Supreme Court Proceedings on Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case Bail Pleas: UPSC Current Affairs Story Arc
ExamRobot — UPSC prep tools
ExploreOn January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court balanced on a legal tightrope: it granted bail to 5 out of 7 accused while simultaneously denying it to the case's most high-profile figures, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. This verdict marks the definitive shift where 'speedy trial' under Article 21 finally trumped the near-impossible bail conditions of the UAPA.
Overview
This arc tracks the high-stakes legal battle of the 2020 Northeast Delhi Riots conspiracy case through the halls of the Supreme Court. Following years of incarceration without trial, several activists challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant them bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The sequence began with the SC scheduling hearings in September 2025, progressed through intense arguments regarding 'unpalatable' vs. 'inciting' speech in late 2025, and culminated in a landmark January 2026 verdict. While the court reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration violates the Right to Life (Article 21), it maintained a selective approach, granting relief to some based on the lack of a speedy trial while keeping others in custody based on the perceived gravity of their 'conspiracy' roles.
How This Story Evolved
Supreme Court scheduled hearing (Sept 2025) → Heard arguments (Nov 2025) → Reserved judgment (Dec 2025) → Delivered final verdict (Jan 2026)
- 2025-09-12: Supreme Court to Hear Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Case
More details
UPSC Angle: Supreme Court to hear bail pleas in Delhi riots case.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court hearing on September 12, 2025
- Bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider
- Case registered under UAPA
- Relates to February 2020 Delhi riots
- 2025-11-03: Supreme Court Hears Bail Petitions in Delhi Riots Case
More details
UPSC Angle: Not exam-relevant
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court heard bail petitions on November 3, 2025.
- Case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
- Activists involved: Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, and Shifa-ur-Rehman.
- Shifa-ur-Rehman argued he was 'cherry-picked' and no offense was made out against him under the UAPA.
- 2025-12-10: SC reserves judgment on Umar Khalid's bail plea in Delhi riots case
More details
UPSC Angle: SC reserves judgment on Umar Khalid's bail plea in Delhi riots case.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court
- Umar Khalid
- Sharjeel Imam
- 2020 Delhi riots cases
- bail pleas
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
- December 9, 2025
- 2026-01-06: Supreme Court on Prolonged Incarceration and Bail
More details
UPSC Angle: Supreme Court on prolonged incarceration and bail.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court granted bail to five of the seven accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case
- Denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
- Relied on Union of India v. K A Najeeb ruling
- Constitutional courts may grant bail under UAPA if there is no likelihood of a speedy trial
- To protect Article 21 rights to life and liberty
Genesis
Trigger
The filing of bail petitions in the Supreme Court on September 12, 2025, by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others, challenging the Delhi High Court's earlier orders that had consistently denied them relief under UAPA.
Why Now
The shift occurred as the accused reached a threshold of 'prolonged incarceration' (nearly 5-6 years by the time of the 2026 verdict) without the trial reaching a conclusion, making the delay a constitutional issue rather than just a criminal one.
Historical Context
The case stems from the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Legally, it follows the precedent set by the 'Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb' (2021) case, where the SC ruled that special laws like UAPA cannot take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail if a trial is delayed indefinitely.
Key Turning Points
- [2025-11-03] Arguments begin on 'unpalatable' speech vs. incitement
Shifted the legal focus from the facts of the riot to the intent and legality of the speeches made by the activists.
Before: Focus was on the violence of Feb 2020. After: Focus shifted to whether dissent/speech constitutes a 'terrorist act'.
- [2026-01-06] Final Verdict delivered
Set a bifurcated precedent: bail is possible for long-term under-trials, but high-profile 'conspirators' may still be excluded.
Before: All remained in custody for years. After: Five regained liberty, while two face continued incarceration.
Key Actors and Institutions
| Name | Role | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Umar Khalid | Former JNU Student / Activist | The primary face of the bail petitions; argued that 'unpalatable' speech is not a crime under UAPA; bail was denied in the Jan 2026 verdict. |
| Sharjeel Imam | PhD Scholar / Activist | Co-accused whose bail plea was central to the SC hearings; bail was denied alongside Khalid on Jan 6, 2026. |
| Shifa-ur-Rehman | Activist | Argued he was 'cherry-picked' by investigators; successfully obtained bail in the final January 2026 ruling. |
Key Institutions
- Supreme Court of India (SC)
- Delhi High Court
- Delhi Police Special Cell
- Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Key Concepts
Section 43D(5) of UAPA
A provision that prohibits bail if the court, based on the police case diary, believes the accusations are 'prima facie true'. This effectively makes 'bail the exception' in terror cases.
Current Fact: The SC bypassed this restriction for 5 accused in Jan 2026 by citing constitutional powers over statutory restrictions.
Article 21: Right to Speedy Trial
A fundamental right derived from the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, ensuring that an accused is not punished by process through indefinite delays.
Current Fact: The Jan 2026 verdict specifically relied on this right to grant bail despite UAPA charges.
K.A. Najeeb Precedent
A 2021 Supreme Court ruling establishing that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases if the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, to protect Article 21.
Current Fact: The Court explicitly cited this ruling on January 6, 2026, as the basis for its decision.
What Happens Next
Current Status
As of January 6, 2026, the Supreme Court has delivered its final verdict on these specific bail pleas, granting liberty to five accused (including Shifa-ur-Rehman and Meeran Haider) but denying it to Khalid and Imam.
Likely Next
The trial for the main conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020) will continue in the lower courts, while the denied parties may seek further legal remedies like a 'review petition' or fresh bail pleas based on future trial delays.
Wildcards
Potential acquittal or conviction of co-accused in related minor cases could influence the primary 'conspiracy' trial's momentum.
Why UPSC Cares
Syllabus Topics
- Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary
- Fundamental Rights and Protection of Liberty
- Challenges to internal security through communication networks
Essay Angles
- Personal Liberty vs. National Security: The UAPA Dilemma
- Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: The under-trial crisis in India
Prelims Likely: Yes
Mains Likely: Yes
Trend Signal: rising
Exam Intelligence
Previous Year Question Connections
- Right to Privacy and Article 21 — Matches the SC's reliance on Article 21 to override statutory restrictions (UAPA) in the Jan 2026 verdict.
- Article 21 and indefinite detention of under-trials — Directly correlates with the SC's argument that indefinite detention without trial violates the Constitution.
Prelims Angles
- Section 43D(5) of UAPA and how it differs from Section 437/439 of CrPC regarding bail.
- The role of the K.A. Najeeb (2021) judgement in UAPA jurisprudence.
- Article 21 as a 'sole repository' of liberty during and after emergencies (ADM Jabalpur vs Maneka Gandhi context).
Mains Preparation
Sample Question: Analyze the conflict between the state's power to combat terrorism under special laws like UAPA and the judiciary's duty to protect individual liberty under Article 21. Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court trends.
Answer Structure: Intro: Define the tension between security (UAPA) and liberty (Art 21) -> Body 1: The restrictive nature of Sec 43D(5) -> Body 2: Judicial evolution from Watali (strict) to Najeeb (flexible based on delay) -> Critical Analysis: The selective application of bail (Khalid vs. others) -> Conclusion: Need for a balance and time-bound trials.
Essay Topic: The 'Procedure Established by Law' must also be a 'Just, Fair and Reasonable' procedure.
Textbook Connections
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > Protection of Life and Personal Liberty > p. 90
Lists 'Right to speedy trial' as a declared part of Article 21 by the SC (Hussainara Khatoon case).
Gap: Textbooks focus on general cases like Hussainara Khatoon but don't yet cover the conflict where special laws like UAPA explicitly try to bar this right, as seen in this 2025-26 arc.
Quick Revision
- Supreme Court Verdict Date: January 6, 2026
- Bail Ratio: 5 granted (including Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman), 2 denied (Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam)
- Primary Legal Basis: Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)
- Constitutional Pivot: Article 21 (Speedy Trial) vs Statutory Law (UAPA)
- Key Statute: Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Trial context: Northeast Delhi Riots (Feb 2020) conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020)
- Argument finish date: Judgment reserved on December 9, 2025
Key Takeaway
The 2026 Delhi Riots bail verdict solidifies the principle that no special law (UAPA) can permanently suspend the Fundamental Right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
All Events in This Story (4 items)
- 2025-09-12 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court to Hear Bail Pleas in Delhi Riots Case
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear petitions filed by student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider on September 12, 2025, challenging a Delhi High Court order denying them bail. The case is registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in Delhi.More details
UPSC Angle: Supreme Court to hear bail pleas in Delhi riots case.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court hearing on September 12, 2025
- Bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider
- Case registered under UAPA
- Relates to February 2020 Delhi riots
- 2025-11-03 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court Hears Bail Petitions in Delhi Riots Case
The Supreme Court heard bail petitions of activists Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam on November 3, 2025, related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, with activist Shifa-ur-Rehman arguing that he was unfairly targeted and no offense was made out against him under the UAPA.More details
UPSC Angle: Not exam-relevant
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court heard bail petitions on November 3, 2025.
- Case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
- Activists involved: Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Sharjeel Imam, and Shifa-ur-Rehman.
- Shifa-ur-Rehman argued he was 'cherry-picked' and no offense was made out against him under the UAPA.
- 2025-12-10 [Polity & Governance] — SC reserves judgment on Umar Khalid's bail plea in Delhi riots case
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots cases. The accused argued that an "unpalatable" speech should not be grounds for UAPA charges, concluding their arguments on December 9, 2025. This case is significant for its implications on freedom of speech and the application of UAPA.More details
UPSC Angle: SC reserves judgment on Umar Khalid's bail plea in Delhi riots case.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court
- Umar Khalid
- Sharjeel Imam
- 2020 Delhi riots cases
- bail pleas
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
- December 9, 2025
- 2026-01-06 [Polity & Governance] — Supreme Court on Prolonged Incarceration and Bail
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to five of the seven accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case but denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court referenced the Union of India v. K A Najeeb ruling, allowing constitutional courts to grant bail under UAPA if there is no likelihood of a speedy trial, to protect Article 21 rights to life and liberty.More details
UPSC Angle: Supreme Court on prolonged incarceration and bail.
Key Facts:
- Supreme Court granted bail to five of the seven accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case
- Denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam
- Relied on Union of India v. K A Najeeb ruling
- Constitutional courts may grant bail under UAPA if there is no likelihood of a speedy trial
- To protect Article 21 rights to life and liberty
Explore More Current Affairs
Browse all current affairs themes and story arcs on our blog