New Delhi, India — In a landmark decision delivered on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India refused bail to two prominent activists — Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam — while granting bail to five other accused persons in the ongoing **“larger conspiracy” case arising from the Delhi riots of February-March 2020.
The ruling, handed down by a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, draws a sharp line between those the court saw as having made inflammatory public statements and others whose alleged involvement was viewed as lacking evidence of active conspiracy or violence.
The Delhi riots, which took place in the context of widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, left over 50 people dead and hundreds injured. Multiple trials and investigations have unfolded, including this high-profile “conspiracy” case in which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) alleged that certain public speeches and social media statements fueled communal tensions and led to violent clashes.
Today’s decision reverberates across legal, political and civil liberties circles, touching on the balance between freedom of speech and public order, as well as the evidentiary threshold required to link expression with criminal liability.
Case Background: Delhi Riots & Larger Conspiracy Allegations
The protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in late 2019 and early 2020 saw massive demonstrations across India. In Delhi, tensions escalated into communal violence in several neighbourhoods. Subsequent investigations led the NIA — India’s top counter-terror law enforcement agency — to file a “larger conspiracy” charge sheet alleging that certain speeches, statements and online posts were part of a connected scheme to instigate riots.
Among the accused were thinkers, activists and writers whose public positions had been critical of the government’s policies. The prosecution argued that speeches by persons like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not mere political expression but intended to foment discord and violence — thereby enabling a conspiracy that resulted in death and destruction.
The case has been rife with intense debate. Supporters of the accused have maintained their speeches were protected by the Constitution and that criminal charges represented a dangerous dilution of free speech rights. Meanwhile, the prosecution has underscored the seriousness of the allegations and the need for strict enforcement where speeches can plausibly escalate into violence.
When the accused moved for bail, those motions inevitably brought before the Supreme Court constitutional questions about fundamental rights, communal harmony, and the role of speech in public life.
Who Appeared Before the Court & What Was Decided
The Supreme Court’s order dealt with multiple bail applications, differentiating between those whose names feature prominently in the conspiracy narrative and others whose alleged roles were more peripheral.
Denied Bail
- Umar Khalid — prominent activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader
- Sharjeel Imam — former JNU student and activist
Bail Granted
- Five other accused persons (names suppressed here for brevity pending formal indexing in court records), whose roles in the prosecution’s case were deemed insufficiently connected to the core allegations of incitement or coordinated violence.
This dual outcome reflects the court’s attempt to distinguish between speech that may be vehement or controversial but not unambiguously criminal and speech or conduct that the prosecution contended had a more direct role in catalysing disorder.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning: Why Khalid & Imam Were Denied Bail
The Supreme Court observed that the allegations against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were serious and prima facie supported by the prosecution’s material. The bench noted:
- Their speeches were alleged to have been made at crucial moments and locations in Delhi where violence was erupting.
- The prosecution placed reliance on documentary and audio-visual evidence indicating that their language had an effect on crowds and could reasonably be connected to the spread of communal tension.
- There was a possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if bail were granted at this stage.
In refusing bail, the Court did not make a final finding on guilt — that is for trial. However, it applied established doctrine that bail in serious cases is the exception, not the rule, especially where the evidence prima facie discloses a substantial role in alleged criminal activity.
The bench further held that the cumulative material suggests a credible link between the speeches in question and the sequence of events that unfolded during the riots.
Importantly, the Court clarified it was not punishing mere dissent or criticism of policies. Rather, it emphasised the need to evaluate context, timing, audience impact and intent, while adjudicating bail applications in sensitive, violence-related cases.
Why Bail Was Granted to the Other Five Accused
The five co-accused who received bail were distinguished by the Supreme Court on grounds such as:
- Lack of evidence showing direct participation in speech events or incitement
- Absence of compelling material linking them to violent incidents or conspiracy meetings
- Minimal role in the prosecution’s narrative — such that continuing detention at this stage was not justified on prima facie grounds.
The Court reiterated that bail jurisprudence demands a nuanced assessment of each applicant’s role, and that mere association with a broad protest movement cannot be equated with participation in a conspiracy to incite communal violence.
The bail orders in their favour contain conditions aimed at ensuring cooperation with trial proceedings — such as regular appearance before designated authorities, restrictions on public statements, and requirements to surrender travel documents.
Constitutional and Legal Implications
The judgment bears significant constitutional overtones, particularly in its navigation of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (personal liberty). Legal analysts point to several key takeaways:
1. Speech vs. Criminal Liability
The Court clarified that robust political speech is part of democratic discourse. Only speech linked by compelling evidence to actual violence or imminent harm can lose constitutional protection — a principle long anchored in Indian jurisprudence and echoed globally in democracies dealing with hate speech and public order laws.
2. Bail as a Guardrail, Not a Punishment
The ruling reaffirms that bail decisions focus not on guilt but on:
- prima facie evidence
- potential to defeat trial mechanisms
- risk of flight
- impact on public order.
Even when allegations are serious, bail may be granted if the prosecution’s case is speculative or weak; conversely, procedural protests alone are inadequate for bail if the allegations are serious and supported by cogent material.
3. Distinction Between Activism and Crime
The bench repeatedly underscored that activism per se is not criminal. However, when activism crosses into calling for or facilitating violence, courts can intervene. This echoes principles from domestic law and comparative constitutional practice regulating speech with harmful effects.
Political and Societal Reactions
The verdict has drawn strong reactions across political and civil society:
- Supporters of Khalid and Imam have condemned the decision, calling it a setback for civil liberties and free speech. They argue that dissent against public policy — even forceful — should not attract criminal liability unless the speaker explicitly incites violence. Critics also fault the continued use of conspiracy charges in protest-related cases.
- Government supporters and law-and-order advocates have welcomed the ruling, framing it as a necessary stand against individuals who they claim sought to exploit a protest movement for communal ends. They see the refusal of bail for Khalid and Imam as recognition that speech can be dangerous when prosecutors establish a coherent link to violence.
Analysts expect further legal battles, including potential review petitions or Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court once trial evidence emerges.
Where the Case Goes From Here
With bail now resolved for the main accused, the legal focus shifts back to the NIA trial, where witnesses, digital evidence, background speeches and social media messaging will be examined. The prosecution will aim to establish a perception of uniform orchestration in violent episodes, while the defence is expected to foreground constitutional freedoms and lack of direct causation between speech and violence.
Given the high-stakes nature of the trial, the Supreme Court’s reasoning on bail and evidence may continue to shape interlocutory challenges — ranging from admissibility of evidence to interim orders on publication or speech restrictions.
Comparison With Other Jurisdictions
Internationally, courts face similar tensions between free speech and public order:
- United States: The Brandenburg test limits criminal sanction to speech intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
- United Kingdom: Public order offences like acts likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress require clear evidence of risk rather than mere controversial statements.
- Canada: The Supreme Court emphasises a balancing of free expression and harm through hate speech doctrine.
India’s approach, as reflected in this decision, sits within this global context — protecting political expression while allowing state action where speech is shown to be causally connected to violent outcomes beyond legitimate protest.
Constitutional Dimensions
The case also underscores the importance of due process, including:
- ensuring bail decisions are based on evidence and not speculation,
- upholding citizens’ fundamental rights,
- interpreting laws and conspiracy provisions with constitutional restraints, and
- preventing “guilt by association” in protest-related cases absent proof of intent and action.
Legal commentators note that while India’s legal framework gives broad protection to speech, those rights are not absolute — the Constitution expressly permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, sovereignty, and integrity.
Closing Summary
In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, while granting bail to five others whose links to the core allegations were weak or speculative.
The court underscored that mere regulatory non-compliance or controversial speech doesn’t automatically translate into criminal liability, particularly where clients authorise trades or where evidence does not directly tie speech to violence.
By reaffirming the constitutional protections of free expression as well as the legal boundaries of bail jurisprudence, the judgment marks a nuanced attempt to balance civil liberties with accountability for speech that may be tied to actual harm. The case’s next chapter — the substantive trial — is poised to test these principles further as trial evidence is examined and weighed.
