SC hearing today on bail for Umar Khalid in 2020 Delhi riots case

After multiple adjournments and five years of pre-trial detention, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, 22 September, the bail pleas of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid and three others in the 2020 Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case.

The matter, listed before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, challenges a 2 September Delhi High Court order that upheld the rejection of bail for Khalid, activist Sharjeel Imam, researcher Meeran Haider, and student leader Gulfisha Fatima under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The hearing was originally slated for Friday, 19 September but was deferred at the request of the defence.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under FIR 59/2020, which alleges conspiracy, rioting and terrorist activities linked to the violence that rocked northeast Delhi during anti-CAA protests. Despite the Delhi Police filing extensive charge sheets running into thousands of pages, the trial is yet to begin.

Investigators claim the riots, which left more than 50 people dead, were not spontaneous but the result of a “well-planned conspiracy” involving speeches, WhatsApp groups and clandestine meetings. Protected witness testimony and electronic evidence have been cited to support the charges.

In its 2 September ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that the allegations against Khalid and Imam were “grave” and that delay in commencing trial alone was not sufficient to grant bail under the stringent UAPA provisions. The Act places a reverse burden of proof on the accused, requiring them to show that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case.

Today’s hearing will test whether the prolonged incarceration of the accused—who maintain their innocence and claim they are being punished for dissent—can persuade the Supreme Court to grant bail despite the gravity of the charges.

The outcome will be closely watched as a test of the balance between national security concerns and the constitutional principle that bail should be the norm.