- Home
- न्यूजग्राम
- NewsGram USA
- India
- World
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Culture
- Lifestyle
- Economy
- Sports
- Sp. Coverage
- Misc.
- NewsGram Exclusive
- Jobs / Internships
Key Points
The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, holding they stood on a “qualitatively different footing” as alleged masterminds of the larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, while granting bail to five other co-accused.
According to the judgement, Sharjeel Imam allegedly incited violence through speeches and pamphlets, calling for an organised “chakka jam,” blocking roads, stopping milk and water supply in Delhi, and using such disruption as a spark to mobilise thousands.
The chargesheet also cites Imam’s alleged statements on cutting off India’s North East and Assam, blocking the “chicken neck,” and provoking participation in disruptive chakka jams, which the Court found sufficient to deny bail under stringent UAPA provisions.
The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima and others co-accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots case, on January 5, 2026. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had reserved their verdict previously on December 10, 2026. A bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Ravale pronounced the verdict, denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
While Khalid and Imam were denied bail, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad were granted bail. The court pronounced in their verdict that Khalid and Imam stood on a qualitatively different footing from the other co accused, acting as allegedly the main masterminds of the larger conspiracy behind the riots.
The Supreme Court uploaded the 142 page verdict late evening the same day it was pronounced, which contained the findings of the trial courts. According to the judgement, Sharjeel Imam allegedly incited violence by hurting India’s sovereignty and compromising India’s territorial integrity.
The chargesheet filed against Sharjeel Imam contains parts of his speech that he allegedly spoke, inciting violence and riots leading to the 2020 North-East Delhi Riots, and hurting the sovereignty of India. As mentioned in the judgement of the Supreme Court, Imam is alleged to have distributed pamphlets and delivered a provocative speech on December 13, 2019.
The chargesheet contains certain portions of the speech, given in Hindi, which, according to the prosecution, instigated the gathering. The excerpt reads: “It is our wish and desire that there should be a chakka jam (complete halt of services due to a road blockage, or traffic jam, used as a form of protest). What happened today was a spark where 3000-4000 people came. If it is processed in an organised way, more people will come.”
The chargesheet further contains: “(This is India’s capital), whoever is misleading, this is Delhi; if this flyover breaks down, the world will get to know, you are understanding, right? Where would this spark go? How will the fire emerge? But what is our goal? We want a chakka jam, we want to stop the flow of milk and water in Delhi’s localities. Speak freely (definitely).”
The chargesheet also contains portions of another speech he is alleged to have spoken, wherein he referred to blocking access to India’s North East and cutting off Assam. The alleged statement reads as such: “I have mentioned before that if we have five lakh people in an organised way, we can permanently cut off India and North East.” The statement further reads: “It is our responsibility to cut off Assam, and if Assam and India get separated, only then will they listen to us.”
See Also: ED Raids a Climate NGO Alleging FEMA Violation for Promoting Transition Away from Fossil Fuels
The chargesheet also contains other portions of the speech which Imam allegedly gave, stating that it was their responsibility to help Assam, and to create a blockade from the mainland, to cut off the chicken neck, because it belongs to Muslims. “The chargesheet further alleges that Sharjeel Imam delivered similar speeches at Asonal and Chakand on 22.01.2020 and 23.01.2020, respectively, wherein he is stated to have provoked sections of the Muslim population by inciting them to participate in disruptive chakka jams”, the judgement reads.
Khalid and Imam were denied bails under the stringent provisions of the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967). The Court cited Section 43D(5), 15, 17 and 18 of the UAPA along with other provisions for denying the bail. The Section 43D(5) of the UAPA was the central provision in which the bail was refused. It bars the grant of bail if, upon a preliminary assessment, the court finds that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that at the bail stage, courts are not required to conduct a detailed trial, only to see whether the prosecution’s case appears credible on the face of it.
Suggested Reading:
