ON JANUARY 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India provided a definitive legal framework attempting to balance national security laws with personal liberty. The Division Bench led by Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, adjudicated on the bail pleas of seven individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (‘UAPA’) in connection with the 2020 North East Delhi communal riots.
While the Court ordered the release of five accused persons, including Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, it refused to grant bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, categorizing them as “architects” of the alleged conspiracy.
The Bench has clarified that it is not abdicating its duty by condemning the duo to continue languishing in prison; rather, it is fulfilling a statutory obligation. Both Imam and Khalid, who have been incarcerated for nearly six years awaiting trial, have been granted the liberty to renew their prayer for bail on completion of the examination of the protected witnesses or upon continued stagnation of the trial for another year.
In its 140-page judgment, the Court distinguished the two sets of reliefs largely based on the alleged roles assigned to the different individuals by the prosecution. These roles are categorised into two categories - central and peripheral, depending upon the varying degrees of participation.
“Where the attribution suggests a central or organising role in the alleged design, the need for circumspection before constitutional intervention displaces a statutory embargo is correspondingly greater. Conversely, where the role is peripheral or episodic, prolonged incarceration may more readily assume a punitive character,” the Court has held.
