pic credit social media
Two Minutes to Injustice: Delhi High Court’s Hasty Denial of Bail to Umar Khalid and Others Ignites Debate on Judicial Fairness
In a courtroom drama that unfolded with alarming brevity, the Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025, dismissed the bail appeals of nine individuals, including prominent activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, in the ongoing 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. Pronounced by Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla, the verdict has reignited fierce criticism over the state of India’s judiciary, with accusations of predetermined outcomes, religious bias, and a blatant disregard for due process.
As the accused languish in prison for nearly five years without a trial, this decision not only questions the principle that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” but also exposes deeper fissures in the nation’s commitment to justice.
The Blink-and-Miss Hearing
Eyewitness accounts and social media posts paint a picture of a judicial proceeding that bordered on the perfunctory. According to reports, the bench took a mere two minutes—or, as some claim, just 29 seconds—to dismiss all nine appeals.
The phrase “All the appeals are dismissed” echoed through the courtroom, sealing the fate of individuals who have been incarcerated since 2020 under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This rapid-fire judgment came despite detailed arguments from the defence, raising eyebrows about whether the judges had truly engaged with the merits of the case.
Critics argue that such haste undermines the very essence of appellate review. In a system already plagued by delays—where trials can drag on for decades—this anomaly suggests a premeditated stance. The High Court’s observation that the trial should proceed at a “natural pace” without haste seems ironic when juxtaposed with the speed of the bail denial. Why the rush to keep these individuals behind bars, yet no urgency to commence their trial? This discrepancy fuels speculation that external pressures, including political influences, may be at play.
Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots and the Accused
The case stems from the violent clashes in northeast Delhi in February 2020, which left over 53 dead and hundreds injured, predominantly from the Muslim community. The riots erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), policies criticized for their discriminatory impact on Muslims.
The Delhi Police, under the Union Home Ministry, invoked UAPA to charge 18 individuals with orchestrating a “larger conspiracy” to incite violence.
Among those denied bail are Umar Khalid, a former JNU student leader known for his vocal criticism of government policies; Sharjeel Imam, a scholar and activist; and others like Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
These individuals, many of them young Muslim intellectuals and community organizers, have maintained their innocence, asserting that their speeches and protests were peaceful exercises of free speech. Khalid, for instance, has been in custody for over 1,800 days, with his bail pleas rejected multiple times by lower courts and now the High Court for the sixth time.
The prosecution’s case relies heavily on WhatsApp chats, witness statements, and alleged links to anti-CAA protests. However, defence lawyers have pointed out inconsistencies, including the lack of direct evidence tying the accused to violence. Notably, several co-accused, such as student leaders Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, were granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2021, highlighting potential selective application of the law.
Judicial Proceedings Under Scrutiny
The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores a troubling trend in UAPA cases, where bail is notoriously hard to secure due to the act’s provisions that reverse the burden of proof onto the accused. Justices Kaur and Chawla upheld the trial court’s order, deeming the roles of Khalid and Imam “grave” and arguing that a rushed trial could harm both sides. Yet, this rationale rings hollow for families and supporters who have watched the trial stall repeatedly.
Legal experts question the bench’s impartiality. Justice Shalinder Kaur, elevated to the High Court in 2023, and Justice Navin Chawla, a veteran judge, have faced no prior public accusations of bias. However, the optics of a swift dismissal in a politically charged case invite skepticism.
Was there adequate deliberation?
Reports indicate the hearing concluded abruptly, with minimal discussion on key defence points like prolonged incarceration as grounds for bail.
This isn’t isolated. India’s judiciary has been criticized for delays in high-profile cases involving dissenters, while expediting those favoring the establishment. The accused’s partner, speaking after the verdict, lamented, “Keeping someone in jail for five years without any trial is in itself a ground for bail.” With the Supreme Court now the only recourse, protests are planned, including a solidarity march by JNU Students’ Union on September 13.
Allegations of Bias and Polarisation
At the heart of the criticism is the stark claim: the “basic rule of law… doesn’t apply to Umar Khalid and others because they are ‘Muslims’.” This sentiment echoes broader concerns about communal bias in India’s legal system under the current regime. The accused, predominantly Muslim, contrast with Hindu nationalist figures implicated in inciting violence—such as BJP leader Kapil Mishra, whose inflammatory speeches preceded the riots—who face no similar scrutiny.
The judiciary seems to be maximizing polarization, abetted by “IT cells” spreading propaganda. Social media amplifies this divide, with right-wing handles celebrating the denial as a victory against “anti-nationals,” while liberals decry it as state repression. Howard Zinn’s quote aptly captures this: the law reinforces inequality, leaving victims bewildered. Here, names like Umar, Sharjeel, and Gulfisha seem to carry an unspoken weight, satisfying a “collective conscience” shaped by majoritarian narratives rather than evidence.
Data from human rights groups like Amnesty India supports this critique, noting UAPA’s disproportionate use against minorities and dissenters.
The case exemplifies how anti-terror laws are weaponized to silence criticism, turning justice into a “bureaucratic tamasha”.
The Human Cost of Prolonged Detention
Beyond legalities, the human toll is profound. Umar Khalid, once a promising PhD scholar, has spent his 30s in Tihar Jail, missing milestones and enduring isolation. Sharjeel Imam, arrested for a speech on non-violent protest, faces similar limbo. Families report deteriorating health, financial strain, and emotional trauma.
Gulfisha Fatima, a young activist, has been vocal about prison conditions, including alleged mistreatment. The write-up’s call to “hold the bad ones but free the others” resonates, urging nuance over blanket denial. Yet, the court’s refusal to differentiate perpetuates a cycle of injustice, where pre-trial detention becomes punishment.
Broader Implications for Democracy
This verdict casts a shadow over India’s democratic credentials. As the “mother of democracy,” the nation risks eroding civil liberties when courts appear complicit in executive overreach. International observers, including the UN and human rights bodies, have flagged UAPA’s misuse. Domestically, it polarizes society further, alienating minorities and stifling dissent.
The verdict is a warning against turning justice into a “muscle flex mela,” where power trumps fairness. If collective conscience overrides evidence, what safeguards remain for the marginalized? The case demands introspection: is the judiciary upholding the Constitution or bending to populist winds?
A Call for Accountability and Reform
As appeals head to the Supreme Court, the nation watches. Khalid’s partner vows to fight on, but systemic change is needed—reforming UAPA, ensuring speedy trials, and insulating judges from influence. Until then, cases like this will continue to bewilder victims, reinforcing Zinn’s grim prognosis.
In dismissing these bails so swiftly, the Delhi High Court hasn’t just denied freedom; it’s dented faith in justice itself. For Umar Khalid and his co-accused, the wait continues—not for bail, but for a system that sees them as equals under the law.
Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
