The Weight of the State: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and the Delhi Riots Bail Battle

Well, here we are again, on the precipice of a significant legal moment, one that, honestly, feels like it has been hanging in the air for quite some time. The Supreme Court, you see, is all set to turn its gaze, once more, towards the contentious bail pleas of two individuals whose names have become inextricably linked with the tumult of the 2020 Delhi riots: Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid.

For context, if you're just catching up, these are not just any charges.

No, these gentlemen are entangled in what has been described as the "larger conspiracy" behind those tragic events, specifically under the rather formidable Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA as it’s often known. It’s a law that, for many, casts a long shadow, raising profound questions about individual liberties and the state’s power.

Remember, the Delhi High Court had previously — and quite decisively — shut down their hopes for bail.

The reasoning, laid out in its order, painted a picture of "incendiary" speeches, suggesting they were instrumental in "instigating women to come out on streets." And, indeed, the High Court’s view wasn't just about local disruption; it pointed to a much broader scheme, a "larger conspiracy," you could say, aimed at throwing a wrench into the works during what was a high-profile visit by then-US President Donald Trump.

Now, Sharjeel Imam, for his part, isn't just seeking bail on the usual grounds.

He's also challenging the very constitutional backbone of certain UAPA provisions. It’s a bold move, really, pushing back against the foundational legality of the charges themselves. Both men, we should note, have been languishing in judicial custody since 2020, a significant stretch of time for anyone.

The High Court’s earlier pronouncements did delve into some specifics.

With Khalid, for instance, his name apparently surfaced in the testimonies of multiple witnesses. He was, if reports are to be believed, part of a WhatsApp group where, allegedly, plans were hatched, a conspiracy spun, to orchestrate the riots. Imam's defense, on the other hand, staunchly maintains that there’s simply no concrete evidence tying him directly to the violence itself.

His speeches, they contend, were fundamentally about the Citizenship Amendment Act, about dissent, yes, but not about incitement to bloodshed.

So, come October 27th, all eyes will certainly be on the Supreme Court. Will this be a moment of reprieve, a re-evaluation of the evidence and the law? Or will the highest court echo the concerns of the High Court? It’s more than just a bail hearing; it’s a moment that will undoubtedly resonate through discussions about justice, dissent, and the very definition of a conspiracy in India.