Former Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam have formally approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking bail in the high-profile "larger conspiracy" case linked to the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The petitions arrive as the one-year embargo imposed by the top court on January 5, 2026, nears its conclusion. With the expiration date of January 5, 2027, fast approaching, both petitioners argue that the prosecution’s failure to commence the examination of protected witnesses has rendered their continued incarceration unjustifiable and punitive.

The move follows a rejection by the Delhi High Court on September 30, where a bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt declined to grant bail. The High Court, while acknowledging the duration of the petitioners' custody, maintained that it was bound by "judicial discipline" to adhere to the Supreme Court's earlier directive. The January 5 order had explicitly stipulated that the accused could move for bail either upon the completion of the examination of protected witnesses or upon the expiry of one year, whichever occurred earlier.

Navigating the Constraints of a Judicial Embargo

The legal struggle centers on the interpretation of the "whichever is earlier" clause established by the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria. When denying bail to Khalid and Imam earlier this year, the bench characterized them as "ideological drivers" of the alleged conspiracy, distinguishing their roles from five other co-accused who were granted relief. While the court allowed for a renewed bail application after one year, it conditioned this liberty on the trial's progress regarding protected witnesses.

In their latest petitions, counsel for the accused have emphasized that the trial has effectively stalled. Despite the chargesheet being filed in September 2020 —naming 18 accused and citing over 900 witnesses, including 47 protected witnesses —the prosecution has yet to examine a single witness. "On no fair assessment can examination of protected witnesses be expected to commence, much less to conclude, before January 5, 2027 or for a considerable period thereafter," the plea submitted by the petitioners stated. The defense contends that the continued detention has surpassed the bounds of a process-oriented trial and has effectively become a form of pre-trial punishment , in direct contravention of the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 21 .

Trial Delays and Constitutional Rights

The delay in the trial process has become a significant focal point of the defense's strategy. Arguments on the framing of charges were completed by July 13, yet the proceedings have remained in a state of suspended animation while the trial judge awaits the outcome of a related Supreme Court deliberation concerning the inspection of unrelied documents. This procedural bottleneck, the petitioners argue, has prevented any meaningful progress in the case.

Umar Khalid, who was arrested on September 13, 2020, and Sharjeel Imam, arrested on August 25, 2020, have spent over six years as undertrials. In their applications, they highlight that the objective of the UAPA—to ensure security while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process—is being undermined by the indefinite nature of their detention. They argue that the prosecution’s inability to move forward with the examination of even one protected witness, despite years of custody, necessitates an immediate re-evaluation of their bail status by the highest court.

The petitioners also referenced shifting judicial perspectives on prolonged detention under the UAPA. Specifically, they pointed to a May 18 ruling by a different bench of the Supreme Court, which held that significant delays in trial should weigh heavily in favor of granting bail, even under the stringent conditions of the UAPA. This development created a visible divergence in judicial opinion, eventually leading the bench handling the Delhi riots cases to refer the broader question of bail for long-term undertrials to a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

The Broader Legal Implications for Undertrials

The case has drawn attention to the systemic challenges faced by the judiciary when balancing national security statutes with the individual right to a speedy trial. By categorizing the accused as "ideological drivers," the judiciary set a high bar for relief, yet the subsequent procedural inaction by the state has prompted fresh calls for judicial intervention.

The Delhi Police’s Special Cell, which is investigating the case, has consistently maintained that the riots were a meticulously planned conspiracy timed to coincide with high-profile international events, intended to destabilize the social fabric of the capital. However, the petitioners argue that these allegations do not override the necessity for the trial to proceed with reasonable dispatch. With only five of the 18 original accused remaining in custody, the legal community is closely monitoring how the Supreme Court will reconcile its earlier order, which focused on the gravity of the allegations, with the current reality of a stagnant trial.

As the January 5, 2027, deadline looms, the Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether the failure of the prosecution to examine witnesses constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a departure from its January 5, 2026, order. The outcome of these bail pleas is expected to set a critical precedent for how the judiciary manages lengthy trials in cases involving terror-related charges. For now, Khalid and Imam remain in custody, awaiting a hearing that will test the limits of detention in the face of persistent trial delays and the fundamental right to liberty. The matter currently rests with the Supreme Court, where the petitioners have urged the court to look past the initial constraints of the embargo and address the humanitarian impact of their continued incarceration.