After the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam —incarcerated for over five years — in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, critics online have called it a "travesty of justice" and how the judicial system has let them down.
On 5 January 2026, while the Supreme Court granted bail to five others namely, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa ur Rehman, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmad and Salim Khan, the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam were rejected. The Court emphasised that the bail petitions of each accused must be examined individually, given the differences in their alleged roles.
The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale observed that, "Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused."
Several lawyers, journalists, academics have spoken critiqued this point, such as senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai who wrote on X:
"...Why then for five years, were the accused treated jointly as part of a common conspiracy, denied bail repeatedly and not seen to be on a different footing?"
Communist Party of India (Marxist) was the only political party whose official handle spoke up on the issue. They stated, "Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates the fundamental principle that bail is the rule, not jail, and undermines the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial."
However, many political leaders, from Shiv Sena (UBT) Aadtiya Thackeray, to TMC's Saket Gokhale have pointed out the irony of how Kuldeep Singh Senger accused of rape was granted bail, and how Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim was granted a parole again.
'Paying a Heavy Price for Their Speech'
Janaki Nair, a historian and retired professor of History at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University also penned down a Facebook post recalling her interactions with Khalid and Imam.
"Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were no bomb-throwing revolutionaries. I taught both of them, and they impressed me with their intelligence, diligence and capacity for thinking differently," she wrote on Facebook.
She added that we must "commemorate figures like Sharjeel and Umar who are paying a heavy price for their speech acts, ideas."
"We must never forget, that legions of others, who openly called for violence against other Indians, continue to enjoy their freedoms today, and even occupy public office -- because they have the right names, and have the right political patrons," wrote Janaki.
Meanwhile, constitutional law scholar, Gautam Bhatia also pointed out the anomalies in how the Umar and Sharjeel's case has progressed over the years to yesterday's verdict, raising several questions.
In his blog, Bhatia wrote:
"In the beginning, the courts have tried to nonetheless find something concrete or specific in the facts (this was taken to the point of absurdity in the High Court’s first order denying bail, where Umar Khalid’s reference to “revolutionary greetings” in a speech was taken as potentially violent because he did not specifically clarify that was talking about a peaceful revolution). However, judgment by judgment – perhaps noting the untenability of these claims – courts have begun to frame Umar Khalid’s role in more and more abstract language, abandoning specificity altogether."
As for the Court widening the ambit of “terrorism” under Section 15 of the UAPA albeit vaguely, Bhatia stated, "It is a problem, in general, because such a vague definition of “terrorism” ensures that pretty much every act of civic disobedience can invite a UAPA case, and endless incarceration."
'Ab Yahi Zindagi Hain'
On the other hand, former JNU scholar and Khalid's partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri wrote about her conversation with Khalid shortly after the verdict was pronounced.
She wrote that Khalid said, "I'm really happy for others who got bail, so relieved." When Lahiri said she would go to meet him the next day, Khalid replied, "Good, come. Now this is what life is."
However, several professors and prominent personalities condemned the apex court's order stating that even five years of being jailed and not starting a trial is not a good enough reason for the court to grant some relief.
Harsh Mander, an activist and founder of Karwan-e-Mohabbat wrote, "Two idealistic young men continue to be jailed without trial on charges of a conspiracy that few believe to be credible The SC has once again failed justice."
Meanwhile, Nair in her post had written something which resonates with the incarceration of these young minds.
"I am confident that Sharjeel and Umar will emerge from these trials with all their ideals intact. In fact, I am sure, that even behind those prison walls, they think, read, dream, and survive, perhaps even transforming the oppressive space to which they have been condemned."