The Supreme Court on Monday made a significant observation in the long-running Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Umar Khalid, saying that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” — even in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The remarks came while the apex court examined earlier rulings that had denied bail to Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam.
The court reportedly expressed serious reservations about a January 2026 judgment delivered by another Supreme Court bench which had refused bail to Khalid and Imam while granting relief to five other accused in the same Delhi riots conspiracy case. According to the present bench, the earlier verdict appeared to dilute the principles laid down in the landmark 2021 KA Najeeb judgment, where the Supreme Court had held that prolonged incarceration without trial can itself become a ground for granting bail under UAPA.
The observation is politically and legally significant because UAPA is India’s toughest anti-terror law, under which securing bail is exceptionally difficult. Section 43D(5) of the Act places a heavy burden on the accused, allowing courts to deny bail if accusations appear “prima facie true.” Over the years, critics have argued that this provision effectively turns the process into punishment, with many accused spending years in jail before trial even begins.
The case stems from the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots that erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The violence left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. Delhi Police alleged that anti-CAA protests were part of a “larger conspiracy” to trigger unrest during the visit of then-US President Donald Trump to India.
Activists, student leaders, and protest organisers — including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and others — were booked under UAPA and conspiracy charges. Prosecutors claimed certain speeches and coordinated protest plans amounted to acts threatening the sovereignty and stability of the country.
In January 2026, a two-judge Supreme Court bench denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, describing them as alleged “architects” of the conspiracy. However, the same judgment granted conditional bail to five co-accused, saying their roles were peripheral or logistical rather than central to the conspiracy.
The ruling immediately triggered intense debate in legal circles. Civil liberties groups and constitutional experts argued that the court had expanded the interpretation of “terrorist act” under UAPA to include protest actions such as coordinated road blockades or “chakka jams.” Critics warned that such reasoning could blur the line between democratic protest and terrorism allegations.
Why This Observation Matters
The latest remarks by the Supreme Court indicate a possible judicial rethinking of how UAPA bail provisions are being interpreted. The court stressed that even anti-terror laws cannot override constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22, which protect personal liberty and due process.
The bench also reportedly observed that smaller benches of the Supreme Court cannot ignore binding precedents set by larger benches — a pointed reference to the earlier denial of bail despite the KA Najeeb precedent.
For Umar Khalid, who has spent years in jail without trial, the observations may strengthen future bail arguments. Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and has remained incarcerated in connection with the alleged conspiracy case ever since, though he has consistently denied all allegations.
The development is expected to have wider implications beyond this case. Legal experts believe the court’s remarks could influence future UAPA bail hearings across the country, especially in cases involving prolonged detention without completion of trial.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Bail For Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Grants Gulfisha And Four Others Bail https://www.vibesofindia.com/supreme-court-rejects-bail-for-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-grants-gulfisha-and-four-others-bail/
