Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam Denied Bail, Again
The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail applications of former Jawaharlal Nehru University scholars and activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, prolonging their years-long pre-trial detention under India’s harsh counter-terrorism legislation. This denial of bail for the young political activists is one among many happened in the last six years. Their incarceration for half a decade has already raised grave concerns among legal observers and civil society advocates over the erosion of fundamental human rights, the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe, and the systemic use of stringent laws to suppress political dissent.
Both activists, who were research scholars in Delhi, were arrested in connection with the 2020 North East Delhi riots under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – a law that severely restricts the granting of bail and effectively turns pre-trial incarceration into a punishment in itself.
The latest Delhi High Court order was delivered on Wednesday by a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dinesh Bhatt, which dismissed the appeals filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act against a trial court’s order from July 4 refusing them liberty.
In its ruling, the High Court stated that it was bound by “judicial discipline” and could not modify the stringent conditions previously laid down by the Supreme Court in the Gulfisha Fatima case. The female political activist was also arrested and imprisoned in an FIR related to Delhi riots Under those terms, Khalid and Imam were barred from renewing their bail applications until either the examination of protected witnesses is completed or a full year elapses from the Supreme Court order dated January 5, 2026 — whichever occurs earlier.
The Delhi High Court maintained that Khalid and Imam occupy a distinct position from other co-accused individuals, describing them as the alleged “ideological drivers” of the broader conspiracy, an allegation that has not been proved in a trial or with evidences in the court. Consequently, using that argument, the bench rejected pleas seeking parity with co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who had previously been granted interim relief on the grounds of severe trial delays.
Advocates for Khalid and Imam had urged the court to consider changed circumstances — including ongoing judicial debate surrounding the interpretation of trial delays in UAPA cases — and noted that six months had already passed since the previous ruling. However, the bench concluded that it could not fault the trial court’s initial refusal.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appeared for Umar Khalid, while Advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim represented Sharjeel Imam. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju represented the Delhi Police.
