Supreme Court Expands Scope of 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA in Delhi Riots Bail Ruling

Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to five accused in the high-profile Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, interpreted Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), to include non-conventional disruptions like "chakka jams" (road blockades) aimed at paralyzing essential services as potential terrorist acts. This ruling arises from appeals against the Delhi High Court's rejection of bail applications in FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Crime Branch for the February 2020 riots that claimed 54 lives and caused widespread destruction. The decision balances the stringent UAPA bail provisions under Section 43D(5) with constitutional safeguards under Article 21, emphasizing individualized assessment of roles amid prolonged pre-trial detention. The five granted bail—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—were described as having facilitative rather than central roles, unlike Khalid and Imam, deemed prima facie architects of the conspiracy.

Case Background

The case stems from the violent clashes in North-East Delhi from February 23-25, 2020, triggered amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). FIR No. 59/2020, initially filed under IPC sections for rioting and conspiracy, later invoked UAPA after investigations alleged a premeditated plot to incite communal violence through coordinated protests. The prosecution claims the riots were not spontaneous but part of a multi-phase conspiracy starting in December 2019, involving mobilization via WhatsApp groups like Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC), establishment of 24x7 sit-in sites, and escalation into chakka jams at strategic arterial roads to provoke clashes.

Key events included blockades at Jafrabad Metro Station and Chand Bagh, leading to attacks on police, arson, and disruptions to essential services like hospitals and public transport. The FIR, registered on March 6, 2020, named Umar Khalid as a prime conspirator alongside associates. Charge sheets, filed progressively from September 2020 to June 2023, arrayed 15 accused, including the appellants, under IPC sections (e.g., 120B, 302, 307) and UAPA sections (13, 15, 16, 18). The trial remains at the framing-of-charges stage, with over 900 witnesses and voluminous evidence, despite compliance under Section 207 CrPC in August 2023.

The appellants—students, activists, and locals—were arrested between January and October 2020. Their bail pleas before the trial court and Delhi High Court were rejected, leading to these special leave petitions. The central legal questions include: whether prolonged incarceration (over five years) violates Article 21 absent trial progress; the scope of "terrorist act" under Section 15 UAPA, particularly non-violent disruptions; and the application of Section 43D(5) UAPA's prima facie true test for bail.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Contentions The appellants, represented by senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Salman Khurshid, argued that their detention offends Article 21 due to inordinate delay, with trials stalled despite completed investigations. They emphasized clean antecedents, no prior criminal history, and compliance during interim bails, satisfying the triple test (no flight risk, no tampering, no public safety threat). Prolonged custody—exceeding half the maximum sentence for some offences—was termed punitive, citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) for constitutional override of UAPA's bail bar in stagnation cases.

On merits, they contended no prima facie UAPA case: roles were limited to peaceful protests, not violence; no recoveries of weapons/funds; absence from riot sites (e.g., Khalid's Amravati speech invoked non-violence); and reliance on belated, uncorroborated protected witness statements. For facilitators like Fatima and Haider, allegations were associative (e.g., WhatsApp membership without incriminating messages). Parity was pressed with co-accused like Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, granted bail by the High Court (upheld by Supreme Court), arguing similar or lesser roles. They urged Section 15 UAPA applies only to conventional violence, not protest blockades, and speeches were protected under Articles 19(1)(a)/(b).

Respondent's Contentions The State, via Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG S.V. Raju, maintained the riots were orchestrated via a conspiracy starting post-CAA (December 2019), with Khalid and Imam as ideologues conceptualizing chakka jams to choke Delhi's lifelines. Material included speeches (e.g., Imam's Jamia address on paralyzing supplies), WhatsApp chats (DPSG/JCC coordinating sites), protected witnesses (detailing meetings/stockpiling), CDRs (placing accused at sites), and CCTV (e.g., Khan dislocating cameras). They argued Section 15 UAPA's "by any other means" covers disruptions threatening economic security/sovereignty, per legislative intent.

Under Section 43D(5), accusations were prima facie true: Khalid/Imam's foundational roles (planning/mobilization) justified denial; others (e.g., Rehman as financier) were integral facilitators. Delay was attributed to case complexity (multiple accused, 900+ witnesses), not prosecution lapses, and parity rejected as roles differ (e.g., Kalita/Narwal's bail on narrower material). They cited NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) against mini-trials at bail stage, urging statutory bar's primacy.

Legal Analysis

The Court's reasoning hinges on reconciling UAPA's stringent framework with Article 21's liberty guarantee. It first addressed prolonged incarceration, clarifying Najeeb (2021) does not mechanically override Section 43D(5); delay triggers scrutiny but yields to statutory threshold if prima facie true. Precedents like Gurvinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) and CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato (2025) emphasize contextual balancing: offence gravity, role, material strength, and trial trajectory.

Central to the ruling is Section 15 UAPA's interpretation: not limited to "bombs, explosives, firearms," but extends to "any other means" causing/likely to cause death, property damage, essential service disruptions, or economic insecurity. The bench reasoned Parliament recognized terrorism's evolution beyond physical violence, encompassing civic destabilization (e.g., chakka jams choking supplies). This aligns with Sections 15-18's scheme, punishing conspiracy/preparatory acts by multiple actors. Drawing from Watali (2019), bail inquiry is accused-specific, testing material at face value for statutory nexus, without weighing defenses or credibility.

Distinctions emerged: Khalid/Imam's "architectural" roles (speeches, meetings, strategy) met prima facie true test via digital trails/witnesses, attracting embargo. For others, facilitative roles (e.g., Rehman's funding, Fatima's mobilization) lacked central nexus, justifying bail. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2021) reinforced limited scrutiny. Implications: broadens UAPA to non-violent threats but mandates individualized bail, curbing overreach in protest cases.

Key Observations

The judgment extracts pivotal insights, emphasizing UAPA's scope and bail discipline:

"The means by which such acts may be committed are not confined to the use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone. Parliament has consciously employed the expression 'by any other means of whatever nature', which expression cannot be rendered otiose. The statutory emphasis is thus not solely on the instrumentality employed, but on the design, intent, and effect of the act."

This underscores Section 15's expansive reach, citing disruptions like chakka jams as conspiratorial terrorist acts under Section 18.

"Read together, Sections 15 and 18 disclose a legislative design wherein Section 15 defines the nature of acts which Parliament has characterised as terrorist acts, while Section 18 ensures that criminal liability is not confined only to the final execution, but extends to those who contribute to the commission of such acts through planning, coordination, mobilisation, or other forms of concerted action."

Highlighting multi-actor liability, relevant to differentiating roles.

"The expression 'prima facie true', which lies at the heart of Section 43D(5), does not invite a detailed examination of evidence, nor does it require the Court to assess the probability of conviction... The inquiry is one of statutory plausibility, not evidentiary sufficiency."

From Watali (2019), guiding limited bail scrutiny.

"Prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern and carries great weight. It is not, however, the sole determinant... The Court must consider, in totality, whether continued detention has become constitutionally unjustifiable."

Balancing Article 21 with UAPA, per Najeeb .

These observations integrate other sources' reports, like LiveLaw's on bail conditions barring digital posts/rallies, reinforcing the judgment's practical curbs.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, finding prima facie material (speeches, chats, witnesses) establishing their central roles in conspiracy under Sections 15/18 UAPA. Their appeals are dismissed, but they may renew pleas post-examination of protected witnesses or within one year, per trial progress.

Bail was granted to the other five, recognizing facilitative roles insufficient for Section 43D(5) bar. Release is conditional: ₹2 lakh bond with sureties; Delhi confinement without permission; passport surrender; address/contact disclosure; bi-weekly Crime Branch reporting; no witness contact/group association; silence on case via media; no rallies/gatherings (physical/virtual); no circulation of posts/handbills; full trial cooperation; peace maintenance, with revocation liberty for breaches.

Implications are profound: Expands UAPA to non-violent threats, aiding anti-protest misuse but curbing via individualized scrutiny. It mandates expedition (e.g., witness priority), preventing stagnation. For future cases, it reinforces Najeeb 's limits—delay aids but doesn't eclipse prima facie true—while affirming women's considerations in detention. Practically, stringent conditions (e.g., no social media on case) protect trials without blanket denial. This 1000+ word ruling (judgment spans pages) advances UAPA jurisprudence, urging balanced application amid rising sedition/terrorism invocations in dissent cases.