The apex court granted interim relief with conditions, while flagging key legal concerns over extended pre-trial detention and delays in judicial proceedings.
NEW DELHI — In a significant development in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, the Supreme Court on Friday granted six months’ interim bail to Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, both arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The order has renewed focus on the prolonged incarceration of several activists, students, and accused persons who have spent years in jail without completion of trial in cases linked to the February 2020 violence.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale granted interim relief with conditions, while flagging key legal concerns over extended pre-trial detention and delays in judicial proceedings.
Saifi and Ahmad had earlier been denied bail by the Delhi High Court, prompting them to approach the apex court.
Importantly, the bench referred to a larger bench a key constitutional question: whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial should outweigh the stringent bail restrictions under UAPA.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates have described the move as significant in the ongoing debate on personal liberty, due process, and the application of anti-terror laws.
Senior advocate Faizan Mustafa said the court appeared concerned that individuals cannot be kept in jail indefinitely while trials progress slowly, calling it a “significant constitutional question.”
The issue follows earlier observations by another Supreme Court bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which had questioned the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a separate UAPA matter.
That bench had underscored that even in UAPA cases, the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” should not be disregarded — remarks that sparked debate within legal circles given the traditionally strict approach in such cases.
On Friday, Justice Kumar’s bench noted that a bench of equal strength cannot effectively alter the basis of another bench’s judgment through observations alone.
“A bench of equal strength cannot alter the foundational basis of another bench’s judgment,” the court said, directing that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger bench.
Legal observers say the eventual ruling could have wide implications for undertrial prisoners booked under anti-terror laws across the country.
The Delhi riots conspiracy case remains among the most sensitive criminal cases in recent years. The February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi left over 50 people dead, a majority of them Muslims.
Police have alleged a larger conspiracy linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). However, civil rights groups and several activists have argued that Muslim protest organisers were selectively targeted, while allegations against certain Hindu nationalist figures received less attention.
Families of the accused have maintained that those booked under UAPA are being penalised for dissent and protest activities.
Reacting to the order, a relative of Khalid Saifi said the interim relief had brought hope after years of waiting and reiterated the demand for a fair trial.
Human rights groups have consistently raised concerns over prolonged detention without trial under UAPA. Delhi-based activist Nadeem Khan said many accused have spent years in jail before guilt is established, adding that “the process itself becomes punishment.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had granted bail to five accused in the same conspiracy case, while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing differences in their roles — a decision that also drew criticism from sections of the legal community.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves said the Constitution does not permit indefinite imprisonment without trial, stressing that courts must safeguard personal liberty.
Observers note that the Delhi riots cases continue to reflect broader debates over protest rights, policing, and minority rights in India.
For many, particularly within the Muslim community, the prolonged detention of activists linked to anti-CAA protests remains a deeply emotional issue.
A student from Jamia Nagar said delays in justice have been distressing for many families, with each instance of legal relief carrying significant emotional weight.
The larger constitutional question now referred to the Supreme Court could shape future bail jurisprudence not only in the Delhi riots cases but in UAPA prosecutions nationwide.
APCR welcomes SC order
Welcoming the Supreme Court’s order granting six-month interim bail to Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmed, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) said, he order brings significant relief after a prolonged 6-year incarceration and also marks an important reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards, due process, and the critical role of judicial scrutiny in protecting individual liberty.
APCR hopes that the 6-month interim bail will eventually be converted into a regular bail. The organisation reiterates that keeping individuals incarcerated for years without trial impacts their personal liberty and raises serious concerns about fairness, dignity, and justice as given to every individual under Article 21.
APCR has been actively supporting Khalid Saifi’s legal proceedings and places on record its sincere gratitude to the legal team that represented him with dedication and perseverance.
