Liberty Not Absolute, Linked To Society's Security: Top Court In Umar Khalid Case

The top court said that the allegations against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam indicate a "central and directive role" in "conceptualising, planning and coordinating" the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020.

05 Jan 2026, 17:04 · www.ndtv.com

The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case on Monday, observed that the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached from the security of the society in which it operates.

While stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against Sharjeel and Khalid, both former JNU students, are prima facie true, the bench noted that their role is not episodic but "architectural", placing them at the top of the chain of command of the alleged conspiracy.

The bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria made a distinction between roles attributed to Imam and Khalid when compared to other five accused persons who were granted bail today by the top court.

It stated that while the allegations against Khalid and Imam indicate a "central and directive role" in "conceptualising, planning and coordinating" the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of February 2020, the roles of Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan were merely "subsidiary" or "facilitative".

Here are top quotes from the verdict:

Right To Liberty Not Absolute: "The Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached from the security of the society in which it operates. The sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation, as well as the preservation of public order, are not abstract concerns rather they are constitutional values which Parliament is entitled to protect through law."

Accusations Against Umar Khalid prima facie true: "Having regard to the prosecution material as placed, including the chronology of meetings, the alleged articulation and propagation of the chakka jam strategy, the operation of coordinating committees and groups, the protected witness statements alleging preparatory and escalation-related discussions, the pleaded movement of protest activity into mixed-population zones, and the alleged systemic disruption of civic life in the national capital, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusations against Umar Khalid are prima facie true."

Allegations Against Sharjeel Imam Prima Facie True: After going through his speeches, pamphlets and WhatsApp chats placed on record, the court observed: "...prosecution material, read cumulatively and taken at face value, discloses reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against appellant (Imam) are prima facie true. The material relied upon is not confined to abstract ideology. It comprises digital coordination, attribution of planning and mobilisation, presence supported by location records, a protected witness statement describing differentiated chakka jam strategy, and speech material exhorting disruption and choking of essential services."

Courts Duty Bound To Give Effect To Special Laws Like UAPA: "Where a special statutory framework (UAPA) has been enacted to address offences perceived to strike at these foundations (sovereignty, integrity, security of the nation and public order), courts are duty-bound to give effect to that framework, subject always to constitutional discipline."

Court Does Not Follow Any Ideology: The top court said that in the application of such law (UAPA), the Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief, or association. It proceeds on role, material, and the statutory threshold governing the exercise of jurisdiction.

Delay ln Trial Not A Trump Card To Get Bail: The top court opined, "In prosecutions alleging offences which implicate the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State, delay does not operate as a trump card that automatically displaces statutory restraint. Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny." The outcome of such scrutiny, the court said must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations like: (i) the gravity and statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to the accused within the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute, and (iv) the extent to which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts of the case, has become demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

"Different Legal Footing": The top court noted that "Criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes merely because allegations arise from the same transaction."

"Those alleged to have conceived, directed, or steered unlawful activity or terrorist activity stand on a different legal footing from those whose alleged involvement is confined to facilitation or participation at a different level. To disregard such distinctions would itself result in arbitrariness," the verdict read while granting bail to five out of seven accused persons.

Not Every Protest, Blockade Attracts UAPA: The top court said that it is necessary to clarify the juridical distinction between ordinary public disorder, which may arise even in the course of legitimate protest, and the prosecution's pleaded case (Delhi Riots) of systemic disruption.

"Not every disruption of traffic, not every blockade, and not every law-and-order incident engages the statutory framework of the UAPA," The court said.

It clarified that UAPA is attracted only where the conduct alleged, taken cumulatively, is capable of being understood as threatening the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of the nation, or as creating a climate of fear and paralysis transcending ordinary disorder, the court said.

The court noted that Delhi police case alleges that a deliberate method of agitation was conceived and executed, namely sustained and replicated "chakka jams" at strategically selected arterial locations, with the object of choking movement across the National Capital, disrupting essential services, and overwhelming the administrative capacity of the State. The court said "...at the bail stage, the Court does not pronounce on whether this design is ultimately proved. It asks whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, supports the allegation that the disruption was not episodic, but coordinated, sustained, and scalable."

The top Court did not go into the merits of the Case.

The court clarified that this judgment neither endorses the prosecution case nor prejudges the guilt of any accused.

"It applies the law as it stands, recognising that individual liberty must be protected, but that it must also withstand the legitimate demands of national security and collective safety. This balance is not a matter of preference rather it is a matter of constitutional duty," it said.

Show full article

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world