In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to five individuals accused in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The apex court's decision, delivered on January 5, 2026, marks a pivotal moment in the protracted legal battle surrounding the communal violence that shook the national capital.
Who Are the Five Accused Granted Bail?
The five accused who have secured bail from the Supreme Court are prominent activists and students. They include Umar Khalid, former JNU student leader, and Sharjeel Imam, who was a doctoral scholar at JNU. The other three individuals granted relief are Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita. All were facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring to instigate the riots.
The Delhi Police had accused them of being part of a "larger conspiracy" behind the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in February 2020, which resulted in over 50 deaths and widespread property damage. The chargesheet alleged that the accused orchestrated the riots through a pre-meditated plan involving protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The Legal Journey and Supreme Court's Rationale
The bail order comes after a long legal process. The accused had initially been denied bail by the trial court and the Delhi High Court, which cited the seriousness of the UAPA charges. However, the Supreme Court bench, after hearing detailed arguments, found grounds to grant them bail.
While the detailed order is awaited, legal experts suggest the court may have considered the prolonged period of incarceration without trial completion. The Supreme Court has, in recent times, emphasized the right to a speedy trial and the principle of "bail is rule, jail is exception," even in cases involving special laws like UAPA, when the conditions are met. The court likely imposed strict bail conditions, which may include surrendering passports, regular reporting to police, and not influencing witnesses.
Reactions and Implications of the Bail Order
The decision has triggered mixed reactions. Human rights activists and civil society groups have hailed it as a victory for due process and personal liberty. They argue that the UAPA should not be used to indefinitely detain individuals without a swift trial. The families of the accused have expressed relief after years of legal struggle.
Conversely, the ruling has been met with criticism from certain political quarters and sections that believe the bail could hamper the investigation and delivery of justice for the victims of the riots. The Delhi Police and the prosecution are expected to study the order in detail once it is made available.
The grant of bail does not equate to an acquittal. The trial against the accused will continue in the special court. They will have to comply with all bail conditions and participate in the ongoing legal proceedings. The Supreme Court's order, however, sets a crucial precedent regarding the application of bail provisions in UAPA cases where the trial is delayed.
This ruling is seen as one of the most important developments in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, potentially influencing the legal strategy for other accused persons still awaiting bail. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing national security concerns with the fundamental rights of individuals, a debate that remains at the forefront of India's legal landscape.
