New Delhi – The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a landmark judgment on Monday, January 5, regarding the bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with five others who have been imprisoned for over five years in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case. The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail verdict will determine whether these activists, jailed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), will finally walk free after years of incarceration.
Background of the Case
The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas are connected to allegations of a “larger conspiracy” linked to the 2020 Delhi riots that occurred in February in parts of Northeast Delhi. The violence erupted following weeks of tension surrounding protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The riots lasted several days and resulted in 53 deaths along with extensive damage to homes, shops, and places of worship, with hundreds injured in the communal violence.
Umar Khalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while Sharjeel Imam has been imprisoned since January 28, 2020, even before the riots broke out. The prolonged detention without trial has raised significant concerns about judicial delays and the application of anti-terror laws in cases involving political dissent.
Supreme Court Hearing Details
A bench comprising justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria reserved judgment on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas on December 10 last year after hearing extensive arguments from both the accused and Delhi Police. The police have invoked the UAPA to oppose their release, citing the serious nature of the allegations.
During the December 10 hearing, the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned Delhi Police about the applicability of Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a “terrorist act,” to speeches and protest-related activities that form the basis of the prosecution’s case. This judicial scrutiny is crucial to the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail decision.
Other Accused in the Case
Besides the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas, the Supreme Court verdict will also cover five other activists: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. All seven accused are facing prosecution for allegedly being part of a coordinated conspiracy that culminated in the communal violence in northeast Delhi.
The accused have argued that the prosecution adopted a tactic of arresting one person at a time to artificially extend the alleged conspiracy and delay the trial, effectively keeping them in indefinite detention without a proper judicial determination of guilt.
Allegations and Evidence
The prosecution has presented several pieces of evidence against those seeking relief through the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas. One crucial piece of evidence cited against Sharjeel Imam is a video where he allegedly spoke about blocking the “chicken neck” corridor and separating Assam from the rest of India. Delhi Police has also cited another video in which Imam allegedly laid out a plan to “paralyse Delhi” through a “chakka jam,” cutting off essential supplies such as milk and vegetables.
Regarding Umar Khalid’s role, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju referred to what he described as Khalid’s antecedents, including a controversial 2016 JNU protest. Raju alleged that Khalid raised the slogan “Bharat tere tukde tukde honge,” and this FIR was relied upon in the supplementary charge sheet filed in November 2020.
Also Read: Baloch Leader Jaishankar Letter: Urgent Warning on China-Pakistan Alliance
Defence Arguments
Advocates for those seeking Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail have countered the allegations, arguing that snippets from hours-long speeches and WhatsApp chats have been selectively handpicked to create prejudice against their clients. They contend that the prosecution’s case relies on taking statements out of context rather than presenting evidence of actual terrorist activities.
The defence has emphasized that prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental rights and that the charges under UAPA are being misapplied to criminalize political dissent and protest activities protected under constitutional freedoms.
High Court’s Previous Ruling
The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas before the Supreme Court stem from a September 2, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court, which refused bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam. A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that material collected by investigators prima facie pointed to a coordinated conspiracy, describing Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the violence.
International Support and Attention
Calls for resolution of the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail issue have gained international attention. Newly appointed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently expressed solidarity with Umar Khalid in a letter that read, “Dear Umar, I think of your words on bitterness often, and the importance of not letting it consume one’s self. It was a pleasure to meet your parents. We are all thinking of you.”
On Thursday, the day Mamdani was sworn in as mayor, Khalid’s partner, Bunojyotsana Lahiri, shared a photo of the note on social media, highlighting the growing international concern over the case.
Investigation and Charges
Delhi Police investigated the 2020 violence and described it as a “conspiracy” linked to protests against the CAA. Several activists, students, and intellectuals were arrested under stringent laws such as UAPA. The police alleged that speeches and activities by the accused contributed to planning and escalating violence, claims that all accused have strongly denied.
Significance of Today’s Verdict
The Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail verdict expected today holds immense significance not only for the seven individuals who have spent years in jail but also for the broader interpretation of UAPA and its application to protest-related activities. The judgment will set important precedents regarding the balance between national security concerns and fundamental rights to dissent and peaceful protest.
Conclusion
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on the Umar Khalid Sharjeel Imam bail pleas, the case has become emblematic of larger debates about civil liberties, anti-terror laws, and the treatment of political dissent in India. The verdict will have far-reaching implications for how protest activities are treated under national security legislation.
