Is denying bail to Khalid and Imam a departure from judicial precedent?

The Supreme Court on January 5, 2025, declined to grant bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, notwithstanding their incarceration for nearly six years without the commencement of trial. The court held that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty is not “absolute”, and remains subject to the stringent bail regime prescribed under special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, however, granted conditional bail to five other co-accused, observing that the allegations against them indicated conduct of a subsidiary or facilitative nature, thereby warranting differential treatment. What are the implications of the ruling? Does the ruling depart from settled bail jurisprudence? Does treating allegations of road blockades as “terrorist acts” risk emboldening governments to weaponise the law to criminalise dissent? Guest: Vrinda Grover, Supreme Court advocate Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik Edited and produced by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices