Supreme Court to Deliver Verdict on Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Others in Delhi Riots Case on Monday
Seven activists including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider and Shadab Ahmed have been in custody for over five years under UAPA charges
NEW DELHI, January 3, 2026 – The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Monday, January 5, on the bail applications of seven activists accused in the alleged “larger conspiracy” case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots. The decision could determine whether the accused, who have been incarcerated for more than five years, will be granted relief pending trial.
The Accused
The bail pleas have been filed by:
- Umar Khalid (former JNU student and activist)
- Sharjeel Imam (student activist and scholar)
- Gulfisha Fatima (the only woman accused still in custody in this case)
- Meeran Haider
- Shifa-ur-Rehman
- Shadab Ahmed
- Mohd. Saleem Khan
All seven face charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, along with provisions of the Indian Penal Code including sedition, murder, rioting, and promoting enmity between groups.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR 59/2020, which alleges that the accused planned and coordinated protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that escalated into communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020. The riots left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, occurring during then-US President Donald Trump’s visit to India.
The activists were arrested in 2020, with Umar Khalid arrested on September 13, 2020. They have been charged under Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of UAPA for alleged terrorist activities and conspiracy, along with various IPC sections.
Journey Through the Courts
Trial Court (March 2022): The Karkardooma Sessions Court rejected bail pleas, establishing that materials presented showed sufficient evidence of conspiracy.
Delhi High Court (September 2, 2025): A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed the bail applications of Khalid, Imam, and seven other accused. The High Court characterized the riots as a premeditated, orchestrated conspiracy and held that prolonged incarceration alone could not be grounds for bail given the gravity of allegations.
Supreme Court: On December 10, 2025, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria reserved judgment after hearing extensive arguments from both sides. The court directed both parties to file any additional documents by December 18.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Defense Arguments:
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, emphasized that Khalid was not in Delhi when the riots broke out and that his Amravati speech, cited by the prosecution, was an appeal for Gandhian non-violent protest against the CAA.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, highlighted that she has spent nearly six years in custody and remains the only woman accused still incarcerated in this FIR, while co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal with similar charges received bail in 2021. He noted that her bail application had been listed 90 times, with 25 hearings lost due to bench unavailability.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Sharjeel Imam, submitted that Imam was arrested a month before the riots and is being prosecuted separately for the speeches highlighted by the prosecution. He objected to characterizations of Imam as an “intellectual terrorist” or “anti-national,” emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Prosecution’s Position:
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Delhi Police, maintained that the violence was not a spontaneous communal clash but a well-designed, orchestrated and preplanned attack on the sovereignty of the nation.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the accused were presented as intellectuals but were, in the prosecution’s view, educated individuals dangerous to society. Videos of speeches were presented, including those showing calls for chakka jams in multiple cities.
The prosecution argued that the conspiracy must be assessed through established principles of criminal conspiracy law and that the accused cannot claim parity with activists like Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, whose 2021 bail orders allegedly rested on incorrect UAPA interpretation.
Key Legal Questions
The Supreme Court will address several critical questions:
- Constitutional Rights: Whether years of incarceration without trial violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
- UAPA Application: Whether protest speeches, public meetings, and WhatsApp group membership can constitute terrorist conspiracy under UAPA Sections 16-18
- Trial Delays: Whether repeated supplementary charge sheets and delays in framing charges justify continued custody
- Bail Jurisprudence: The balance between liberty and national security concerns in UAPA cases
Evidence and Investigation
The investigation has produced a 3,000-page chargesheet along with 30,000 pages of electronic records. The prosecution has relied on protected witness statements, WhatsApp group communications, and video evidence of speeches.
The police allege that the accused used phone numbers based on false and fake documents, coordinated through specific WhatsApp groups, and deliberately planned the violence to coincide with the US President’s visit to cause international embarrassment.
Precedent Cases
The defense has pointed to the 2021 bail granted to activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in a similar Delhi riots case. That Supreme Court bench had raised questions about UAPA application and prolonged incarceration.
However, the prosecution argues those orders were based on incorrect legal interpretation and should not set precedent for the current case.
Significance of Monday’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications:
For the Accused: After more than five years in custody, the verdict will determine whether they receive liberty pending trial or continue incarceration until case completion.
For UAPA Cases: The judgment may establish important principles regarding bail in cases under anti-terror legislation, particularly concerning the balance between national security and personal liberty.
For Protest Rights: The case raises fundamental questions about the line between legitimate protest and criminal conspiracy, with implications for democratic dissent and freedom of expression.
For Justice System: With Gulfisha Fatima’s bail application listed 90 times and extensive trial delays, the verdict may address systemic issues of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Current Status
The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria will pronounce the judgment on Monday, January 5, 2026, at the Supreme Court in New Delhi. The decision comes after the court reserved judgment on December 10, following extensive hearings where senior advocates presented arguments on both constitutional and evidentiary grounds.
All seven accused remain in judicial custody pending the court’s decision. The trial in the case continues separately in the trial court, with charges yet to be formally framed against several accused.
