§  5 others freed. International outcry over human rights violations

§  Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam after 5+ years detention without trial under UAPA

Indian: India’s Supreme Court delivered a divided judgment on Monday that reveals deep fractures in the nation’s justice system. Two prominent student activists—Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam—were denied bail after spending more than five years in prison without a single trial. The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench rejected their pleas, citing the “culpability” differences between them and five other co-accused who were immediately granted freedom.

The ruling represents a watershed moment for India’s civil liberties. While Khalid and Imam remain imprisoned under the nation’s strictest anti-terror legislation—the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA—their five co-defendants walked free on the same day in the same courtroom. This paradox has sent shockwaves through international human rights organizations, drawing urgent statements from Amnesty International, the United Nations and the U.S. Congress.

For five years, these student activists have languished in Indian prisons without trial, without conviction and without clear evidence of involvement in the violence that erupted during the 2020 Delhi riots. Their story challenges fundamental principles of democratic justice and raises alarming questions about the state of human rights in the world’s largest democracy.

THE VERDICT: JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

On Monday morning, India’s Supreme Court announced its decision in a case that has captivated international attention. The court examined bail pleas from seven activists arrested in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, which killed 53 people, mostly Muslims. The judges determined that each activist’s case required individual examination because they were “not on equal footing as regards culpability.”

However, this technical legal distinction masked a more troubling reality. The court granted bail to five activists—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmed and Shifa ur Rehman—while denying it to Khalid and Imam. The judges provided a significant justification for their differentiation: they explicitly noted that they were making distinctions based on the charges leveled against Khalid and Imam specifically.

But here lies the central injustice: despite these distinctions in charges, all seven activists have been held without trial for the same period. The Supreme Court’s order added a further restriction: Khalid and Imam could not even apply for bail again for one full year. This effectively guaranteed an additional 12 months of imprisonment for men who have already served five years without judicial adjudication of guilt.

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Career Opportunity: Career Opportunity: Hiring Marketing Manager | High-Commission Field Sales | Web & App Development

Promotion: Unlock Your Musical Soul With ‘Sweta Ghosh’: The Ultimate Guide to Sweta’s Music Classes in Purba Bardhaman

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

WHO ARE UMAR KHALID AND SHARJEEL IMAM.?

Umar Khalid completed his doctorate from Delhi’s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2019, just one year before his arrest. At 37 years old, he represents an emerging generation of Indian student intellectuals who believed in activism and civic engagement. His scholarly credentials and academic standing made his arrest shocking to observers who expected the Indian legal system to distinguish between legitimate political activism and incitement to violence.

Sharjeel Imam was a doctoral scholar at the same university when he was arrested. Also 37, Imam had devoted his academic career to social research and understanding Indian society. Both men were intellectuals—theorists, researchers and thinkers—not career criminals or violent operators.

What transformed these scholars into prisoners.? According to police accusations, they conspired to incite the deadly clashes that erupted in Delhi during the citizenship law protests. However, the activists have consistently denied these charges. More significantly, in October 2022, a fact-finding committee comprising a former Supreme Court judge, three retired high court judges and a former federal home secretary examined the evidence and concluded they found “no substantiating evidence to warrant the imposition of terrorism charges against the activists.”

This official finding—that government experts could find no evidence justifying terrorism charges—makes their continued imprisonment under anti-terror laws deeply troubling. If a high-level governmental committee found insufficient evidence, how can the activists’ detention be justified.?

FIVE YEARS WITHOUT TRIAL: A SYSTEM BROKEN

The timeline itself constitutes a devastating indictment of India’s judicial system. Khalid and Imam have been imprisoned since 2020—five years ago—without a trial. They have not had their guilt or innocence determined. They have not heard evidence presented in court. No jury has rendered a verdict. No judge has sentenced them.

Instead, they have experienced something fundamentally different: indefinite detention based on charges, not convictions. They have endured what the activists themselves characterized in their Supreme Court petition as “punishment without trial.”

Khalid’s bail applications have been rejected on at least five separate occasions across different courts over the past five years. Each rejection added another layer of hopelessness to his imprisonment. Imam fared slightly better numerically—his bail petitions were rejected only twice—but the result was identical: continued imprisonment.

Yet even this bare imprisonment does not capture the full reality of their suffering. Khalid has been granted only two brief outings: temporary releases to attend weddings in his family in 2024 and 2025. These rare exceptions only emphasize the rule—five years of confinement for someone convicted of nothing.

THE UAPA TRAP: HOW INDIA’S ANTI-TERROR LAW BECAME AN ACTIVIST SUPPRESSION TOOL

Understanding why Khalid and Imam remain imprisoned despite lack of evidence requires understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act—the UAPA. This Indian law represents one of the world’s strictest anti-terrorism statutes. It makes bail “exceptionally challenging to get” and “often results in years of detention until trial concludes.”

The UAPA was originally designed as a counter-terrorism measure. However, critics and judicial observers have documented how it has increasingly been weaponized against political activists, student protesters and civil society actors. The act places the burden on accused persons to prove their innocence—an inversion of the presumption of innocence that represents a core principle of democratic law.

Under the UAPA, merely organizing protests, writing critical essays or speaking against government policies can be reinterpreted as “unlawful activities.” The law provides such broad definitional scope that legitimate political activism morphs into alleged terrorism in the discretionary judgment of police and prosecutors.

The 2020 Delhi riots occurred during months-long citizen protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which the United Nations itself called “fundamentally discriminatory.” The international organization found that the legislation discriminated based on religion and violated India’s international human rights commitments. Yet anyone arrested during protests against this UN-criticized law found themselves charged under the nation’s harshest anti-terror statute.

INTERNATIONAL ALARM: VOICES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

The detention of Khalid and Imam has triggered alarm among international human rights organizations and governments. Amnesty International issued formal statements characterizing the detention as a violation of fundamental human rights. The organization noted that pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable period constitutes torture under international law.

The United Nations has monitored the case closely, expressing concern that the detention violates India’s international human rights obligations. Just last week, a group of U.S. Congressmen and Senators wrote directly to the Indian ambassador in Washington, expressing “continued concern” over the activists’ “prolonged pre-trial detention.”

This international attention reflects a global consensus: holding individuals in prison for five years without trial violates basic principles of justice that transcend national boundaries. Every major international human rights framework—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and regional human rights conventions—establishes that extended pre-trial detention without justification constitutes human rights violation.

Yet despite this international pressure and expert scrutiny, the Indian judiciary maintained the detention. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively prioritized maintaining the detention over responding to international human rights concerns.

WHY THIS MATTERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIAN DEMOCRACY

The Khalid-Imam case represents far more than the fate of two individuals. It reflects systemic challenges to democracy itself within India. Several troubling implications emerge from this judicial decision:

First, the case demonstrates how anti-terror laws can be weaponized against legitimate political activism. When activists who organized peaceful protests can be imprisoned for five years without trial under anti-terrorism statutes, the distinction between terrorist and activist disappears.

Second, the denial of bail despite lack of evidence suggests that India’s courts may be prioritizing security concerns over individual rights. Even without proof of guilt, imprisonment continues indefinitely.

Third, the inability to secure bail despite a senior judicial committee’s finding of insufficient evidence indicates that trial courts may be following executive preferences rather than applying law independently. Judicial independence—a core democratic value—appears compromised.

Fourth, the disparity between the five freed and two imprisoned suggests that political or prosecutorial discretion, rather than legal principle, determines outcomes in these high-stakes cases.

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

READ MORE: TRUMP’S BRUTAL ULTIMATUM TO VENEZUELA: “Pay a Very Big Price” or Face Maduro’s Fate

═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: ONE YEAR OF ADDITIONAL IMPRISONMENT

The Supreme Court’s restriction preventing new bail applications for one year essentially guarantees that Khalid and Imam will remain imprisoned through January 2027. Even if new evidence emerges, even if international pressure intensifies, even if public opinion shifts—neither activist can formally request bail consideration until their imposed deadline expires.

This restriction appears particularly harsh given that five years have already elapsed without trial. The additional one-year prohibition effectively extends the injustice indefinitely. At current trial pace, trial may not conclude for additional years even after the bail restriction expires.

EXPERT ANALYSIS: WHAT LEGAL SCHOLARS SAY

Leading Indian law professors and constitutional experts have criticized the Khalid-Imam decision as inconsistent with constitutional protections. They note that while the UAPA allows stricter bail standards, it does not eliminate the fundamental right to bail after reasonable time in custody.

Constitutional law scholars emphasize that detention without trial becomes detention without conviction—a practice fundamentally at odds with democratic principles. Several experts have publicly stated that five years without trial, followed by denial of bail, represents a failure of India’s judicial system regardless of the ultimate verdict.

CONCLUSION: DEMOCRACY AT A CROSSROADS

India stands at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam after five years of imprisonment without trial represents a moment of profound consequence for Indian democracy.

These are not hardened criminals with prior convictions. They are student activists and scholars who organized peaceful protests against a law criticized by the United Nations itself. Yet they remain imprisoned indefinitely under statutes designed for terrorism while no trial date approaches.

The international community has signaled concern. Former judges have questioned the evidence. Civil society organizations demand their release. Yet the judiciary maintained their detention.

Call to Action (CTA)

This case demands attention and action. Follow and share The Daily Hints for ongoing coverage of this critical case and its implications for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in India.

Follow The Daily Hints on Social Media,

      §  Facebook

      §  Instagram

      §  Threads

      §  WhatsApp

      §  YouTube

      §  Twitter

      §  Email ID

From West Bengal District’s News to Kolkata News, Other States News to Whole India News, International News, Entertainment News to Sports News, Science News to Technology News and all other news updates, follow and Support our news portal @TheDailyHints.