Political reactions have poured in following the Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two prominent activists accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The Supreme Court, on January 5, 2026, refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, noting that the allegations against them set them apart from other accused in the case. This decision came after they challenged a Delhi High Court ruling in September 2025, which had also denied their bail applications.
The ruling has ignited political debate, with various leaders expressing differing views on the verdict.
Key Political Reactions:
BJP’s Response
BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla quickly held a press conference after the decision, accusing the Congress of having “sympathized” with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. He criticized the Congress for allegedly supporting the activists and for being linked to international letters urging for “fair and timely trials” for the duo.
Poonawalla also referred to the so-called “Tukde Tukde” gang, implying that elements of the opposition were sympathetic to Khalid and Imam, suggesting that Congress should apologize for their support of the activists.
Congress’s ‘Fundamental Right’ Reminder
In contrast, Congress MP Imran Masood reminded the public that bail is a “fundamental right” as stated by the Supreme Court. While he refrained from directly commenting on the ruling, Masood emphasized that the principle of granting bail should be applied equitably, as it is an essential aspect of justice.
Additionally, Karnataka Congress Minister Priyank Kharge took to social media to criticize the judicial system, pointing out the disparity between those who speak out against the government and those convicted of serious crimes. In a post on X, he highlighted the cases of convicted rapist Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who had been granted bail, in contrast with the activists’ continued imprisonment.
Delhi BJP Leaders Welcome the Verdict
Delhi Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa expressed his approval of the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing that under the BJP-led government, rioters would be held accountable and not rewarded, unlike during Congress rule. Sirsa praised the verdict, calling it a message that rioters would remain in jail.
Another Delhi BJP leader, Kapil Mishra, also welcomed the ruling, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the belief that the Delhi riots were part of a well-planned conspiracy. Mishra claimed the riots were orchestrated after significant preparation, not spontaneous outbursts, thus justifying the severity of the charges.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) Criticizes the Decision
The CPI(M) expressed strong disapproval of the bail denial, arguing that the prolonged incarceration of Khalid and Imam violated principles of natural justice. They criticized the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a tool for targeting dissent, calling it a disturbing pattern of repression. The CPI(M) reiterated its demand for the release of all political prisoners.
Former Law Minister Raises Concerns on Long Incarceration
Former law minister Ashwani Kumar raised concerns about the prolonged detention of Khalid and Imam, questioning the fairness of the decision given the extended period they have spent in jail. While Kumar acknowledged the Supreme Court’s right to differentiate between cases, he expressed discomfort at the idea of such long incarcerations without trial.
He further emphasized that “there is no recompense for liberty once lost,” suggesting that extended periods of pre-trial detention should be a consideration when determining bail.
Why the Supreme Court Denied Bail
The Supreme Court’s bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjari stated that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a “qualitatively different footing” in relation to the other accused in the Delhi riots case. The court observed that the prosecution material presented a strong prima facie case against the two activists, which justified their continued detention at this stage of the proceedings.
The ruling confirmed that the denial of bail was in accordance with Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which sets a high threshold for granting bail in cases involving terrorism or national security concerns.
Both activists were earlier denied bail by the Delhi High Court, which led them to appeal to the Supreme Court. The top court upheld the lower court’s decision, reiterating that the stage of the case did not warrant their release on bail.
