provide a path to Indian citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who have fled religious persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Statement 2 is incorrect. The Act specifically excludes Muslims from its purview, which has been a major point of contention and criticism. Statement 3 is correct. The CAA amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, and applies to those who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
4. In the context of bail jurisprudence in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
- A.Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, is implicitly linked to the right to bail.
- B.The principle 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of *State of Rajasthan v. Balchand*.
- C.Special laws like UAPA can impose more stringent conditions for bail compared to the general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
- D.The Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged incarceration under special laws automatically entitles an accused to bail, irrespective of the prima facie evidence.
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement D is NOT correct. While the Supreme Court, in cases like *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb* (2021), has acknowledged that prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail even under stringent special laws like UAPA, it has NOT held that it automatically entitles an accused to bail 'irrespective of the prima facie evidence'. The courts still weigh the evidence and the nature of allegations, alongside the duration of detention, to strike a balance. Statements A, B, and C are correct. Article 21 is fundamental to personal liberty, the 'bail is the rule' principle is a landmark pronouncement, and special laws indeed override general CrPC provisions for bail.