On November 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India continued hearing the regular bail petitions of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and several co-accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case (FIR No. 59/2020, Delhi Police Special Cell). The case is registered under various sections of the IPC and the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 (unlawful activities, terrorist acts, raising funds for terror, and conspiracy).
Bench and Petitioners
- Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria
- Key Petitioners: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Mohd Saleem Khan, and others.
- Umar Khalid has been in judicial custody since September 2020 (over 5 years as of November 2025). Most co-accused have also been incarcerated since 2020 without trial commencement.
The petitioners challenge the Delhi High Court’s orders denying them bail (latest for Khalid on September 2, 2025), arguing prolonged incarceration without prima facie evidence of terror acts, violation of the right to speedy trial, and that peaceful anti-CAA protests cannot be conflated with terrorism.
Key Arguments on November 18 (Delhi Police Side)
The hearing primarily focused on submissions by the Delhi Police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju:
- No change in circumstances for Umar Khalid: ASG Raju argued that parity with co-accused who were granted bail earlier cannot be a ground now, as the issue of parity was already raised (and rejected) when Khalid’s previous bail pleas were dismissed by lower courts and the Supreme Court.
- Bail orders in favour of some co-accused (e.g., interim or statutory bail) were clarified by the Supreme Court earlier as “not to be treated as precedent”.
- The riots were described as an “orchestrated, pre-planned assault on national sovereignty”, timed with US President Trump’s visit to India in February 2020 to attract internationalise the issue and attempt “regime change”.
- Specific allegations against Sharjeel Imam: He allegedly exhorted Muslims to “chakka jam” (block roads) not just in Delhi but across cities, acting under Umar Khalid’s “tutelage”.
- Strong opposition to bail under UAPA’s strict twin conditions (Section 43D(5) UAPA): The court cannot grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
Senior advocates like Kapil Sibal (for Khalid) had completed their arguments in earlier hearings (October-November 2025), emphasising no evidence of violence, weapons, or direct involvement in riots, and that over 5 years of incarceration amounts to “punishment without trial”.
Outcome of November 18 Hearing
- No final order or bail granted on this date.
- The bench heard part of the prosecution’s rebuttal.
- Hearing adjourned — Delhi Police arguments to continue on November 20, 2025.
This matter has seen multiple adjournments and hearings through October and November 2025, reflecting the complexity of applying UAPA bail restrictions in a case with over 20 accused and voluminous chargesheets.
The case highlights ongoing debates on UAPA’s stringent bail provisions, prolonged undertrial detention, and the boundary between protest rights and alleged conspiracy.
Sources: LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, The Hindu (live updates from November 18, 2025 hearing).
