The Supreme Court of India is set to reconsider the correctness of its earlier judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The development comes after a two-judge bench recommended that a larger bench of the Supreme Court examine and settle an important legal question arising from two apparently conflicting judgments of the apex court concerning bail standards under the stringent anti-terror legislation.
At the centre of the dispute is a major constitutional and legal question: whether prolonged delay in trial can itself become sufficient grounds for granting bail in cases registered under the UAPA, despite the law’s unusually strict restrictions on bail.
Earlier this year, in January 2026, a two-judge Supreme Court bench refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. That bench held that the allegations against them appeared “prima facie true” based on the material presented by investigators, and therefore, the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied against granting bail.
The January bench also concluded that arguments regarding prolonged delay in the trial process were not sufficient in that case to override the strict legal bar imposed by the UAPA.
However, another two-judge bench of the Supreme Court this week adopted a noticeably different approach while granting bail to an accused person booked under the UAPA in a separate case. In that ruling, the bench observed that even in UAPA cases, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” particularly where trials face prolonged delays.
The second bench also openly criticized aspects of the January judgment that had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, thereby exposing a direct conflict in judicial interpretation within the Supreme Court itself.
Because of these contradictory approaches, a third Supreme Court bench has now recommended that a larger bench resolve the legal inconsistency and authoritatively clarify the law governing bail under the UAPA.
The third bench made the recommendation while hearing and granting interim bail to two separate accused persons linked to the 2022 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The issue gained further significance during hearings before a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan. While granting bail to narco-terror accused Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the bench questioned the correctness of the January ruling involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
During the May 19 hearing, Justice Nagarathna’s bench strongly observed that the constitutional principle of “bail not jail” should continue to guide courts even in cases registered under anti-terror laws like the UAPA.
The bench also stated that the January order denying bail to Umar Khalid appeared inconsistent with the precedent laid down earlier in the landmark Union of India vs KA Najeeb judgment.
In the KA Najeeb ruling, the Supreme Court held that extraordinary delays in trial proceedings could justify granting bail even under the UAPA despite its stringent statutory restrictions.
Meanwhile, representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju urged the court to refer the matter to a larger bench. He argued that the strict bail conditions contained in the UAPA do not violate the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Raju contended that the ordinary criminal law principle of “bail not jail” cannot be automatically or uniformly applied in all anti-terror cases, particularly when allegations involve serious threats to national security.
The core legal dispute revolves around Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Unlike ordinary criminal law, where bail is generally treated as the norm unless specific reasons exist for denial, the UAPA imposes a much higher threshold.
Under this provision, courts are effectively required to deny bail if the accusations against an accused person appear “prima facie true” based on the chargesheet and case diary material submitted by investigators.
This creates a significantly heavier burden on accused individuals even before the commencement or completion of trial proceedings.
On January 5 this year, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria again refused regular bail to Umar Khalid.
That bench held that allegations regarding his alleged role in the “planning, mobilization and strategic direction” of the 2020 Delhi riots attracted the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5).
Interestingly, while denying bail to Khalid, the same bench granted bail to five co-accused individuals, including Gulfisha Fatima, while also allowing Umar Khalid to revive his bail plea after one year.
The latest legal developments came on the same day that the Delhi High Court granted a three-day interim bail to Umar Khalid to allow him to meet his ailing mother, who is currently undergoing surgery.
Umar Khalid has remained lodged in Tihar Jail since his arrest in September 2020 in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Over the years, his repeated attempts to secure regular bail have consistently failed. A Delhi trial court initially rejected his bail plea, and later, on October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court also refused bail.
At that time, the High Court observed that Khalid was allegedly in continuous contact with co-accused individuals and held that the allegations against him appeared prima facie true. The court also stated that the accusations disclosed, at first glance, the commission of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA.
Khalid later approached the Supreme Court in 2023, but the proceedings faced repeated adjournments and delays, including one judge recusing from hearing the matter.
In February 2024, Umar Khalid eventually withdrew his Supreme Court petition, citing changed circumstances and sought permission to renew his plea before the trial court instead.
Although he has repeatedly failed to secure regular bail, Khalid has received limited temporary relief on a few occasions. He was granted interim bail in 2022 to attend his sister’s wedding, again in 2024, and once more in December 2025, each time under strict conditions including restrictions on media interaction.
On every occasion, authorities noted that he surrendered within the stipulated time period after expiry of the temporary relief.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision through a larger bench is now expected to significantly shape the future interpretation of bail standards under the UAPA and could have wide-ranging implications for numerous ongoing anti-terror prosecutions across India.
