The Supreme Court of India’s refusal to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, has once again brought the spotlight onto the country’s criminal justice system, particularly the use of stringent anti-terror legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The two have been incarcerated for nearly five years without trial, a fact that has sparked intense legal, political, and human-rights debate both within India and internationally.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were arrested for alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in Delhi in February 2020, which resulted in over 50 deaths and widespread destruction of property. The prosecution claims that the accused were part of an organized effort to incite violence and destabilize public order, invoking provisions of the UAPA that allow prolonged detention and impose strict conditions for bail.
In denying bail, the Supreme Court relied on the high threshold established under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail if the court is satisfied that the accusations against the accused are “prima facie true.” The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence but only to assess whether the prosecution’s case meets this preliminary standard. This interpretation has repeatedly been upheld by courts, reinforcing the exceptional nature of bail under anti-terror laws.
However, the prolonged incarceration of the accused without commencement or conclusion of trial has raised serious concerns regarding Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Legal scholars and civil-rights activists argue that extended pre-trial detention effectively amounts to punishment without conviction, undermining the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
The case has also revived criticism of the UAPA itself. Unlike ordinary criminal law, the Act allows individuals to be detained for extended periods, shifts the burden heavily against the accused at the bail stage, and limits judicial discretion. International human-rights organizations and domestic civil-liberty groups have repeatedly expressed concern that such laws are susceptible to misuse, particularly against political dissenters, activists, and minority voices.
On the other hand, the State has defended the law and its application, asserting that cases involving national security, terrorism, and large-scale public violence require a stricter legal framework. According to the prosecution, releasing accused persons in such cases could interfere with witnesses, compromise investigations, and threaten public order.
The Supreme Court’s decision, while legally consistent with existing UAPA jurisprudence, highlights a deeper systemic issue: delays in investigation and trial. Several judges, in past rulings, have cautioned that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot become the norm, even under special laws. The present case underscores the urgent need for judicial and legislative reforms to balance national security concerns with fundamental rights.
In essence, the refusal of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam is not merely a legal decision but a reflection of the broader tension between state power and individual liberty in contemporary India. As the trials continue to be delayed, the case remains a crucial test of the country’s commitment to constitutional values, due process, and the rule of law.