Delhi Riots UAPA Case: Supreme Court’s New Bail Rules and the Digital Silence

The long-running legal battle over the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case took a significant turn this week. On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a high-stakes judgment that has sent ripples through the legal and activist communities. While the headlines were dominated by the denial of bail to high-profile figures like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, five other accused individuals were granted their freedom after years behind bars.

​However, this freedom comes with an incredibly modern and strict set of strings attached. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, has imposed conditions that redefine what "liberty" looks like in the digital age. Most notably, the court has effectively placed a gag order on the digital lives of those being released. This decision raises important questions about the balance between national security, the integrity of a trial, and the fundamental right to expression in a world that is permanently online.

​The Digital Gag: No Posts, No Shares, No Banners

​The most striking condition in the bail order is the absolute bar on digital activity related to the case. The Supreme Court has explicitly forbidden the five accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan—from sharing or circulating any "posts" or "handbills" on electronic or digital platforms.

​In today's world, our smartphones are our primary connection to society. By barring these individuals from disseminating any information, statement, or article on social media, the court is creating a zone of "digital silence" around them. They cannot tweet their thoughts, share news articles about their own trial, or even post physical banners that might be photographed and uploaded. This is a move designed to prevent the mobilization of public opinion or the potential influence of witnesses through the viral nature of social media.

​Why the Court Imposed These Strict Conditions

​You might wonder why the court felt the need to go this far. The logic used by the bench is rooted in the preservation of the trial's integrity. The Delhi Riots conspiracy case is massive, involving over 30,000 pages of evidence and hundreds of witnesses. The prosecution argues that social media was used as a primary tool to coordinate the protests that eventually turned violent.

​By banning digital posts, the court aims to ensure that the environment remains "neutral" until the trial concludes. They want to prevent any narrative from being built online that could inadvertently pressure witnesses or create public disorder. It is a proactive measure to ensure that the "battle" is fought only in the courtroom and not on the timelines of millions of social media users.

​Understanding the "Hierarchy of Participation"

​One of the most debated aspects of this ruling is why some were granted bail while others were not. The Supreme Court introduced a concept of a "hierarchy of participation." The bench noted that while all seven appellants were charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), they were not all on the "same footing."

​The court characterized the five who were granted bail as "local-level facilitators" or "site-level executors." Because their alleged roles were considered secondary, and they had already spent nearly five years in jail, the court felt that continued detention was no longer "indispensable." In contrast, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were viewed as the "conceptualizers" and "ideological drivers" of the conspiracy. For them, the court ruled that the gravity of their alleged role outweighed the factor of their long incarceration, at least for now.

​A Checklist of the Other Bail Conditions

​Freedom for the five accused is not just about staying off Twitter. The court has surrounded their release with a fortress of traditional legal conditions to ensure they remain within the reach of the law:

• ​Personal Bonds: Each must provide a bond of ₹2,00,000 with two local sureties.

• ​Territorial Limits: They are strictly barred from leaving the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi without express permission from the trial court.

• ​No Public Meetings: They cannot participate in, address, or even attend any public gathering, rally, or protest, whether in person or virtually.

• ​Surrender of Passports: All travel documents must be handed over to the authorities immediately.

• ​Witness Protection: They are forbidden from contacting, influencing, or intimidating any witness or person connected to the case.

​These conditions effectively put the accused in a state of "monitored liberty," where their physical and digital movements are under constant scrutiny.

​The UAPA Paradox: Bail is Still an Uphill Task

​This judgment serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to get bail under the UAPA. In ordinary criminal cases, "bail is the rule, jail is the exception." But under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the burden of proof shifts. A court cannot grant bail if the accusations against the person appear "prima facie true" based on the police report.

​The Supreme Court clarified that while a "delay in trial" can trigger judicial scrutiny, it is not a "trump card" that automatically leads to freedom. This means that even if a trial takes years, an accused person can remain in jail if the court believes the charges are serious enough. This "UAPA paradox" continues to be a point of intense debate among human rights lawyers who argue that "punishment before trial" is a violation of basic rights.

​Looking Ahead: The One-Year Window

​For those who were denied bail, the door is not permanently closed. The Supreme Court has given Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam the liberty to file a fresh bail application after one year, or once the examination of "protected witnesses" is complete—whichever comes first.

​This creates a new timeline for the case. The next twelve months will be critical as the prosecution tries to move its witnesses through the stand. For the five who are going home, the challenge will be navigating a world where they can walk the streets of Delhi but must remain completely silent on the internet.

​Final Thoughts on a Divided Verdict

​The Supreme Court’s decision is a classic example of a balanced, albeit controversial, legal act. On one hand, it acknowledged the human cost of five years of pre-trial detention for the "subsidiary" accused. On the other, it stood firm on the "ideological" leaders, citing the security of the state.

​The digital bar is perhaps the most modern part of this verdict. It shows that the judiciary recognizes that a post on a smartphone can be as powerful as a speech at a rally. As these five individuals return to their families, they will have to adjust to a new reality: a life where their freedom of movement has been partially restored, but their digital voice has been temporarily silenced by the highest court in the land.