The Supreme Court of India has declined to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. This decision comes more than five years after their initial arrest, a move that has sparked significant debate and concern among legal experts and civil society.
A Retreat from Bail as the Rule
The Court's ruling, delivered on January 6, 2026, is seen by many observers as a stark departure from a long-standing legal principle: that bail should be the rule and jail the exception. The case is being tried under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law known for setting a very high threshold for securing bail.
In a detailed 142-page order, the bench further raised this already high bar. While it granted bail to five co-accused in the same case—acknowledging that prolonged pre-trial detention should not become normal—it created a distinction for Khalid and Imam. The Court placed them on a "higher footing in the hierarchy of participation", arguing their role was on a "qualitatively different basis" compared to others who had "merely conspiratorial association."
Prolonged Incarceration and Constitutional Thresholds
A critical exception for granting bail under UAPA is when an accused has suffered extensive pre-trial imprisonment. The Supreme Court itself has previously noted that even in terrorism-related cases, bail conditions should relax if there is no reasonable chance of a speedy trial.
In this instance, the Court admitted that the pre-trial detention of Khalid and Imam is "substantial". However, it controversially concluded that this period has not yet crossed the "threshold of constitutional impermissibility." The judges stated the accused could seek bail again after one year from the date of this order, implying they are short by a year to meet this undefined constitutional standard.
Dangerous Legal Expansions and the Chilling of Dissent
At the core of this case lies a critical interpretation of what constitutes a "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the UAPA. The provision defines such acts through the use of weapons like bombs or firearms, or broadly, "any other means."
Alarmingly, the prosecution's case has equated the creation of WhatsApp groups, calls for peaceful protest, and organizing road blockades to this "any other means" clause. The Supreme Court's order, by not challenging this interpretation, effectively accepts this expansive and loose framing. In a functioning democracy, this sets a disquieting precedent that threatens to criminalize legitimate dissent and peaceful protest.
Legal analysts point out that while the Court reminded itself that a bail hearing is not a "mini-trial," its order effectively performed a trial court's function. It categorized the accused based on the prosecution's narrative rather than a thorough examination of evidence, granting the state the benefit of the doubt at a preliminary stage.
The denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while freeing others, underscores deep inconsistencies in the application of harsh laws like the UAPA. It raises profound questions about the right to a speedy trial, the presumption of innocence, and the shrinking space for dissent in India's legal landscape.
