India Supreme Court UAPA Bail Denial: Redefining Terror and Dissent

Five years behind bars without a trial. That's the stark reality for student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam after the Supreme Court of India denied their bail last week. The ruling, linked to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, has ignited a fierce debate over the weaponization of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India's controversial anti-terror law.

Legal Basis of the India Supreme Court UAPA Bail Denial

The 2020 riots in northeast Delhi left 53 people dead and over 700 injured, marking the city's worst communal violence since 1984. While the apex court granted bail to five other appellants, it placed Khalid and Imam on a "qualitatively different footing." The judges stated that evidence suggests the duo played a central role as "ideological drivers" who exercised command authority over the alleged conspiracy.

Expanding the Definition of a 'Terrorist Act'

What's truly concerning for legal experts is the court's reliance on a broad interpretation of Section 15 of the UAPA. The court argued that terrorist acts aren't limited to blatant violence but include activities that "disrupt services and threaten the economy." Specifically, the "sustained choking of arterial roads" during high-profile international events—notably the visit of Donald Trump on February 25, 2020—was categorized as a prima facie act of terror.

Critics point out the stark contrast in judicial leniency. On the same day Khalid was sent back to jail, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, a preacher convicted of rape and murder, was granted his 15th parole. This discrepancy has led to accusations of institutional bias against dissenting voices and minority groups under the current administration.