Supreme Court defers Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam bail plea in Delhi riots case to September 22

The Supreme Court has once again deferred the bail hearing of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The matter, earlier listed for September 18, will now be taken up on September 22.

This deferral extends the uncertainty surrounding the two men who have been in custody for over three years, intensifying debates over bail rights, trial delays, and the broader implications of anti-terror laws in India.

Background of the case

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader, and Sharjeel Imam, a research scholar at JNU, were arrested for their alleged role in the planning of protests and violence that rocked Delhi in February 2020. The violence, which coincided with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), led to 53 deaths and left hundreds injured.

Both activists have been charged under UAPA, a law often criticized for making bail extremely difficult. Their applications argue that they have been jailed without trial for years while evidence remains circumstantial and weak.

Read our detailed analysis on UAPA’s impact on civil liberties

Why was the hearing deferred?

The Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Bela Trivedi, could not proceed with the matter due to lack of time. While procedural delays are common, this case has drawn special scrutiny given its political sensitivity and the prolonged custody of the accused.

The new date, September 22, now holds significance for both the legal teams and human rights observers who have closely tracked this case.

Legal arguments so far

• Defense stance: Khalid’s lawyers argue that speeches delivered by him were critical of government policies but non-violent in nature, and hence do not amount to terrorism or conspiracy.
• Prosecution stance: The Delhi Police maintain that both Khalid and Imam were part of a larger conspiracy to incite riots, pointing to WhatsApp chats, meetings, and witness testimonies.

The central question before the court is whether the evidence meets the high threshold required under UAPA to deny bail.

Public and political reactions

The deferral has triggered sharp responses from activists, academics, and civil rights groups who call the prolonged incarceration “a denial of justice.” Student groups held small demonstrations across Delhi, demanding an expedited trial and accusing authorities of using UAPA to stifle dissent.

On the other hand, several political voices argue that cases of national security and communal violence cannot be rushed, and that thorough investigation is necessary to uphold justice.

Explore our coverage of recent student protests linked to the Delhi riots case

Bigger picture: Bail vs. jail under UAPA

This case once again brings the spotlight on India’s anti-terror law and its bail provisions. Under UAPA, courts are required to examine prima facie evidence before granting bail, often resulting in prolonged imprisonment without trial.

Critics argue that this “process as punishment” undermines democratic rights, while supporters say the law is crucial in combating organized conspiracies.

For Khalid and Imam, the outcome on September 22 could set a precedent that impacts dozens of other ongoing UAPA cases.

Conclusion

The deferment of the bail hearing reflects both the procedural delays of the justice system and the high-stakes nature of cases involving national security and dissent. As September 22 approaches, the case will not only decide the fate of two men but also rekindle the debate on where India draws the line between safeguarding security and protecting civil liberties.