Legal provisions involved: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 43D(5); Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 21 of the Constitution
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Facts
The case involved bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The accused were charged under IPC and UAPA, accused of planning and coordinating violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The Delhi High Court had rejected their bail, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key legal points
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 43D(5)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Article 21 of the Constitution
Issues raised
Whether a “terrorist act” only includes use of bombs, firearms, or explosives, and whether long detention automatically allows bail.
Arguments of the case
The accused argued that their detention was too long and that the acts didn’t involve conventional weapons. The prosecution argued the acts were part of a larger conspiracy that threatened public order and national security.
Judgement
The Court clarified that a terrorist act is defined by the intent, planning, and effect of the act, not just the tools used. Main conspirators like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail because of their central role. Bail was granted to others with minor or peripheral roles, with strict conditions, balancing personal liberty with national security.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
