The Delhi High Court has adjourned the hearing of bail pleas filed by former JNU scholar Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam to September 30, 2026. The pleas relate to the case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. A Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dinesh Bhatt deferred the proceedings after the prosecution sought an adjournment, informing the court that Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State, was unwell.

Why in the News?

The Delhi High Court on September 21, 2026, adjourned the hearing of the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

  • The next hearing has been fixed for September 30, 2026.
  • Both have challenged a trial court order dated July 4, 2026, which rejected their bail applications.
  • Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020.
  • Sharjeel Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020.
  • Both were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the February 2020 riots.

Background of the Case

The case relates to allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that occurred in parts of North-East Delhi in February 2020.

  • The riots took place in February 2020.
  • The violence left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
  • The case is being investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
  • The prosecution has invoked provisions of the UAPA and offences under the Indian Penal Code.
  • Khalid Saifi and former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, among others, were also booked for their alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy case.

What Happened to the Bail Pleas?

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam approached the Delhi High Court after a trial court rejected their bail applications on July 4, 2026. The trial court had held that it was bound by the Supreme Court's January 5, 2026 order, which had imposed certain conditions on the consideration of their bail pleas. The Supreme Court of India had rejected their bail pleas and directed that they could renew their bail requests:

  1. After the protected witnesses in the case were examined; or
  2. After the expiry of one year from January 5, 2026;
  3. whichever was earlier.

What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and to deal with terrorist activities and related matters.

  • Originally, the term “unlawful activities” referred to actions supporting secession or questioning India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
  • The Act also empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute cases nationwide.

Key Amendments to UAPA

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been amended several times. For UPSC, the major amendments to remember are 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2019. The NIA officially lists these four amendment acts.

2004 Amendment

  • Added “terrorist act” to the list of offences.
  • Expanded the law beyond unlawful activities related to secession.

2008 Amendment

  • Expanded provisions related to terrorist financing.
  • It also increased the period available for investigation in certain cases.

2012 Amendment

  • Addressed cyber-terrorism.
  • Strengthened mechanisms relating to property seizure.

2019 Amendment

  • Empowered the government to designate individuals as terrorists.
  • Earlier, only organisations could be designated.

Major Provisions of UAPA

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India's main law for dealing with unlawful activities, terrorism, and organisations linked to such activities.

Government Powers

  • The Central Government has the authority to declare an activity unlawful by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette.

Investigation Timeline

  • The investigating agency can file a chargesheet within a maximum period of 180 days after arrest, with extensions possible after informing the court.

Extraterritorial Application

  • The Act applies to Indian and foreign nationals and can apply even when the offence is committed outside India.

Penalties

  • The Act provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment as the severest punishments.

Bail Restrictions

  • Section 43D(5) creates stringent conditions for bail.
  • Under this provision, bail cannot be granted when the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.

Significance of Section 43D(5)

  • The bail provision under UAPA creates a higher threshold for obtaining bail compared with ordinary criminal cases.
  • The provision requires the court to consider whether the accusations against the accused appear prima facie true before granting bail.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has adjourned the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam to September 30, 2026, in the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Both had challenged the trial court's July 4, 2026 order rejecting their bail applications. The case involves provisions of the UAPA, which contains stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D (5). The Supreme Court's January 5, 2026 order had also placed conditions on when the two could renew their bail requests.