Six Years On, Delhi High Court Seeks Police Reply On Sharjeel Imam’s Bail Plea
Credit: The Quint
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 17th July 2026, asked the Delhi police to respond to a bail plea filed by Sharjeel Imam, a student activist who has been detained under the UAPA, alleging his involvement in a larger conspiracy behind the Feb 2020 Delhi Riots.
A bench consisting of Justices Prathibha M Singh & Justice Vikas Mahajan issued a notice on Imam’s appeal against the court’s trial order on 4th July, which rejected his secondary regular bail application. The bench ordered the police to file their response and scheduled the next hearing on 27th August.
Between August and September 2020, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others were booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the Delhi Riots of Feb 2020 for inciting violence. In fact, in December 2019, during the Anti-CAA protest, JNU student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam called for a widespread peaceful protest, including road blocks, which was framed by the Delhi police as anti-national and a planned act of terrorism, accusing both Imam and Khalid of being masterminds behind the Delhi riots of 2020 and filing weak charge sheets.
It’s been nearly six years since both Khalid and Imam’s imprisonment under trial, which erodes Article 21, which ensures the right to a speedy trial. In the case of K.A. Najeeb (2021), a three-judge bench ruled that the right to a speedy trial would apply even to stringent Section 43D (5) of the UAPA.
It violates Article 14, which provides equality before the law. In January 2026, the SC granted bail to Gulfisha Fathima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammed Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, while Umar Khalid and Imam have been consistently denied bail, insisting on the hierarchy of participation. Imprisoning a person for an undue term without being proven guilty robs them of their prime by stripping away the natural law of Justice. The entire Anti-CAA protest is framed as anti-national, where peaceful protests are no longer acceptable.
This questions the larger framework of who gets the power to decide and who is termed as dangerous, criminal and terrorist in the name of law.
