Today, On 13th April, Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking review of its January 5 order denying him bail in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The review petition is scheduled to be taken up on Wednesday, April 15.
Umar Khalid approached the Supreme Court, seeking a review of its January 5 order that denied him bail in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots.
The review petition is scheduled to be taken up on Wednesday, April 15.
In January, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria rejected the bail pleas of Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam.
The Court held that the material on record established a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
In its detailed decision, the Bench noted that the prosecution’s case pointed to a “central and formative role” by the accused encompassing planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction rather than conduct limited to isolated or localised acts.
The Court, however, granted bail to several other accused in the same case, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
The January 5 order also included a bar on Khalid and Imam from moving for renewal of their bail pleas until either the examination of protected witnesses is completed or one year has passed from the date of the order.
Today, the matter was mentioned before the Court by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid.
Sibal informed the Bench that the matter is listed for hearing on Wednesday and requested that it be heard in open court. Justice Kumar responded that the Court would first go through the record and, if necessary, call the matter indicating a decision on the hearing mode after examining the papers.
It is relevant that, on December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the bail pleas. ASG Raju opposed the bail requests, arguing that the violence that occurred in Northeast Delhi was not a peaceful protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, but rather part of a “well-planned conspiracy” intended to spark unrest and destabilise the government.
Opposing the bail pleas, Solicitor General Mehta challenged what he described as “myths” surrounding the riots.
Adding that the violence amounted to “an attack on the sovereignty of the nation.”, he submitted,
“This was not a spontaneous riot. It was a well-designed, well-crafted, well-orchestrated, pre-planned and well-choreographed riot,”
Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, argued that at the current rate of progress, Khalid would remain incarcerated for “eight years without trial”, while noting that the prosecution has alternately estimated the trial’s completion at six months and at two years.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gulfisha Fatima, questioned the Delhi Police’s claim that the riots were connected to a coordinated regime change operation, pointing out that “not a word of it appears in the chargesheet.”
All five UAPA accused have filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied them bail. The High Court had ruled that “violence in the name of protest is not free speech” while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others.
The case arises from violence that broke out in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act resulted in large-scale incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and injuring thousands.
Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi