Table of Contents
New Delhi, September 7: Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student and anti-CAA activist Sharjeel Imam has once again come into the spotlight.
Sharjeel Imam, a former JNU scholar and prominent anti-CAA activist, has resurfaced in national headlines as he approaches the Supreme Court of India after the Delhi High Court dismissed his bail application in the widely debated 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case.
His case, which has been dragging on for more than five years, touches upon some of the most crucial questions for Indian democracy: How long can an undertrial be kept in jail without conviction? Where does dissent end and conspiracy begin? And most importantly—how should courts balance liberty with national security?
This in-depth report brings together the background, legal journey, and larger implications of Sharjeel Imam’s bail battle—while analysing why it matters to ordinary citizens, students, and lawmakers alike.
Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots
In February 2020, violent clashes broke out in Northeast Delhi, leaving 53 people dead and more than 500 injured.
The riots, which shook the capital in February 2020, left behind a trail of devastation—over 50 lives lost, hundreds injured, and property worth crores reduced to rubble. Against this volatile backdrop, Imam’s role has been hotly debated.
The violence came in the backdrop of the nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). At the centre of this storm was Sharjeel Imam, a PhD student from JNU, who had become a prominent face of the anti-CAA movement.
Imam’s fiery speeches, his role in mobilising protest sites like Shaheen Bagh, and his alleged call for “chakka jam” (road blockades) soon made him a prime target for law enforcement. On 28 January 2020, he was arrested and charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Sharjeel Imam: The Man Behind the Headlines
Before his arrest, Imam was a research scholar at JNU’s Centre for Historical Studies. He was known for his academic writing, sharp political commentary, and leadership in the anti-CAA protests.
Education: IIT-Bombay (Computer Engineering), later JNU (History).
Activism: Vocal critic of CAA-NRC, associated with several protest sites in Delhi.
Controversy: His speeches in December 2019 and January 2020—where he allegedly spoke of blocking roads and “cutting off Assam from India”—were widely circulated and criticised.
For supporters, Imam represents freedom of speech and resistance against discriminatory laws. For critics, he symbolises how protests can allegedly cross into dangerous territory.
The Legal Journey So Far
Arrest and Charges
He currently faces serious charges, including sedition, promoting enmity between different groups, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Later, he was also charged under the stringent UAPA, making his case even tougher.
Delhi High Court Bail Denial
In August 2025, the Delhi High Court refused to grant him bail. The bench observed:
Peaceful protest is a constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a).
But violence “under the guise of protest” cannot be allowed.
The allegations against Imam suggested “serious involvement in a larger conspiracy.”
The Supreme Court Appeal
In his appeal, Imam contends that his continued incarceration without conviction undermines his fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He has been in custody for over five years without trial completion.
His lawyers argue that while courts have to be cautious in granting bail under stringent laws like the UAPA, detaining an individual indefinitely without trial violates the principle of natural justice.
The prosecution has failed to produce conclusive evidence linking his speeches to actual violence.
What the Prosecution Claims
According to Delhi Police, the riots were not spontaneous but a well-planned conspiracy. Their chargesheet paints Imam as a key conspirator who:
Mobilised protestors through speeches, pamphlets, and WhatsApp groups.
Coordinated sit-ins and road blockades designed to paralyse Delhi.
Created an atmosphere of tension, which eventually led to violence.
In short, the police allege that Imam and others “used protest as a cover for conspiracy.”
The Defence’s Stand
Imam’s lawyers strongly deny these allegations. Their arguments include:
- Right to Dissent: His speeches may have been provocative, but they were political opinions protected under the Constitution.
- No Direct Evidence: There is no proof that his words directly caused the riots.
- Delay in Trial: With more than 750 witnesses listed, the trial has barely moved forward in five years.
- Misuse of UAPA: The Act, meant for terrorism cases, is being stretched to target dissenters.
Why Bail Is Hard Under UAPA
One of the biggest hurdles Imam faces is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which makes bail extremely difficult. Under this section:
The Delhi High Court, however, had earlier observed that although peaceful protest is a democratic right, violence or conspiracy masked as dissent cannot be condoned. With the Supreme Court now set to hear the matter, the case has once again stirred legal, political, and public debate.
In practice, this often means that an accused can spend years in jail without trial completion.
This is why human rights activists call UAPA a “law of incarceration, not conviction.”
Constitutional and Human Rights Debate
The Sharjeel Imam case raises some fundamental questions:
Freedom of Speech: Where do we draw the line between dissent and sedition?
Right to Protest: Can peaceful protest that causes inconvenience (like road blockades) be criminalised?
Speedy Trial: Does holding someone for half a decade without trial violate natural justice?
Selective Targeting: Are laws like UAPA being used more against activists than actual terrorists?
International Perspective
Countries like the UK and US also face the dilemma of balancing free speech with national security.
UK Example: Protestors can be charged under “Public Order Acts,” but courts usually favour liberty unless there is clear evidence of violence.
US Example: The First Amendment gives strong protection to speech, even if offensive. But direct incitement to violence is criminal.
Compared to these, India’s UAPA is seen as far harsher, with fewer safeguards for the accused.
Public Opinion: A Nation Divided
Supporters of Imam: See him as a victim of political vendetta, punished for his ideas rather than crimes.
Critics: Argue that his speeches were inflammatory and could destabilise law and order.
Neutral Citizens: Simply worry about the slow pace of trials and fairness of the justice system.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision will have major consequences:
If bail is granted, it will be a victory for civil liberties and may set precedent for other UAPA undertrials.
If denied, it will reinforce the state’s tough stance on protests that cross into disruptive territory.
Either way, the judgment will shape how future protests and dissent are handled in India.
FAQs
Q1: Who is Sharjeel Imam?
A JNU scholar and anti-CAA activist, arrested in January 2020.
Q2: Why is his case important?
It tests the balance between free speech, protest rights, and national security.
Q3: Why was bail denied earlier?
The Delhi High Court said his role was “serious” and fell under UAPA.
Q4: What does the Supreme Court decide?
The SC will decide whether prolonged detention violates his rights or whether HC’s view holds.
Q5: How long has he been jailed?
Over five years without trial completion.