Hierarchy of roles: On no bail for Umar Khalid

Using the terms of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Supreme Court of India has grouped the accused in the Delhi riots case of 2020 based on their ‘hierarchy of participation’, denying bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting it under strict conditions to the other five appellants, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. The Court emphasised Section 43D(5) of the Act, which only requires courts to assess whether the accusations are prima facie true, and thus rejected the defence of prolonged incarceration and narrowed Khalid’s and Imam’s options. The prosecution has always alleged that the riots were the result of a plan allegedly coordinated in protest networks and WhatsApp groups. People routinely plan protests on messaging apps and that is not inherently suspicious. But the state has persuaded the Court that the articles of organisation are evidence of a terroristic design. However, the Court has treated “terrorist acts” under Section 15 as being able to cover more than overt violence, including threatening to disrupt services, an interpretation that could have a chilling effect by emboldening governments to use stringent preventive detention under UAPA and, in political cases, to normalise the pursuit of prolonged incarceration without trial.

The Court using its ‘hierarchy of participation’ as the basis to relieve all but two people is unfair when the evidence to establish it has yet to be tested in court. Khalid and Imam were arrested as young men and have now spent five years in custody. The passage of time weighs more heavily on youth; if the courts find no case later, the damage done by prolonged incarceration cannot be undone. The UAPA’s provisions vest the state with an unrelieved power to snare those charged under the Act and prevent easy exits. But the existence of such power should also be weighed against the charges. There is a difference between, say, the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, which informed parts of the UAPA, and Khalid’s and Imam’s alleged roles in the Delhi riots. The state has often invoked the Act to crush any opposition to its decisions even without an act of terrorism on the ground, revealing its overarching anxiety to quell dissent over entertaining the constitutional right to protest. The trial against Khalid and the others has not begun because, among other reasons, the sessions court has yet to frame charges and there are reportedly around 700 witnesses. That the Court granted bail to the five should be a sign for trial courts to rationalise witness lists and ensure that trials, including that of the Delhi riots, begin without undue delay.

Overall Analysis

This editorial critically examines the Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting conditional bail to five other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The author focuses on the Court’s reliance on a newly articulated concept — a “hierarchy of participation” — to differentiate between accused persons, and questions the fairness and long-term implications of this approach.

The language is legalistic and analytical, reflecting the gravity of constitutional and criminal law issues involved. The editorial explains how Section 43D(5) of the UAPA lowers the threshold for denying bail by requiring courts only to assess whether accusations are prima facie true. By highlighting this, the author underscores how the law structurally favours the prosecution and restricts judicial discretion, thereby narrowing the accused’s options even in cases of prolonged incarceration.

A key argumentative move in the editorial is the contrast between routine protest organisation and the state’s interpretation of such organisation as evidence of “terrorist” intent. The author acknowledges that protests are often planned through digital platforms but warns that treating such activity as terroristic expands the scope of “terrorist acts” far beyond overt violence. This interpretative expansion, the editorial argues, risks producing a chilling effect on democratic dissent, enabling governments to normalise extended detention without trial.

In the second half, the tone becomes more empathetic and morally urgent. The editorial stresses the human cost of prolonged incarceration, especially for young individuals whose formative years are irretrievably lost. By comparing the accused’s alleged roles with those of perpetrators of large-scale terror attacks like 26/11, the author questions the proportionality of invoking UAPA in this case. The piece concludes by urging trial courts to expedite proceedings, rationalise witness lists, and prevent justice from being delayed through procedural inertia.

Overall, the editorial blends legal critique with humanitarian concern, using measured but firm language to argue that national security laws must not eclipse constitutional freedoms and timely justice.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Prima facie – based on first impression; accepted as correct until proven otherwise.
2. Hierarchy – a system in which people or actions are ranked according to importance or authority.
3. Incarceration – the state of being imprisoned or confined.
4. Chilling effect – a discouraging impact on the exercise of legal rights due to fear of punishment.
5. Proportionality – the principle that actions taken should be appropriate and not excessive in relation to their purpose.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the Supreme Court’s reliance on an untested “hierarchy of participation” and expansive interpretations of terrorism under UAPA risks entrenching prolonged incarceration without trial. It calls for a balance between state power and individual liberty, urging faster trials and restraint in the use of extraordinary laws.

Tone: Critical, analytical, and cautionary, with an undercurrent of concern for civil liberties and democratic dissent.