The Supreme Court of India on Monday reaffirmed the seriousness of the charges against activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, stating that prosecution material suggests their involvement in “planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction” of the violence. The apex court denied bail to the two activists in the larger conspiracy case, citing provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria made clear that the evidence prima facie indicates that Khalid and Imam played a central and formative role in orchestrating the riots, going beyond isolated or localized incidents. “The prosecution material taken at face value discloses a prima facie attribution of essential and formative role by the appearance in appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy,” the bench noted.

The court referred to Section 43D of the UAPA, which places a statutory restriction on granting bail to individuals accused under certain chapters of the Act. According to this provision, a person accused of an offence under the UAPA shall not be released on bail if, on perusal of the chargesheet or case diary, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.

The apex court emphasized that while statutory restrictions apply where the prosecution material discloses an offence, the liberty of the accused prevails in cases where such prima facie evidence is not apparent. In the present case, the court found that the material against Khalid and Imam met the statutory threshold, making them ineligible for bail at this stage.

Prosecution Allegations and Evidence

The Delhi Police have accused Khalid and Imam of plotting a “regime change operation” under the guise of peaceful protests, aimed at striking at the sovereignty and integrity of India. In an affidavit, the police claimed to possess ocular, documentary, and technical evidence demonstrating their deep involvement in orchestrating communal violence.

According to the police, the riots were not spontaneous but part of a pre-meditated, deep-rooted conspiracy. They alleged that the accused had coordinated their actions across multiple locations, leveraging student networks in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Jamia Milia Islamia to mobilize participants and instigate communal discord. A WhatsApp group titled “Muslim Students of JNU” was reportedly created by Khalid and others to plan and influence protests.

The police affidavit claims that Khalid and Imam adopted protest methods such as Chakka-Jaam (road blockades) with the intent to disrupt essential services and target non-Muslims and police personnel during the riots. It further alleges that Sharjeel Imam played a pivotal role in orchestrating the first phase of the Delhi riots, from December 13 to December 20, 2019.

A meeting in Seelampur in January 2020 was cited, where Khalid allegedly instructed Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and others to mobilize local women and stockpile knives, bottles, acid, stones, and chilli powder to escalate protests into violent clashes. Meeran Haider, another accused, was alleged to have overseen multiple protest sites, collected funds, and encouraged aggressive action against police and non-Muslims.

Bail Granted to Others

While denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court granted relief to five other co-accused: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. The bench clarified that this does not dilute the seriousness of allegations against them, but reflects the subsidiary nature of their alleged roles compared to the central figures in the conspiracy.

The court had earlier distinguished the accused based on their hierarchy of participation, noting that while some played supporting roles, Khalid and Imam were allegedly involved in conceptualizing and orchestrating the conspiracy. Consequently, they could not claim parity with the others at the bail stage.

Background of the Case

The 2020 Delhi riots erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The violence left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, targeting both Muslims and non-Muslims in northeast Delhi. The riots were widely condemned, and multiple investigations have sought to identify the masterminds behind the clashes.

Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, and Imam on January 28, 2020, initially for speeches made during anti-CAA protests. They were later booked in the larger conspiracy case under the UAPA and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Supreme Court had on September 22, 2025, issued notices to the Delhi Police and sought its response to bail petitions filed by Khalid, Imam, and others. The activists challenged a Delhi High Court order dated September 2, 2025, which had refused bail to nine accused, including Khalid, Imam, Fatima, Haider, and others.

Prosecution’s Case Against the Accused

The Delhi Police have alleged that the accused created conditions to instigate communal riots deliberately. The agency claims that communications and plans preceding the riots demonstrate a “clear meeting of minds”, showing both knowledge and intent.

The police further argued that the accused delayed trial proceedings and sought bail as a tactic, attempting to portray themselves as victims of prolonged incarceration. However, the law enforcement agency termed this argument as a “red herring” designed to mislead the court.

Next Steps

The bail pleas of Khalid, Imam, and the other accused are scheduled to come up for hearing before the Supreme Court bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. The apex court’s ruling underscores the principle that in UAPA cases, the gravity and centrality of an accused’s alleged role plays a decisive role in bail determinations.

While Khalid and Imam remain in custody, the court’s decision to grant bail to other accused highlights a nuanced, individualised approach, taking into account the extent of participation in the alleged conspiracy.

As the case continues, the proceedings will focus on the examination of witnesses, corroboration of evidence, and verification of the roles played by each accused in the riots. The Supreme Court has made it clear that prima facie material suggesting central involvement justifies denial of bail under the statutory framework of the UAPA, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations against Khalid and Imam.

The 2020 Delhi riots case remains a landmark trial in India’s legal history, drawing attention to issues of mob violence, conspiracy, and accountability in mass protests. The ongoing legal proceedings are being closely monitored due to their sensitive nature and implications for public order, communal harmony, and the rule of law.