Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: January 2026

Judgments'Ideological Drivers Of Alleged Conspiracy' : Why Supreme Court Denied Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel ImamCase Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case held that their roles were not episodic but “architectural”, placing them at the top of the chain of command of the alleged conspiracy.A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria made a distinction between the roles attributed to them and the other co-accused. 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 co-accused Gulfisha, Haider and others are merely subsidiary or facilitative in nature.As per the judgment authored by Justice Kumar, the Imam and Khalid are the alleged masterminds of the larger conspiracy and the materials by the prosecution in this regard are "direct, corroborative and contemporaneous".Delay In Trial Not A 'Trump Card' For Automatic Grant Of Bail In UAPA Cases : Supreme CourtCase Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observed that the ground of delay in trial would not operate as a trump card to automatically grant bail for offences punishable under Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act, 1967.“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”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, stating that the outcome of the bail pleas in UAPA offences must be determined by a proportional and contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations.Delhi Riots UAPA Case : Supreme Court's Bail Conditions Bar Accused From Sharing Posts Digitally & Attending GatheringsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1While granting bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Mohd Saleem Khan in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, the Supreme Court imposed a stringent set of conditions, including prohibitions on attending rallies or public meetings and on circulating posters, banners or other campaign material in any form.The Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria specifically barred the accused from participating in any public meetings or gatherings and from circulating posts, handbills, posters or banners, whether physically or through electronic or digital platforms.The Bench also deniedbail to co-accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.In UAPA Bail Hearing, Defence Not To Be Considered; Only See If Prosecution Has Shown Prima Facie Case : Supreme CourtCase Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court, in denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, held that a bail hearing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is not a forum for evaluating defences or weighing evidence. The Court's role, it ruled, is limited to determining whether the prosecution's material, taken at face value, prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria laid down certain propositions governing the application of Section 43D (5) of UAPA while considering bail pleas:"First, the provision embodies a deliberate legislative departure from ordinary bail jurisprudence, premised upon the distinctive nature of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act.Supreme Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam; Grants Bail To 5 Others In Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy CaseCase Details: Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (And Connected Matters)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court (January 5) denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, observing that the materials showed a prima facie case against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.At the same time, the Court granted bail to some of the other accused in the case - Gulfisha Fatima, Meera Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed.As regards Khalid and Imam, the Court said that they can renew their bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from today. The Court observed that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed "a central and formative role" and "involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic...

Supreme Court Monthly Roundup: January 2026

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags