Delhi Riots Case: Supreme Court’s Bail Ruling

Background of the Case

1. In December 2019, as the Citizenship Amendment Act was passed, many people started protesting and the protests spread throughout the country.
2. In 2020, these protests led to the Delhi riots resulting in widespread violence, loss of lives, and destruction of property.
3. Following the riots, an investigation was conducted, after which several accused were arrested and charged, including under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for their alleged roles in the conspiracy behind the violence.
4. In January 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five of the seven
5. But it did not grant bail to two accused (Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam) as it held that bail must be based on individualised assessment of culpability, not blanket parity with co-accused.

Framework Adopted by the Court

1. The judgment clarified how courts should assess differentiated roles in a conspiracy, interpret the meaning of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA, and balance delay in trial against the statutory bar on bail.
2. The Court held that all accused cannot be treated alike.
3. It categorized the accused into two groups:
   1. Architects or ideological drivers (masterminds), and
   2. Facilitators or site-level executors.
4. The five accused who were granted bail were characterised as local-level facilitators with derivative roles and lacked autonomous decision-making authority.
5. The other two accused were described as ideological drivers who allegedly planned to convert protests into chakka jams and road blockades to paralyse the city.
6. Therefore, the court held that they do not have bail parity with the co-accused and denied their bail.

How the Court Applied the Law?

1. Interpretation of ‘Terrorist Act’ under UAPA (Section 15)
   1. The Court rejected the argument that only use of weapons qualifies as terrorism.
   2. It held that a terrorist act can be committed by “any other means of whatever nature”, if it threatens economic security, or disrupts essential services.
   3. Sustained blocking of arterial roads and systemic disruption of civic life were held to be prima facie terrorist acts, especially when timed with international events such as the 2020 visit of the U.S. President.
2. Statutory Bar on Bail (Section 43D(5), UAPA)
   1. Bail is barred if accusations appear prima facie true.
   2. The Court found sufficient material (witness statements, WhatsApp chats, meeting records) to establish a prima facie conspiracy against Khalid and Imam.
   3. Therefore, the statutory bar operated fully against them.
3. Prolonged Incarceration Argument
   1. The accused relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), where bail was granted due to trial delay.
   2. The Court clarified that delay is not an automatic trump card.
   3. Delay only triggers heightened judicial scrutiny, not automatic release.
   4. In this case delay was partly due to voluminous evidence (1,000+ documents, 835 witnesses) and procedural objections raised by the defence.
   5. For alleged masterminds, gravity of offence outweighed delay.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Establishes role-based bail assessment in conspiracy cases.
2. Expands the scope of ‘terrorist act’ beyond physical violence.
3. Reinforces the strict bail regime under UAPA.
4. Clarifies limits of Article 21-based bail in national security cases.
5. Signals judicial caution against treating prolonged incarceration as an automatic ground for bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces a graduated approach to culpability, where liberty depends on the nature and centrality of one’s role. While protecting national security, the judgment underscores the need for faster trials and careful calibration between state power and individual rights.