Supreme Court rejects Umar Khalid’s review petition to seek bail in 2020 case

FSea-ear Jawaharlal jawaharlal nehru University (JNU) pupil Umar Khalid’s try to reopen the sublime Court’s January 5 denial of bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case has suffered a legal setback, with the court dismissing his review petition and declining his request for an open-court hearing.“Prayer for oral hearing in the review petition is rejected… Having gone through the review petition and also the documents enclosed, we do not find any good ground and reason to review the judgment dated 05.01.2026. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed,” said a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria in its April 16 order, which was released on Monday.The development comes days after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Umar Khalid, had mentioned the matter before justice Kumar, urging that the review petition be heard in open court rather than decided in chambers.“I wanted to make a mention about a review petition… it is listed on Wednesday. My request is…if you could have it in an open court,” Sibal submitted on April 13.Responding briefly at the time, justice Kumar had said: “We will look into the paper, and if required, we will call it,” indicating that the court would consider the request.To be sure, review petitions are ordinarily decided in chambers by judges, without oral arguments or open-court hearings— a course the court ultimately followed in Khalid’s case.Khalid filed the review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment, which denied him bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.In that judgment, a bench of justices Kumar and Anjaria held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam, attributing to them a “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy. The court observed that their involvement extended to “planning, mobilisation and strategic direction,” placing them on a different footing from other accused.Rejecting the plea for bail, the Supreme Court ruled that prolonged incarceration alone could not justify release in cases governed by the UAPA, where courts must first assess the gravity of the allegations and whether the statutory threshold for bail has been crossed.“In prosecutions implicating the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, delay cannot operate as a trump card,” the judgment said, emphasising the need for a case-specific evaluation of the accused’s role.Umar Khalid's incarceration continuesKhalid has been in custody since September 13, 2020, while Imam has been incarcerated since January 28, 2020. All accused in the case are facing prosecution for allegedly being part of a coordinated conspiracy that culminated in communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving 53 people dead and hundreds injured.While denying bail to Khalid and Imam, the court had granted relief to five co-accused —Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, holding that the allegations against them were of a “subsidiary or facilitative nature”.The bench clarified that criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes merely because allegations arise from the same set of facts, and that Khalid and Imam stood “qualitatively on a different footing”.The January 5 order had also imposed a restriction on Khalid and Imam, permitting them to renew their bail pleas only after the examination of protected witnesses or upon the completion of one year, whichever is earlier.What the Supreme Court has said on long incarcerations under UAPAThe bail pleas had arisen from a September 2025 order of the Delhi High Court, which refused bail to nine accused and described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the violence. While Khalid was not physically present in Delhi during the riots, Imam was already in custody when violence broke out. The accused argued before the top court that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in fomenting violence. They further contended that their prolonged incarceration amounts to punishment without trial, with multiple supplementary charge sheets filed and dozens of witnesses still to be examined.The Supreme Court, however, held that in cases under UAPA, long incarceration by itself cannot override the statutory bar where the court is satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused.It also rejected the contention that Khalid and Imam had remained in custody solely due to prosecutorial inertia, noting that the record, including findings of the Delhi high court, did not support an overarching portrayal of a “dormant trial” or “unjustified delay” sufficient to override the statutory embargo under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA.