After hearing a long line of arguments stretching across constitutional liberty, national security, and the limits of judicial discretion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a detailed ruling on bail pleas filed by several accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The appeals arose from the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including the petition moved by Gulfisha Fatima.
The judgment, running into more than 140 pages, carefully balances personal liberty under Article 21 with Parliament’s intent behind stringent anti-terror laws.
Read also:- Supreme Court Acquits Anjani Singh in 2004 Ballia Firing Case, Grants Benefit of Doubt
Background of the Case
The case originates from FIR No. 59 of 2020, registered by Delhi Police’s Crime Branch following the communal violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020. The riots left 54 people dead, injured several others, including police personnel, and caused widespread damage to public and private property.
Initially booked under Indian Penal Code provisions relating to rioting and conspiracy, the case later expanded to include serious offences under the UAPA, Arms Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The prosecution alleged that the violence was not spontaneous but the outcome of a pre-planned conspiracy linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Multiple charge-sheets were filed between 2020 and 2023, naming several accused, including Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Shifa Ur Rehman, Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Gulfisha Fatima.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders ₹3.99 Lakh Stamp Refund, Closes Contempt Against Agra Development Authority
Key Issue Before the Court
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether long years of pre-trial incarceration, combined with slow progress of trial, justified granting bail despite the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Counsel for the accused argued that continued detention without a realistic prospect of early trial violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and a speedy trial.
Court’s Observations
The bench, speaking through Justice Aravind Kumar, acknowledged that prolonged incarceration is a serious constitutional concern. However, it made clear that delay alone cannot override the statutory framework of the UAPA.
“The right to personal liberty does not operate in a vacuum,” the bench observed, adding that courts must examine delay in context, not isolation.
The Court noted:
- The case involves multiple accused, voluminous documents, and extensive electronic evidence.
- Much of the delay could not be attributed solely to the prosecution or the trial court.
- In several instances, procedural objections and applications by the accused also contributed to the pace of proceedings.
Importantly, the Court rejected the idea that the passage of time automatically weakens the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
The judgment revisits the scope of Section 43D(5), reiterating that bail can be denied if the court finds prima facie truth in the accusations, without conducting a mini-trial.
“The bail stage is not meant for weighing evidence or testing defences,” the Court said, clarifying that the judicial role is limited to checking whether the allegations, taken at face value, satisfy the statutory ingredients.
The bench also clarified that the definition of a “terrorist act” under UAPA is broader than conventional violence, and may include acts that disrupt public order or threaten the unity and integrity of the nation.
A significant portion of the judgment is devoted to differentiating roles of the accused. The Court stressed that bail decisions must be accused-specific, not uniform.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh HC Backs Biological Father's Right, Orders School to Add His Name in Child’s Academ
While some accused were alleged to be central planners or ideological drivers, others were described as local facilitators. The Court held that such distinctions are legally relevant while assessing bail under a special statute.
“Pre-trial detention cannot be mechanical or indiscriminate,” the bench noted, underscoring that proportionality remains a constitutional requirement.
Decision of the Court
After applying these principles, the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to certain accused, including those found to have a prima facie role meeting the UAPA threshold. In respect of others, bail was granted subject to strict conditions, based on individual assessment of roles and material on record.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh HC Backs Biological Father's Right, Orders School to Add His Name in Child’s Academ
The Court also directed the trial court to prioritise the proceedings and ensure expeditious conduct of the trial, making it clear that continued stagnation could revive constitutional remedies at a later stage.
The batch of appeals was disposed of with these directions.
Case Title: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Connected Appeals
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025 & connected matters
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Bail under UAPA)
Decision Date: January 2026
