Today, On 5th January, Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar said the Supreme Court must have had reasons for denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, but noted its judgments stress that long incarceration should weigh in favour of granting bail. He added that “there is no recompense for liberty once lost.”
Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar commented on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam regarding the 2020 north-east Delhi riots.
He expressed concerns about the implications of prolonged detention, stating,
“Long incarceration itself should matter when considering bail.”
In remarks made to media, Kumar noted that judicial decisions rely on the evidence presented but highlighted that civil libertarians are likely troubled by the ongoing detention of these two individuals.
He stated,
“The Supreme Court decides the matters on the basis of the record before it. I’m sure the Supreme Court must have found reasons to distinguish between the two sets of cases. However, the libertarians in this country today would be most unhappy because Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been in jail for a very long time, and the Supreme Court’s own judgment say that long incarceration itself should be a consideration for the grant of bail. After all, there is no recompense for liberty once lost…”
His comments followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of bail for Khalid and Imam in connection with a wider conspiracy linked to the 2020 riots.
In contrast, the Court granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad.
The Bench stated,
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to the other accused.”
The Supreme Court noted that Khalid and Imam’s situations were distinct, both concerning prosecution and the evidence presented, and that their involvement was central to the alleged offenses.
Explaining this further, the Court highlighted the need for a careful and individualised assessment. It said that ,
“The hierarchy of participation, it observes, requires the Court to assess each bail application on its own merits.”
This means that the degree of involvement of each accused must be examined separately instead of using the same standard for all.
While acknowledging the length of their incarceration, the Court confirmed that it does not violate constitutional mandates or statutory limitations.
Earlier, On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court had also denied bail to nine accused, including Khalid and Imam, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The High Court remarked that their roles in the conspiracy appeared grave, involving inflammatory speeches intended to incite mass mobilization among the Muslim community.
Khalid, Imam, and others were arrested in January 2020 under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) related to the February riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries during protests against the proposed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Previously, The Delhi Police firmly opposed the release of student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and three others charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In a statement to the Supreme Court, the police contended that the alleged offenses represented a deliberate attempt to undermine the state, thus justifying “jail and not bail,” as reported by media outlets on Thursday.
The police argued that the petitioners were attempting to portray themselves as victims due to prolonged imprisonment, even though the delay in the trial was a result of their own actions.
In a detailed 177-page affidavit submitted on October 30, the Delhi Police argued that the violence that erupted in February 2020 was not merely a spontaneous reaction to protests against theCitizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), but rather a part of a coordinated “regime change operation” disguised as civil dissent, according to a report in the media.
The police indicated that encrypted chats and messages show the protests were strategically timed to coincide with Trump’s visit in February 2020, ensuring global attention.
Earlier, The Delhi alleged that they were the “masterminds” behind the large-scale violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
Khalid’s bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected. The trial court denied his request in March 2022, and the Delhi High Court refused his appeals in October 2022 and again on September 2, 2024.