New Delhi: Jailed student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have separately moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment rejecting their fresh bail pleas in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case.
As per details available on the apex court’s official website, Khalid’s petition has been registered as Diary No. 70020/2026, while Imam’s plea has been registered as Diary No. 70106/2026.
Both Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were filed on November 4 and are currently shown as “Cases under Defect List valid for 90 Days”.
Khalid has filed his petition through advocate N. Sai Vinod, while Imam’s plea has been filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil.
The petitions challenge a common judgment delivered on September 30 by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt, which had rejected their appeals against the trial court’s July 4, 2026, orders refusing them regular bail.
The High Court had held that it could not modify the specific conditions imposed by the Supreme Court while rejecting their earlier bail pleas in January 2026.
The apex court, while declining bail to Khalid and Imam in its January 5 judgment, had granted them liberty to renew their applications either after the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or upon the expiry of one year from the date of the order, whichever was earlier.
However, the two activists had approached the trial court in June 2026, citing subsequent developments, including the Supreme Court’s observations in another UAPA case concerning prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the grant of interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, and the further period of incarceration undergone by them.
The trial court had rejected their applications, following which they approached the Delhi High Court. Before the High Court, the duo had argued that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon and that continued incarceration without substantial progress in the proceedings warranted reconsideration of their bail pleas.
However, the High Court held that the specific liberty granted by the Supreme Court could not be expanded or modified by a subordinate court.
The Delhi High Court observed that the Supreme Court had drawn a clear distinction between the alleged roles of Khalid and Imam and those of the co-accused who had been granted bail.
It also held that the cases of Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi could not be treated at par with those of Khalid and Imam, whose alleged roles had been categorised as those of “masterminds” and “core conspirators” in the apex court’s earlier judgment.
It further observed that no submission had been made that the prosecution had deliberately delayed the trial, adding that the delay, if any, was attributable to proceedings initiated by a co-accused and circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, in which 53 people were killed and several others injured.
Khalid and Imam are among several persons booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other penal provisions in connection with the case and have remained in custody for several years.
Earlier, on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed — while declining relief to Khalid and Imam.
More recently, the apex court granted six months’ interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi while referring to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial could justify the grant of bail despite the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
(IANS)
