Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Omar Khalid’s bid to reopen the Supreme Court’s January 5 bail denial in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case has suffered a legal setback, with the court dismissing his review petition and rejecting his request for an open court hearing.
“The prayer for oral hearing on the review petition is dismissed… After perusal of the review petition as well as the attached documents, we find no basis and good cause to review the judgment dated 05.01.2026. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed,” a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Angaria said in its April 16 order, which was issued on Monday.
The development comes days after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Omar Khalid, mentioned the matter before Justice Kumar, urging him to hear the review petition in open court instead of deciding in chambers.
“I wanted to point out the review petition… it was listed on Wednesday. My request is… if you can file it in open court,” Sibal filed his application on April 13.
In a brief response at the time, Justice Kumar said: “We will look into the paper and, if necessary, we will recall it,” indicating that the court would consider the application.
To be sure, review applications are usually decided in chambers by judges, without oral arguments or public hearings in court – which is the path the court eventually took in the Khaled case.
Khalid filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment, which denied him bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
In this judgement, a bench of Justices Kumar and Anjaria held that the material on record revealed a prima facie case against Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam, and attributed to them a “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy. The court noted that their involvement extended to “planning, mobilization and strategic direction,” putting them on equal footing with the other defendants.
The Supreme Court rejected the bail application, ruling that lengthy imprisonment alone cannot justify release in cases governed by the UAPA, as courts must first assess the seriousness of the allegations and whether the legal limit for bail has been exceeded.
“In prosecutions affecting the sovereignty, integrity or security of a state, delay cannot serve as a trump card,” the ruling said, stressing the need to evaluate the role of the accused in each individual case.
Omar Khaled continues to be imprisoned
Khalid has been in detention since September 13, 2020, while Imam has been in detention since January 28, 2020. All the accused in the case face trial for allegedly being part of a coordinated conspiracy that culminated in communal violence in northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving 53 people dead and hundreds injured.
While the court refused to release Khalid and Imam on bail, it granted bail to five other accused – Gilvisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifaur Rahman, Muhammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed, holding that the allegations against them were “of ancillary or facilitative nature”.
The bench explained that the criminal law does not impose identical findings simply because the allegations arise from the same set of facts, and that Khaled and the Imam stand on “qualitatively different grounds.”
The January 5 order also imposed restrictions on Khalid and Imam, allowing them to renew their bail application only after questioning protected witnesses or after one year, whichever is earlier.
What the Supreme Court said about long prison terms under the UAPA
The bail applications arose out of a Delhi High Court order in September 2025, which denied bail to nine accused and described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the violence. While Khalid was not physically present in Delhi during the riots, the Imam was already in custody when the violence broke out. The defendants argued before the Supreme Court that they were exercising their constitutional right to protest and had no role in provoking the violence. They also asserted that their lengthy imprisonment amounted to punishment without a trial, with several supplementary indictments filed and dozens of witnesses still to be questioned.
However, the Supreme Court held that in cases filed under the UAPA, long imprisonment by itself cannot go beyond the legal standard that the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the accused.
It also rejected the allegation that Khalid and Imam remained in custody solely because of prosecutorial inertia, noting that the record, including the findings of the Delhi High Court, did not support a comprehensive depiction of a “sleepy prosecution” or “unjustified delay” sufficient to override the statutory prohibition under Section 43(d)(5) of the UAPA.
