Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid has once again approached the Supreme Court of India seeking bail in the high-profile Delhi riots conspiracy case registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The petition challenges the Delhi High Court’s order dated September 2, 2025, which denied bail to Khalid and eight other accused persons.
The case, which has drawn widespread national and international attention, relates to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, one of the most violent communal clashes in the capital in recent decades. The riots led to the death of 53 people and left hundreds injured, sparking intense debates about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the right to protest, and the alleged misuse of UAPA in political contexts.
Background of the Delhi Riots Case
The riots broke out in February 2020, coinciding with widespread protests against the CAA and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). According to the prosecution, the violence was not spontaneous but rather the result of a “larger conspiracy” involving activists, students, and political figures.
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by the Special Cell of Delhi Police under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA, a stringent anti-terror legislation that makes bail extremely difficult due to its reverse burden of proof provisions.
Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020, accused of criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly, and multiple offences under the UAPA. Since then, he has remained in judicial custody.
Chronology of Umar Khalid’s Bail Applications
Khalid’s bail journey has been long and arduous, marked by multiple rejections at various judicial levels.
- March 2022: Trial court first denied him bail.
- October 2022: Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s order, refusing relief.
- May 2023: The Supreme Court sought Delhi Police’s response to his appeal but adjourned the matter repeatedly (14 times).
- February 14, 2024: Khalid withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court citing change in circumstances.
- May 28, 2024: Trial court again dismissed his second bail plea.
- September 2, 2025: Delhi High Court rejected his appeal against the trial court’s order, holding that charges against him were serious and prima facie supported by evidence.
With no other remedy left, Khalid has now approached the Supreme Court once again, challenging the High Court’s refusal.
Arguments by Umar Khalid
Khalid’s legal team has consistently maintained that he is innocent and has been wrongly implicated in the conspiracy case. His defence rests on the following key points:
- Right to Protest: His speeches and participation in anti-CAA demonstrations were part of the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, not an incitement to violence.
- No Direct Evidence: There is no material directly linking him to the actual acts of rioting, arson, or killings. The prosecution case is largely built on disclosures, call records, and witness statements, which remain contested.
- Misuse of UAPA: Applying UAPA to protest-related activities amounts to criminalising dissent and violates the principle of proportionality.
- Prolonged Incarceration: He has been in custody since September 2020, i.e., for five years, without trial concluding. Denial of bail effectively results in punishment before conviction.
- Weak Conspiracy Theory: His alleged role in a “larger conspiracy” is vague, based on general meetings and WhatsApp messages, which, according to the defence, do not establish a direct link to orchestrating communal violence.
Prosecution’s Stand
The Delhi Police and prosecution have opposed Khalid’s bail at every stage, arguing that:
- Larger Conspiracy: The riots were not accidental but deliberately planned to coincide with the visit of then-US President Donald Trump to India in February 2020, to embarrass the government internationally.
- Role of Speeches: Khalid’s speeches allegedly encouraged protest sites and gatherings that later turned violent.
- Recovery of Material: Evidence such as WhatsApp groups, call detail records, and witness testimonies link him to other accused persons in the conspiracy.
- Serious Offences under UAPA: Given the gravity of the charges, bail should not be granted, as it could set a precedent for others involved in terror-related cases.
The High Court’s Observations
In its September 2, 2025 ruling, the Delhi High Court refused bail to Khalid, holding that:
- The charges against him were grave and serious, involving conspiracy to destabilize law and order.
- There was prima facie material connecting him to the alleged conspiracy.
- UAPA being a special legislation required a higher threshold for bail, which was not met in Khalid’s case.
The Court emphasized that bail could not be granted merely because the accused had been in custody for long, especially when the allegations pointed to a deep-seated conspiracy.
Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in hearing Khalid’s bail plea, will have to examine several crucial issues:
- Scope of UAPA Bail Provisions – Section 43D(5) of UAPA restricts bail if the Court finds prima facie evidence. Will the Supreme Court adopt a strict or liberal interpretation?
- Right to Protest vs. National Security – To what extent can speeches against government policies be criminalized under UAPA?
- Prolonged Detention Without Trial – Can extended incarceration without conviction be grounds for bail under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?
- Conspiracy Doctrine – How much weight should be given to circumstantial evidence like group meetings, WhatsApp messages, and call records in proving conspiracy?
Broader Implications of the Case
The outcome of Umar Khalid’s bail plea carries wide-ranging implications:
- Civil Liberties: A ruling in his favour could reaffirm the importance of free speech and protest rights in a democracy.
- Use of UAPA: The case will test whether UAPA is being misused against dissenters or legitimately applied to prevent violence.
- Judicial Approach to Bail: The Supreme Court’s interpretation may set a precedent for other UAPA cases, where accused individuals often face long pre-trial detention.
- Political and Social Impact: The case has already polarized public opinion, with supporters viewing Khalid as a political prisoner and critics branding him as part of an anti-national conspiracy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on Umar Khalid’s bail plea will be closely watched not only by legal experts but also by civil rights activists, political observers, and the general public. The case encapsulates the larger debate on national security, free speech, and personal liberty under India’s constitutional framework.
As Khalid remains behind bars for over five years without trial, the Supreme Court must weigh whether continued incarceration without a clear timeline for trial completion aligns with the principles of justice.
The upcoming hearings will decide whether Khalid secures bail or continues his long imprisonment under one of India’s most stringent anti-terror laws.
Also Read
Supreme Court: Bid Cannot Be Rejected for Non-Production of Document Not Prescribed in Tender Notice
