Eyes Wide Shut: The Supreme Court’s Bail Order in the Delhi Riots Cases
Gautam Bhatia | 05 January 2026 | Constitutional Law and Philosophy
This post analyses the Supreme Court’s bail order in the Delhi Riots cases, delivered today. Seven appellants had approached the Court against the Delhi High Court’s September 2025 order denying them bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of five, and granted them bail. The appeals of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were rejected.
This blog has examined the proceedings in this case in some detail, dating back to 2022; we have examined the 2022 trial court order denying bail (here), the 2022 High Court order denying bail (here), and the 2025 High Court order denying bail (here and here). An analysis of these orders has revealed a consistent pattern: at each stage, the courts have adopted what this blog has called an “eyes wide shut approach” to the question of bail under the UAPA: that is, they have invoked Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA to avoid any meaningful scrutiny of the material presented by the prosecution, and have filled in the obvious gaps in the prosecution’s case through inferences and assumptions. When it comes to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, today’s judgment, as we shall see, follows the same pattern…