Context:

On 5 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case. While the apex court granted conditional bail to five other co-accused, the ruling underscores heightened judicial scrutiny in cases involving anti-terror laws, particularly the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Background of the Case:

The 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries. Investigations conducted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act alleged a “larger criminal conspiracy” aimed at orchestrating violence across the national capital.

Supreme Court Observations:

• • • Denial of Bail: The Court observed that prima facie material under the UAPA indicates the involvement of Khalid and Imam in activities affecting public order and security. Bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is exceptional, and prolonged incarceration alone does not justify release.
    • Differentiated Treatment: The five co-accused granted bail were found to have peripheral roles, whereas Khalid and Imam were alleged to have played central roles in planning and mobilisation.
    • Future Bail Applications: The Court clarified that fresh bail applications may be filed after one year or after the examination of protected witnesses, thereby ensuring procedural fairness.

Precedents on Bail under UAPA:

• • • Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021):
      • The accused had spent over five years in custody, with 276 witnesses yet to be examined.
      • The Supreme Court granted bail citing prolonged incarceration despite the restrictive nature of Section 43D(5).
    • Bhima Koregaon Case – Shoma Sen (April 2024):
      • Bail was granted on the ground of extended pre-trial detention.
      • The Court reaffirmed that Article 21 requires any deprivation of liberty to be reasonable, just, and proportionate.
    • Sheikh Javed Iqbal Case (July 2024):
      • A Nepali national was incarcerated for over nine years under the UAPA, with only two witnesses examined.
      • Bail was granted on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy trial.

Legal Reasoning and Constitutional Considerations:

• • • UAPA and the Strict Bail Regime:
      • The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 establishes a stringent framework for bail.
      • Section 43D(5): Prohibits bail if prima facie evidence suggests the allegations are true. o Significantly restricts early release, placing emphasis on prosecutorial assessment.
      • Judicial Position: Bail under the UAPA is not routine and requires careful judicial scrutiny of evidence and the accused’s alleged role.
    • Article 21 — Personal Liberty vs. Statutory Constraints:
      • Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
      • The Court held that constitutional protections cannot automatically override statutory restrictions in matters concerning national security and terrorism.
      • Prima facie findings under the UAPA may justify continued detention, reflecting a balance between individual liberty and public safety.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam highlights the rigorous bail standards under the UAPA and illustrates the judiciary’s effort to balance constitutional liberties with national security considerations. The ruling is likely to shape ongoing debates on anti-terror legislation, pre-trial detention, and the scope of judicial discretion in India.