Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid as International Pressure Mounts Over India’s “Judicial Decline”

Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid as International Pressure Mounts Over India’s “Judicial Decline”

A petition has reached the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, seeking the release of Khalid and other prisoners characterized as arbitrarily detained for exercising their right to speak out against government excesses.

RMN News Legal Desk
New Delhi | January 5, 2026

On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India denied bail to activist Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, ruling that they stood on a “higher footing in the hierarchy of participation” regarding the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. This decision comes at a time of intensifying international scrutiny and domestic reports alleging a significant “judicial decline” within the Indian legal system.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale distinguished Khalid and Imam from five other accused individuals who were granted conditional bail. The court found that the prosecution’s material, taken at face value, suggests Khalid’s involvement at a strategic level of planning and mobilization that extends beyond localized acts. Under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court maintained that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are “prima facie true,” which sets a high threshold for granting bail.

Conversely, Khalid’s defense, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that Khalid was not present in Delhi when the riots occurred. Sibal further noted that there were no recoveries of weapons or incriminating materials from Khalid and expressed surprise that his client was only charged in one of the 751 FIRs related to the riots.

Mounting Global and Domestic Pressure

The denial of bail follows a recent surge in international concern. Eight United States lawmakers, including Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Pramila Jayapal, addressed a letter to the Indian Ambassador to the US, urging a fair and timely trial. These lawmakers expressed deep concern that Khalid’s nearly five-year detention without trial may violate international due process standards and the legal principle of the presumption of innocence.

Furthermore, a petition has reached the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, seeking the release of Khalid and other prisoners characterized as arbitrarily detained for exercising their right to speak out against government excesses.

Concerns of Selective Impunity

Domestically, the outcry is bolstered by the “India Judicial Research Report 2025,” which alleges rampant injustice and massive corruption within the court system. Critics and reports point to a disparity in the application of the law, contrasting Khalid’s indefinite incarceration with the “state impunity” allegedly enjoyed by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. Despite a court ordering an investigation into Mishra’s role in the 2020 riots, he has not faced similar detention.

Khalid, a former JNU student, has been in custody since 2020. While he was granted a brief interim bail in late 2025 to attend his sister’s wedding, his regular bail plea remained a point of contention until this latest Supreme Court determination.

The current state of this legal battle can be understood through the lens of a weighted scale; while international observers suggest the weights of due process are being removed from one side, the domestic legal system maintains that the gravity of the charges justifies the continued imbalance.