Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court

“The constitutional order is not served by an approach that treats liberty as the sole value and societal security as peripheral. Both must be accommodated through reasoned adjudication.”— In a seminal ruling the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, has delivered a nuanced verdict in the Delhi Riots Conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020), drawing a sharp judicial line between the "architects" of the alleged conspiracy and its "executors."

In a judgment that will likely define the contours of bail jurisprudence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for years to come, the Apex Court dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, terming them the "ideological drivers" and "principal conspirators." Conversely, the Court granted bail to five co-accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed—holding that their roles were "derivative" and "operational," and their continued incarceration of over five years violated Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Doctrine of Differentiation: Architects vs. Foot Soldiers

The crux of the 142-page judgment lies in the Court’s refusal to treat all accused in a conspiracy as a homogenous block. The Bench explicitly rejected the "premise of equivalence," holding that where the prosecution narrative itself projects varying degrees of control and participation, the Court must calibrate its approach to bail.

The Court observed that Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid occupied a position of "conspiratorial centrality." The evidence pointed to them conceptualizing the transition from sit-in protests to disruptive chakka jams, selecting strategic locations, and articulating the broader political objectives. In contrast, the other appellants were characterized as "local facilitators" or "field-level operatives" whose actions were aligned to instructions emanating from the top.

“The logic of detention cannot be applied homogenously where the risk profiles of the accused are markedly dissimilar.”

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam: The ‘Prima Facie’ Bar

Regarding Sharjeel Imam, the Court found that he was not merely a protestor but the "brainchild" behind the mobilization strategy. Relying on digital footprints, the creation of the "Muslim Students of JNU" group, and his speeches, the Court held that his actions in the first phase of the conspiracy laid the foundation for the subsequent violence. The Court noted that his call for a "Chakka Jam" was not benign but a calculated move to choke essential services and paralyze the National Capital.

Similarly, for Umar Khalid, the Court rejected the argument that he was merely a political dissenter. The Bench highlighted his presence in key conspiratorial meetings and the testimony of protected witnesses attributing to him the direction to launch the agitation at the "right time." The Court held that in a conspiracy of this magnitude, physical presence at the riot site is not a prerequisite for liability. The Court ruled that the accusations against both men satisfied the "prima facie true" test under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, thereby statutorily barring their release.

“A conspirator may outwardly couch the conduct in the language of non-violence while engaging in acts intended to create conditions of confrontation and escalation.”

Liberty Prevails for the ‘Executors’

While upholding the rigors of the UAPA for the alleged masterminds, the Court pivoted to Article 21 for the remaining five appellants.

Gulfisha Fatima: The Court noted that while she was a key local organizer at the Seelampur-Jafrabad site, her role was "executory" and performed under directions from the DPSG hierarchy. The Court applied the principle of parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused (Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita) had already been granted bail.

Meeran Haider & Shifa-ur-Rehman: The allegations against them primarily revolved around financial logistics and coordination. The Court held that while serious, these roles did not suggest an "independent command capacity." Given that the investigation is complete and documentary evidence is secured, their continued custody was deemed punitive.

Mohd. Saleem Khan & Shadab Ahmed: Characterized as site-level participants involved in mobilizing crowds and disabling CCTV cameras, the Court found that their incarceration for over five years was disproportionate to their attributed roles.

Delay vs. Statute: A Calibrated Approach

Addressing the fervent plea regarding "prolonged incarceration," the Bench clarified the application of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. The Court held that delay is not a "trump card" that automatically overrides the UAPA’s statutory embargo. Instead, delay triggers "heightened judicial scrutiny."

For the masterminds, the gravity of the offence and the prima facie strength of evidence meant the statutory bar prevailed despite the delay. However, for the facilitators, where the threat of tampering or re-mobilization was lower, the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 tipped the scales in favor of bail.

“To disregard such distinctions would itself result in arbitrariness.”

The Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’

Significantly, the Court rejected the defense argument that the protests were merely public disorder. Interpreting Section 15 of the UAPA, the Bench held that the definition of a "terrorist act" is not confined to the use of bombs or firearms. It encompasses acts done with the intent to threaten the economic security of India or disrupt essential services. The Court found that the alleged "Chakka Jam" strategy, designed to paralyze the capital and engineer communal riots during a foreign dignitary's visit, prima facie fell within the ambit of a terrorist act.

Operative Directions

The Court dismissed the appeals of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, granting them liberty to renew their bail prayers after the examination of protected witnesses or one year, whichever is earlier.

The appeals of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed were allowed. They were ordered to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions, including a prohibition on leaving Delhi, surrendering passports, and a ban on public commentary regarding the case.

Date of Decision: January 05, 2026