Pre-Trial Detention, Human Rights, and the rejection of Bail of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

The continued imprisonment of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam both detained for more than five years without the completion of trial has become a stark illustration of the human rights challenges surrounding pre-trial detention in India today.

Arrested in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967  (UAPA), their cases raise serious questions about the erosion of personal liberty, procedural fairness, and the right to due process as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and international human rights instruments. Central to this debate is the foundational legal principle that detention prior to conviction should be exceptional rather than routine. In criminal jurisprudence, bail is intended to secure the accused’s appearance before the court, not to function as a form of punishment before guilt is established. However, in the cases of Khalid and Imam, extended incarceration has effectively assumed a punitive character, notwithstanding the absence of a concluded trial or a final determination of culpability.

In 5th January 2026, the Supreme Court of India declined to grant bail to both individuals, even as bail was extended to several co-accused in the same matter. The Court’s decision rested on the restrictive bail standard contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, concluding that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case. While this approach may be defensible within the narrow confines of statutory interpretation, it exposes deeper constitutional and human rights dilemmas particularly the permissibility of prolonged detention without timely adjudication.

India, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is bound by international norms that prohibit arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Article 9 of the ICCPR emphasises that pre-trial detention should not be the default position, while Article 14 affirms the right to a fair and expeditious trial. The UN Human Rights Committee has consistently observed that excessively long pre-trial detention, especially when caused by systemic delays rather than the conduct of the accused, may amount to arbitrariness even if sanctioned by domestic legislation.

Global human rights bodies, including Amnesty International, have repeatedly expressed concern over India’s invocation of the UAPA in cases involving political dissent and human rights advocacy. The prosecutions of Khalid and Imam demonstrate how counterterrorism laws can be applied in ways that dilute the presumption of innocence and weaken meaningful judicial oversight, thereby departing from international human rights standards.

Judicial reluctance to intervene robustly in such cases often stems from deference to claims of national security. In matters involving alleged terrorism or conspiracy, courts frequently adopt a cautious stance at the bail stage, according substantial weight to prosecutorial narratives. When combined with the UAPA’s stringent bail regime and chronic delays within India’s criminal justice system, this deference results in prolonged incarceration with minimal prospects for timely relief.

The implications extend beyond the personal liberty of the accused. Such cases generate a broader chilling effect on free expression and peaceful dissent, discouraging civic engagement and eroding democratic accountability. From a global standpoint, the routine use of prolonged pre-trial detention risks weakening India’s standing as a constitutional democracy committed to the rule of law and human rights.

Meaningful reform is therefore imperative. Revisiting the bail provisions of the UAPA, strengthening judicial enforcement of the right to a speedy trial, and addressing systemic causes of trial delays are essential steps toward aligning domestic practice with constitutional principles and international obligations.

Ultimately, the incarceration of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam transcends the fate of two individuals. It reflects a deeper crisis concerning liberty, due process, and judicial responsibility. Despite  so much criticism regarding the rejection of Bail of both the accused, neither court nor the government nor the government is taking it as a serious matter which demean The human rights perspective and image of India in Global scenario. The true measure of a democracy lies not in its treatment of the compliant or popular, but in its willingness to protect the rights of the accused, the dissenting voice, and those who challenge prevailing power structures in India.

The opinions and views reflected in this article are exclusively those of the author.

Adv. Parvez Ahmad

Delhi High Court

B.com(H), LL.B ,LL.M