Activist Sharjeel Imam has filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The development underscores how the case, now over five years old, continues to test the balance between national security concerns and constitutional guarantees of liberty.
On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail pleas of Imam and eight other accused, including former JNU student Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Athar Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Khalid Saifi. The court ruled that while protest is a democratic right, its misuse to trigger orchestrated violence cannot be overlooked. The bench held that the allegations against Imam were of a “serious and grave” nature, particularly in light of his speeches delivered in early 2020.
What background of the 2020 Delhi riots continues to influence the bail hearings of accused activists?
The riots in North-East Delhi broke out in February 2020, leaving more than 50 people dead and hundreds injured, with extensive property damage across neighborhoods. Investigators linked the violence to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), alleging that certain speeches and mobilization campaigns fanned communal tensions.
In the aftermath, the Delhi Police registered a “larger conspiracy” case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Unlike regular criminal cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), UAPA designations significantly narrow bail opportunities. Prosecutors argue that Imam’s speeches were designed to inflame passions and disrupt law and order, positioning him as a central figure in the alleged conspiracy.
How has Sharjeel Imam’s legal journey unfolded since his arrest in January 2020?
Imam was first arrested in January 2020 from his hometown in Jehanabad, Bihar, for allegedly making inflammatory speeches. Over time, his name was formally added to the broader conspiracy charge sheet. For more than five and a half years, he has remained in judicial custody while trials slowly progress.
His earlier bail pleas before trial courts and the Delhi High Court were dismissed, with courts citing the seriousness of charges under UAPA. His legal team has repeatedly argued that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial amounts to punishment without conviction. They also highlight that Imam has already spent more time in custody than the likely sentence for some of the IPC charges alone.
What reasoning did the Delhi High Court provide while rejecting bail pleas in the larger conspiracy case?
The High Court’s September 2 order emphasized that Imam’s role could not be equated with that of co-accused Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, both of whom were granted bail in 2021. The judges reasoned that Imam’s alleged involvement was deeper, with speeches that prosecutors claimed carried an element of incitement.
The bench also rejected arguments based on parity with other accused, and dismissed prolonged detention as an independent ground for bail. It noted that the conspiracy case involves complex issues, multiple accused, and large volumes of evidence that necessitate extended trial timelines.
Why is the UAPA framework seen as a barrier to bail and how has the Supreme Court interpreted it in the past?
The UAPA is considered one of India’s most stringent laws, primarily aimed at counterterrorism. Its bail provision requires courts to deny bail if the prosecution can show that the accusations are “prima facie true.” This effectively reverses the presumption of innocence at the bail stage, placing a heavy burden on the accused.
Past Supreme Court rulings, such as in the case of Watali (2019), have reinforced this standard, making it extremely difficult for undertrials to secure bail even before conviction. Critics argue that this leads to long pre-trial incarceration, which erodes the principle of a speedy trial.
Imam’s case now gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit whether prolonged detention, in itself, can override the stringent bail bar of UAPA.
How does Sharjeel Imam’s case compare with other accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy trial?
The case has a broad cast of accused, each facing different allegations. Umar Khalid has also been denied bail by both the trial court and the High Court. His petition in the Supreme Court is pending, with the court reserving judgment earlier this year.
By contrast, women activists like Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021 after the court found insufficient evidence to keep them incarcerated. The differing outcomes highlight how courts distinguish levels of involvement when applying UAPA provisions.
Civil liberties groups argue that the comparison demonstrates inconsistency and subjectivity in judicial interpretation of what constitutes “prima facie true” allegations under UAPA.
What do legal experts and civil rights groups say about the prolonged detention of Sharjeel Imam?
Human rights organizations have repeatedly expressed concern over the long detention of activists in the conspiracy case. Analysts say the judiciary risks sending a message that accusations alone can justify years in prison, blurring the line between investigation and punishment.
Legal scholars note that the case has become emblematic of the wider debate on whether India’s protest culture is being criminalized. Civil rights groups argue that even if speeches are provocative, equating them with terrorism under UAPA risks chilling free expression.
Institutional sentiment from legal experts also points to the global perception of India’s rule of law. Extended pre-trial incarceration in high-profile cases is often flagged by international human rights bodies, potentially impacting India’s democratic image.
What lies ahead as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Sharjeel Imam’s bail appeal?
Imam’s appeal has yet to be listed for a formal hearing. Once it comes up, the bench will need to address whether prolonged incarceration can itself be treated as grounds for bail under UAPA. If the court accepts this principle, it could set a precedent affecting dozens of similar cases.
On the other hand, if the appeal is rejected, it would reinforce the prevailing legal interpretation that UAPA’s bar on bail overrides concerns of extended custody. For Imam, the case is about personal liberty, but for the legal system, it is about setting the boundaries of constitutional rights in the face of national security arguments.
How Sharjeel Imam’s appeal could reshape the debate on protest rights and state power in India
The Supreme Court’s handling of Imam’s petition will go far beyond his individual case. It will shape how courts approach UAPA bail applications, especially in politically sensitive contexts. A favorable order could bring renewed judicial focus on speedy trials and proportionality in detention.
Conversely, if the bail plea is dismissed, it would cement a trajectory where national security laws increasingly dominate over fundamental rights. That outcome could have long-term implications for India’s democracy, its protest movements, and its civil liberties framework.
Discover more from Business-News-Today.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
