The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing the binding nature of prior Supreme Court of India directives. On 30 September, a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt held that the court was constrained by judicial discipline, as the Supreme Court had previously set specific conditions for the potential reconsideration of bail for both individuals. With neither the examination of protected witnesses nor the passage of the mandated one-year period having occurred, the High Court determined it lacked the authority to intervene or modify the existing custody terms.

The decision underscores a widening procedural gap in the handling of bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Both Khalid and Imam have remained in custody for over six years, and the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant relief highlights the intricate, often conflicting, judicial approaches currently navigating the intersection of statutory bars against bail and the constitutional protections of liberty.

Navigating Conflict Between Coordinate Benches

The legal uncertainty stems from divergent interpretations of how long-term incarceration impacts the statutory barriers to bail found in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. In January 2026, the Supreme Court, through a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, had granted bail to several co-accused but denied it to Khalid and Imam, citing the prosecution’s material as establishing a prima facie case against them. However, that ruling faced scrutiny when a subsequent Bench, consisting of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed reservations in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA . The Andrabi Bench argued that the earlier Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb precedent—which asserts that Article 21 of the Constitution can override statutory delays in trial—was not adequately addressed, emphasizing that "KA Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of stare decisis ."

This friction intensified when the Supreme Court Bench hearing the plea of Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who are co-accused in the same Delhi riots case, sought to defend the original Gulfisha Fatima decision while acknowledging the conflict. The Bench noted that the Najeeb ruling should not be treated as a "mathematical command," yet recognized the importance of the legal questions involved. Consequently, the court referred the matter for an authoritative resolution by a larger Bench, a step intended to clarify how lower courts should balance the government’s restrictive bail provisions with the fundamental rights of the accused.

The Weight of Judicial Discipline

For the Delhi High Court, the ongoing reference to a larger Bench did not provide a workaround. The Bench presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt emphasized that an emphatic expression of doubt by a coordinate Bench does not constitute a settled declaration of law. The court held that it must strictly follow the specific conditions laid down for Khalid and Imam in the January order. The High Court rejected arguments suggesting that the mere passage of time or the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of the Gulfisha Fatima judgment constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to justify an immediate grant of bail.

The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, had argued for the maintenance of judicial order, maintaining that the High Court could not preempt the Supreme Court’s upcoming clarification. By anchoring its decision in the specific parameters established for these particular detainees, the High Court effectively bypassed the broader, more contentious question of how constitutional courts must approach long-term pretrial detention when a trial has yet to yield a timely outcome.

Unresolved Liberty in a Limbo Period

The practical consequences of this procedural impasse fall heavily on the detainees. While the Supreme Court granted temporary relief to other co-accused to prevent them from suffering due to legal uncertainty, Khalid and Imam remain subject to the rigid constraints set by the earlier apex court order. As of early October, no date has been scheduled for the hearing before a larger Bench, nor has the composition of that Bench been finalized.

This delay leaves trial courts across the country in a difficult position. Without a definitive ruling from a larger Bench, judicial outcomes in UAPA cases are increasingly dependent on which precedent a specific court chooses to prioritize. While some courts may focus on the rigorous interpretation of statutory evidence as favored in Gulfisha Fatima , others may lean toward the Najeeb approach, which places a higher premium on the duration of incarceration. The current situation places a significant duty on the administrative side of the Supreme Court to expedite the constitutional reference, as the cost of this period of legal flux is measured in the continued detention of individuals whose cases are caught in the transition between conflicting interpretations of law.

Until the larger Bench provides a clarified framework for balancing Section 43D(5) with Article 21, the legal community continues to grapple with the tension between legislative intent and the constitutional mandate of liberty. The outcome of the upcoming Supreme Court reference will determine whether delay in trial will finally serve as a definitive trigger for bail, or remain merely one of many factors subject to the discretion of the presiding authority. For now, the path forward for Khalid and Imam remains tethered to the original timeline set in January, awaiting the completion of witness examination or the expiration of the one-year window in early 2027.