English 
Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Eight Activists in 2020 Riots Case
New Delhi, September 2, 2025 – The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected bail pleas of nine activists, including prominent student leaders Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in the high-profile “larger conspiracy” case tied to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The decision, delivered by a division bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Naveen Chawla, pertains to charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The other accused denied bail include Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, and Shadab Ahmed. This marks another setback for the activists, who have been in custody for nearly five years without a trial, fueling debates over judicial delays and the use of anti-terror laws to curb dissent.
Background of the 2020 Northeast Delhi Riots
The Northeast Delhi riots, which erupted between February 23 and 25, 2020, were among the deadliest communal clashes in the capital in recent decades, claiming 53 lives—predominantly Muslims—and injuring over 700. The violence unfolded amid widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which critics argued discriminated against Muslims by granting citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants from neighboring countries. Areas like Jafrabad, Maujpur, and Shiv Vihar bore the brunt of the violence, marked by arson, vandalism, and targeted attacks.
The Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59/2020 on March 6, 2020, alleging a “deep-rooted conspiracy” behind the riots linked to anti-CAA protests. The investigation named 18 individuals, 16 of whom are Muslim, accusing them of orchestrating the violence through conspiratorial meetings, inflammatory speeches, and coordinated activities via WhatsApp groups. Five chargesheets were filed between September 2020 and June 2023, invoking UAPA sections for unlawful activities (Section 13), terrorist acts (Sections 16-18), and conspiracy (Section 18), alongside IPC charges for rioting (Sections 147-148), murder (Section 302), and unlawful assembly (Section 149).
Legal Proceedings and Bail Pleas
The accused sought bail citing prolonged detention—over four years without charges being framed—and parity with co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in June 2021. Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar arrested on September 14, 2020, argued through Senior Advocate Trideep Pais that his minimal activity in WhatsApp groups, such as sharing a protest location, did not constitute a crime. He emphasized the absence of incriminating material, unreliable witness statements, and no attribution of a specific terrorist act under UAPA. Khalid also highlighted that others with graver allegations had been granted bail.
Khalid Saifi, represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, questioned whether innocuous messages could justify UAPA charges. Gulfisha Fatima denied active participation in the alleged conspiracy, while Shifa-ur-Rehman, accused of funding protest sites with Rs 10,000 daily, argued that peaceful protests are a constitutional right. The activists also pointed to the glacial pace of the trial, with some bail pleas pending since 2022, as a violation of their right to a speedy trial.
The prosecution, led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, opposed the bail pleas, describing the riots as a “clinical and pathological conspiracy” to destabilize India. They alleged the accused delivered speeches referencing CAA-NRC, Babri Masjid, triple talaq, and Kashmir to incite fear, coordinated via WhatsApp, and spent Rs 1.48 crore to manage protest sites. Mehta further claimed Khalid amplified a false narrative on social media by sharing news portal links with actors, politicians, and celebrities to shape public opinion. The prosecution argued that UAPA’s stringent bail conditions under Section 43D(5), which bars release if allegations are prima facie true, and the gravity of the charges outweighed arguments of prolonged detention.
Judicial History
Umar Khalid’s bail journey has been fraught with rejections. In March 2022, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat denied his first bail plea, citing a prima facie case of a premeditated conspiracy. The Delhi High Court upheld this in October 2022, with Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar noting Khalid’s speeches and communication with co-accused suggested involvement in a “terrorist act.” Khalid’s Supreme Court appeal faced 14 adjournments before he withdrew it in February 2024, citing “changed circumstances.” His second bail plea was rejected by Karkardooma Court’s Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai on May 28, 2024, dismissing parity arguments and affirming his role in the conspiracy.
Sharjeel Imam, arrested on August 25, 2020, and other co-accused faced similar outcomes. The Delhi High Court’s 2022 ruling described the riots as a “metamorphosis” from protests to orchestrated violence. However, the 2021 bail grants to Tanha, Kalita, and Narwal by the Delhi High Court set a precedent, with the court criticizing the state for conflating peaceful protests with terrorism and finding no specific terrorist act attributed to them. This disparity has been a focal point for the defense, which argues that the accused are being unfairly targeted for their dissent.
Public and Political Reactions
The bail denial has drawn sharp criticism from activists, legal experts, and opposition leaders. TMC MP Mahua Moitra, in a post on X, called the verdict a “shameful testimony” to India’s justice system, highlighting the five-year detention without trial progress. Actor Swara Bhasker described Khalid’s incarceration as a democratic travesty, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that the case tests constitutional courts’ commitment to balancing UAPA’s restrictions with fundamental rights. Advocate Sanjoy Ghose termed the prolonged detention a “travesty,” noting that those accused of heinous crimes often secure bail faster.
Khalid’s partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, defended his advocacy for peaceful, constitutional protests, alleging his Muslim identity and opposition to CAA made him a target. A September 2023 documentary screening at Delhi’s Jawahar Bhawan claimed the state ignored inflammatory speeches by BJP leaders while scapegoating anti-CAA protesters. The Hindu’s editorial criticized the case as part of a broader trend of demonizing dissenters, enabled by UAPA’s low evidentiary threshold and judicial deference to the prosecution.
Broader Context and UAPA Criticism
The 2020 riots occurred amid nationwide anti-CAA protests, which sparked debates over citizenship and minority rights. Critics argue the Delhi Police’s narrative of a conspiracy lacks evidence of direct incitement by the accused, suggesting the violence was spontaneous or provoked by external actors. The UAPA, with its vague definitions and harsh bail conditions, has been widely criticized for enabling prolonged detention without trial. Courts’ reluctance to scrutinize evidence at the bail stage, coupled with UAPA’s presumption of guilt, has made relief elusive for the accused.
The case remains at the stage of arguments on charge, with no trial commencement in sight. The nine activists continue to be held in Tihar Jail, with Khalid receiving only a seven-day interim bail in December 2022 for his sister’s wedding under a gag order. The accused may appeal to the Supreme Court, but past delays suggest further hurdles. The case has become a lightning rod for discussions on judicial fairness, the right to dissent, and the balance between national security and civil liberties.
