Umar Khalid, jailed under the illegal activity (prevention) Act related to Delhi riots, has knocked on the Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 10, 2025) after the bail plea was rejected from the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court on September 2, refused to grant bail to nine people including Umar Khalid and Sharjil Imam in this case and said that conspiracy violence cannot be allowed by citizens under the guise of demonstrations.

Delhi High Court rejected which bail bail,

Those who rejected the bail by the High Court include Omar Khalid, Imam, Mohammad Salim Khan, Shifa ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Miran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima and Shadab Ahmed. At the same time, the bail plea of ​​another accused Taslim Ahmed was rejected by a separate bench of the High Court on September 2, 2025. Last week, Imam and Gulfisha Fatima had moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.

What did the court say in its order,

In his order refusing to grant bail to nine accused, the Delhi High Court said, “The Constitution gives citizens the right to protest or agitation, provided they are organized, peaceful and without arms and such action should be under the purview of law.”

Upa Under 9 accused are in jail in the last five years

Khalid, Imam and the rest of the accused were booked under the provisions of the illegal activities (prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged mastermind of the February 2020 riots. 53 people were killed in these riots and more than 700 were injured. In the year 2020, she erupted during the protest against the violence Citizenship Sansoshan Act (CAA) and NRC.

High courts arrived after the petition was dismissed in the lower court

All these accused have denied all the allegations against them. He has been in jail since 2020 and he had pleaded for bail in the High Court after his bail plea was rejected by the lower court.

Also read: Bihar has an election gift, 4 lane highway from Mokama to Munger, Double track from Bhagalpur to Rampurhat announced a double track

Shazil Imam, accused of riots in Delhi in the year 2020, has moved the Supreme Court on Saturday (August 6, 2025). The Imam was denied bail by the Delhi High Court. The case is related to the violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020 during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Citizen Register (NRC). The Imam is accused that he was a conspirator behind the riots.

Petition in Supreme Court
The Sharjil Imam has filed a petition in the Supreme Court. This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Delhi High Court, in which he was not granted bail. Along with this, the bail petitions of seven other accused have also been dismissed. A bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the bail petitions of seven others including the Imam. According to the PTI report, the court reserved its verdict on the petitions filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 on 9 July.

Whose bail petitions were rejected?
The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail petitions of Shajil Imam, Omar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohammad Salim Khan, Shifa-ur-Raaman, Miran Haider and Shadab Ahmed. At the same time, the bench of Tasleem Ahmed’s bail yachtis Subramaniam Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected.

What did the prosecution claim
The prosecution said in the court that these riots did not happen suddenly, but they were already planned. He told that it was a “dangerous conspiracy” and it was done carefully. The Sharjil Imam, Omar Khalid and others have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is accused of being a “mastermind” of riots. These riots furious during the protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Civil Register (NRC). 53 people died and more than 700 people were injured in this violence.

Even after one year of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) rules, it has not been clear how many people have been provided Indian citizenship under this law. The Union Home Ministry (MHA) has refused to share this figure sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, raising serious questions about transparency.

The CAA provides for citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains and Parsi refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, provided they have come to India before 31 December 2014, but the ground reality looks different from it. According to BJP MP Jagannath government from Ranaaghat in West Bengal, only less than 100 people have been given citizenship in their constituency, while about one lakh people, especially from Matua community, have potential beneficiaries.

The ministry did not give any answer

When The Hindu put RTI and asked how many people applied for citizenship and how many were approved, the Ministry of Home Affairs replied that they did not have such figures. Later, when the matter went to the Central Information Commission (CIC), he also closed the matter, accepting the reply of the ministry as correct.

Home Minister Amit Shah made a big claim

While discussing the law in Parliament in December 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah claimed that millions of people will benefit from CAA. Now that the rules have been implemented more than one year, the figures and information so far do not confirm it.

What is the Citizenship Amendment Act?

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is a law that provides for Indian citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, provided they have come to India before 31 December 2014 and have fled their country due to harassment. The Muslim community has not been included in this law, due to which it was also in controversies. Its rules came into force in March 2024, after which people can apply online. Its purpose is to give security and citizenship to religious minorities.

Also read-

Rahul Gandhi, raging on the slums of Delhi on the slums of Delhi, said- ‘Your whole family in a single moment …’