Sharjeel Imam’s uncle on Monday expressed deep shock and disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse bail to his nephew in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, even as he said that he respected the verdict and remained hopeful that Imam would eventually secure his release.

The Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of bail pleas in the case, denied relief to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam but granted bail to five other accused. The court cited a “hierarchy of participation” in the alleged conspiracy and observed that all accused persons could not be treated as standing on the same footing. The ruling once again brought national attention to the long-running legal battle surrounding the Delhi riots case and the prolonged incarceration of several activists under stringent anti-terror laws.

Speaking to reporters in Jehanabad, Bihar, Sharjeel Imam’s uncle, Arshad Imam, said the family had been expecting a different outcome. “I am very shocked to learn about the judgment. I had high hopes that the court would grant bail this time, as every point during the arguments indicated that Sharjeel is innocent,” he said. “Still, as an Indian, I respect the verdict of the court.”

The Supreme Court’s order came after extensive hearings on bail pleas filed by multiple accused in what the prosecution has described as a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 communal violence in northeast Delhi. The riots had erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and led to widespread destruction, leaving 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

While granting bail to five of the accused, the court made it clear that its decision was based on the individual roles allegedly played by each person. The bench emphasised that bail determinations in such cases must account for the nature of allegations, the extent of involvement attributed to each accused, and the overall hierarchy within the alleged conspiracy.

For Sharjeel Imam’s family, however, the refusal of bail came as a significant blow. Arshad Imam said he had believed that the legal arguments presented on behalf of his nephew had sufficiently demonstrated his innocence. “Every point during the arguments suggested that Sharjeel had nothing to do with violence,” he said, reiterating the family’s long-held position that Imam has been falsely implicated.

Despite his disappointment, Arshad Imam said he had not lost faith in the judicial process. “I am hopeful that my nephew is innocent and he will definitely get bail, no matter how much delay there is,” he said. “I will read the judgment, discuss it in detail with my lawyer and then start the process again.”

He also responded to questions about why bail was granted to some accused while being denied to others, including Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. “Only the court knows why bail was not granted to two applicants,” he said. “However, it is the duty of every Indian citizen to respect the court’s decision, whether it is in their favour or not.”

Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid are among the most prominent accused in the case, which has been investigated by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell. Both were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), along with several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to conspiracy, rioting and promoting enmity between groups.

The use of the UAPA, a stringent anti-terror law that makes bail difficult to obtain, has been a major point of contention in the case. Civil rights groups and opposition leaders have repeatedly criticised the prolonged incarceration of the accused, arguing that the law has been misused to stifle dissent and that trials have moved at a slow pace.

Sharjeel Imam was first arrested on January 28, 2020, in connection with speeches he made during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Those speeches were alleged by the police to be inflammatory. In August 2020, he was arrested again in the larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots. Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader, was arrested on September 13, 2020, on similar conspiracy charges.

Since their arrests, both Imam and Khalid have remained in custody for over five years, with repeated bail pleas being rejected by lower courts and, now, by the Supreme Court. Their supporters argue that the prolonged detention without trial amounts to punishment before conviction, while the prosecution maintains that the gravity of the allegations and the potential impact on public order justify continued custody.

The Supreme Court’s reference to a “hierarchy of participation” in its latest order is being closely analysed by legal observers. The phrase suggests that the court distinguished between different levels of alleged involvement in the conspiracy, granting bail to those it viewed as having a relatively limited role, while denying relief to those considered central to the planning or mobilisation.

Legal experts note that such an approach aligns with earlier jurisprudence under the UAPA, where courts have emphasised the need to examine the specific role attributed to each accused rather than treating all co-accused identically. However, critics argue that this also underscores the difficulty of securing bail in UAPA cases, especially for those alleged to be key conspirators, even when trials remain far from completion.

For Sharjeel Imam’s family, the legal battle is far from over. Arshad Imam made it clear that they intend to continue pursuing all available legal remedies. “We will study the judgment carefully and consult our lawyers on the next course of action,” he said. “Our faith in Sharjeel’s innocence remains unshaken.”

The Delhi riots case continues to be one of the most politically and legally sensitive cases in recent years, reflecting deep divisions over the interpretation of protest, dissent and national security. As the accused await the slow progress of trials, the Supreme Court’s latest decision is likely to fuel further debate over the balance between state power and individual liberty in cases involving stringent security laws.