The Bail Conundrum in the Delhi Riots Case: Liberty vs. Security Under UAPA

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting relief to five co-accused. After more than five years of incarceration without trial, this decision crystallizes the ongoing tension between personal liberty and national security under India's stringent anti-terror legislation, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). 

The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi killed 53 people and injured over 700 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The prosecution under UAPA has become a litmus test for how Indian courts balance constitutional guarantees with special legislation designed to address threats to national security. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The Supreme Court's Verdict: 

• The Supreme Court adopted an individualized approach, distinguishing between the accused based on their alleged roles.  
• For Khalid and Imam, the Court ruled that prosecution material disclosed prima facie allegations sufficient to attract the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.  
• The bench observed their roles were "central to the conspiracy," involving "planning, mobilisation and strategic direction." 
• However, the Court clarified that both could file fresh bail pleas after examination of protected witnesses or after one year, keeping the door open for reconsideration. For the five others granted bail—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—the Court imposed 12 stringent conditions while acknowledging their prolonged detention. 
• Critically, the Court observed that delay in trial under UAPA does not operate as a "trump card" that automatically displaces statutory safeguards, but Section 43D(5) does not completely bar judicial scrutiny either. 

The Delhi High Court's Position: 

• The Supreme Court's verdict came against a September 2, 2025 Delhi High Court judgment that rejected bail for all accused.  
• Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur accepted the prosecution's argument that the riots were "premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy" rather than spontaneous violence.  
• The High Court referenced voluminous evidence—a 3,000-page chargesheet and 30,000 pages of electronic records—and ruled the trial was "progressing at a natural pace." Earlier, in October 2022, the Delhi High Court had also denied Khalid bail, finding preliminary evidence of premeditated conspiracy. 

Timeline of Events

What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)? 

About:  

• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, dealing with terrorist activities, and related matters.  
• Originally, "unlawful activities" referred to actions supporting secession or questioning India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
• The Act empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute cases nationwide. 

Key Amendments: 

The UAPA underwent multiple amendments expanding its scope: 

• 2004 Amendment: Added "terrorist act" to the list of offences beyond unlawful activities related to secession. 
• 2008 Amendment: Expanded provisions related to terrorist financing. 
• 2012 Amendment: Addressed cyber-terrorism and property seizure mechanisms. 
• 2019 Amendment: Empowered the government to designate individuals as terrorists (previously only organizations could be designated). 

Major Provisions: 

• Government Powers: The central government has complete authority to declare any activity unlawful by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette. 
• Investigation Timeline: The investigating agency can file a chargesheet within a maximum of 180 days after arrests, with extensions possible after intimating the court. 
• Extraterritorial Application: Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged, applicable even if the crime is committed outside India. 
• Penalties: The Act provides for death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments. 
• Bail Restrictions: Section 43D(5) creates stringent bail conditions, requiring courts to believe that accusations are prima facie not true before granting bail—reversing the usual presumption in favor of bail. 

Related Judgments on UAPA and Bail: 

• Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011): The Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless they resort to violence, incite violence, or create disorder. However, in 2023, the Court reversed this position, ruling that membership alone can be considered an offense even without overt violence. 
• People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004): The Court held that if human rights are violated in combating terrorism, it will be self-defeating. The judgment emphasized that a former police officer is not suitable for appointment to the National Human Rights Commission. 
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): The Court affirmed that protests against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate, provided they remain peaceful and non-violent. 
• Hussain and Anr. v. Union of India (2017): The Court emphasized expediting bail applications, reiterating that bail should be the standard and imprisonment the exception. 
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019): The Supreme Court held that courts should not delve deeply into evidence but rather trust the state's case as presented when deciding UAPA bail applications—a precedent heavily relied upon in denying bail to Khalid and others. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's January 2026 verdict reflects the judiciary's continuing struggle to reconcile fundamental rights with security imperatives. While the differentiated approach represents judicial sophistication, the denial of bail to Khalid and Imam after more than five years of incarceration raises serious concerns about whether the balance has tilted too far toward security at the expense of liberty. 

The Court's clarification that fresh bail applications can be filed provides some hope, but also means potentially many more months or years of detention without trial. For a democracy that prides itself on constitutional values and the rule of law, this case serves as a reminder that the true test of these principles lies in how we treat those accused of the most serious offenses.