NEW DLEHI: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected student activist Umar Khalid’s review petition against its January 1, 2026 order denying him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
“Having gone through the review petition and the documents on record, we do not find any valid ground to review the judgment dated January 1, 2026. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed,” said a two-judge bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria in its April 16 order, which was released and uploaded on the court’s website on Monday.
It is to be noted that review petitions are generally decided in chambers by judges, without oral arguments or open court hearings, and that too without the presence of any lawyer or parties.
Recently, on April 13, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared in the top court for Khalid, had requested that the review petition be listed in open court.
Sibal said the matter was coming up for consideration before the judges in chambers on April 16, and that they had filed an application for an open-court hearing.
In January this year, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, had refused to grant bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, after noting that a prima facie case was attracted against them under the UAPA and that they “stand on different footing and it can't be ignored in terms of parity and culpability”.
While refusing to grant bail to Khalid and Imam, the court had said that the role of the appellants (Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam) attracted statutory restrictions, and thereby it was not persuaded that the continued threshold of incarceration had crossed Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years in a case in which they are facing serious allegations of committing offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Delhi Police strongly opposed the bail pleas of Khalid, Imam and others, and argued that the February 2020 riots were not spontaneous, but an “orchestrated, pre-planned and well-designed” attack on India’s sovereignty.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju had submitted and rejected the petitioners’ argument that repeated chargesheets had prolonged the trial. He asserted that the prosecution was prepared to argue at every stage.
Raju had also detailed Khalid’s alleged role in the Delhi riots, presenting a chronological account of events since December 2019, when public opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, was escalating in the capital. He relied on speeches and witness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“Khalid violated the order against unlawful assembly under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in December 2019. There is evidence of secret meetings and text messages from that period, which allegedly demonstrated involvement in organising chakka jams (road blockades),” he had argued.
Adding that the accused were culpable in committing the offences, Raju further said Khalid was constantly updated about developments by co-conspirators during the riots, using these instances to argue that the conspiracy was planned months before the incident.
He also refuted arguments about Khalid’s absence from specific locations, stating that call detail records (CDR) placed him at key sites. Raju further stated that Khalid had attempted to flee during that period, relying on flight ticket details.
The riots took place in February 2020, following clashes over the then-proposed CAA. According to the prosecution, the violence erupted following protests against the CAA and NRC, leaving 53 people dead and over 700 injured.