Supreme Court Expands Scope of UAPA, Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the bail petitions of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). While the court granted bail to five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Miran Haider, Shifaur Rahman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohammad Salim Khan—it emphasized that each bail petition must be examined on its own merits. The bench, comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, noted that Khalid and Imam’s cases are qualitatively different from the other accused.

Supreme Court Allows Bail Plea After One Year
The court observed that prima facie evidence exists against Khalid and Imam. However, it allowed them to refile their bail applications after one year or after examination of protected witnesses. The bench highlighted that the prosecution material indicates a “central and decisive role” and involvement in “planning, mobilization, and strategic direction beyond local actions at the scene.”

UAPA Scope Expanded
Justice Arvind Kumar clarified that delays in trial cannot be used as a “trump card” to nullify legal safeguards under UAPA. He also emphasized that Section 43D(5) does not entirely preclude judicial scrutiny of prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court further expanded the interpretation of Section 15 of the UAPA, stating that it is not limited to acts of direct violence. Instead, it encompasses actions that threaten services or the economy, in addition to causing death or destruction.

Qualitative Differences Recognized
The bench noted that Khalid and Imam are qualitatively distinct from the other accused, based on the prosecution’s evidence and narrative. This structural difference must be considered in assessing the applicability of punitive provisions.

Court’s Rationale for Denying Bail
While acknowledging the long incarceration already endured by the petitioners, the court held that current records do not indicate that their continued custody violates constitutional limits. The Supreme Court was satisfied that prima facie allegations against Khalid and Imam are substantiated and fall within statutory limits, making their release at this stage inappropriate. They may seek bail after the completion of protected witness examinations or after one year from the date of this order.