SC Scrutinizes UAPA Bail Bar in Delhi Riots Case, Issues Notice on Activists' Pleas

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has initiated a critical examination of the stringent bail conditions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by issuing notice to the Delhi Police on appeals filed by activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others. The petitioners are challenging a Delhi High Court order that denied them bail in the high-profile 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, on Monday, September 22, 2025, sought a response from the state, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the interpretation of UAPA's Section 43D(5), the right to protest, and the impact of prolonged pre-trial detention. The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on October 7, 2025, with some petitions slated for October 27.

The case brings to the forefront the enduring tension between individual liberty and national security, particularly in the context of political dissent. The petitioners, who have been incarcerated for over five years, argue that their continued detention without trial constitutes a grave injustice, while the prosecution maintains they were the "masterminds" of a premeditated conspiracy to orchestrate communal violence under the guise of protest.

---

The High Court's Prima Facie Finding and the UAPA Hurdle

The activists' journey to the Supreme Court follows the Delhi High Court's comprehensive judgment on September 2, 2025. A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the trial court's decision, denying bail to nine accused, including Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Khalid Saifi.

Central to the High Court's 133-page verdict was its prima facie acceptance of the prosecution's narrative. The court held that the 2020 riots were not a "regular protest" but a "premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy." It concluded that the actions of the accused went beyond the constitutional protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The judgment asserted that "conspiratorial violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens could not be allowed," emphasizing that the right to protest is "not absolute" and subject to reasonable restrictions.

The High Court specifically noted that the roles of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were "prima facie grave," pointing to their allegedly inflammatory speeches on communal lines, which were intended to "instigate a mass mobilization" that culminated in violence.

This finding is crucial, as it directly engages with the high threshold for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The provision prohibits a court from granting bail if, after perusing the case diary and police report, it is of the opinion that "there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true." This statutory bar effectively shifts the burden onto the accused to demonstrate that the prosecution's case is wholly unbelievable at the bail stage, a notoriously difficult task.

Arguments Before the Apex Court: Liberty vs. Security

In the brief but charged hearing at the Supreme Court, senior counsel for the petitioners underscored the fundamental issue of personal liberty and the consequences of protracted incarceration.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, made an impassioned plea for an early hearing, stating, "Please hear this before Diwali so that we can be out before Diwali. They are all there for more than five years."

Echoing this sentiment, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gulfisha Fatima, described the situation as "shocking that a student has to be behind bars for five years." He requested the court to issue notice on an interim bail application as well, though the Bench indicated its preference to finally dispose of the main petitions.

The core of the petitioners' challenge to the High Court order revolves around several key legal arguments:

1. Misinterpretation of Protest: They contend that their participation in and organization of protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) was a legitimate exercise of democratic rights, and the prosecution has woven a conspiratorial narrative by selectively interpreting speeches and communications.

2. Lack of Parity: The petitioners have pointed out that several co-accused in the same FIR, such as Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, were granted bail by the High Court in June 2021. They argue that they have been unfairly singled out, a contention the High Court had previously rejected by stating their alleged roles were more significant.

3. Prolonged Incarceration as a Ground for Bail: With the trial progressing slowly and the accused having already spent a significant portion of the potential sentence in custody, their counsel argues that continued detention violates their fundamental rights.

The Bench, while issuing the notice, acknowledged the lengthy period of detention. "Yes, we will hear you and dispose it of," Justice Kumar assured the counsel.

The State's Unwavering Stance

The Delhi Police has consistently and vehemently opposed bail at every judicial level. Their case rests on the premise that the riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, were the result of a meticulously planned conspiracy. They allege that the timing of the protests to coincide with the visit of then-U.S. President Donald Trump was a deliberate attempt to embarrass the Indian state on an international stage.

According to the prosecution, the accused used encrypted messaging platforms and held secret meetings to coordinate the protests, which were designed to escalate into blockades and communal clashes. The speeches delivered by Khalid and Imam are presented as central evidence of incitement, aimed at creating disaffection against the state and challenging its sovereignty.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Supreme Court's decision to hear these appeals is significant. The case presents a vital opportunity for the apex court to clarify and potentially recalibrate the jurisprudence surrounding UAPA's stringent bail conditions. The legal community will be closely watching for the court's pronouncements on several critical questions:

• Defining the 'Prima Facie True' Standard: How should a court apply the Section 43D(5) test? Does it require a mere recital of allegations by the prosecution, or a more rigorous examination of the evidence to assess its credibility and quality?
• Balancing Liberty and Delay: Can indefinite pre-trial detention, even under a special statute like UAPA, be justified when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future? At what point does prolonged incarceration become punitive and violate Article 21?
• The Contours of Dissent: Where does the constitutionally protected right to protest end and an alleged unlawful activity or terrorist act begin? The court's analysis could set an important precedent for future cases involving dissent and state security.

As the Delhi Police prepares its response, the upcoming hearings in October will be pivotal. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will not only decide the fate of the accused but will also have far-reaching implications for the application of anti-terror laws and the safeguarding of civil liberties in India.