Controversy at JNU After Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued a high‑profile verdict in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, refusing bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting conditional relief to several other co‑accused. Within hours of the judgement, students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi held a protest that quickly became controversial for its content.

The demonstration, attended by roughly 30–40 students, was originally intended to mark the anniversary of the *January 5, 2020 JNU campus attack anniversary — a date already charged with political significance on campus. However, after the Supreme Court’s decision, the tone of the gathering shifted as some participants reportedly chanted slogans that criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. These chants sparked immediate backlash from political quarters and administrative officials.

Around 30–40 students, associated with the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF) and All India Students’ Association (AISA), were present when the slogans were raised. | Moneycontrol

Understanding the Supreme Court Verdict

The Supreme Court’s order was delivered by a bench that reviewed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case against Khalid and Imam, who have been in custody for years without a full trial. The apex court ruled that the prosecution had presented prima facie material suggesting a central role for both activists in planning and mobilisation related to the 2020 Delhi riots, making it legally inappropriate to grant them bail at this stage of proceedings.

Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is generally restricted unless the court is convinced that the statutory threshold is not met. In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasised that Khalid’s and Imam’s alleged involvement in the larger conspiracy was distinct from that of other accused, who were granted bail with conditions. Because of this distinction, their continued detention was upheld.

While dismissing their bail petitions, the court clarified that Khalid and Imam may renew their applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order, offering a limited pathway to reconsideration in the future.

The 2020 Delhi riots, triggered amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), resulted in over 50 fatalities and hundreds of injuries, underscoring the seriousness of the charges involved in the conspiracy case.

Campus Reaction and Political Uproar

Back at JNU, the protest’s controversial slogans quickly ignited widespread reaction. Student leaders defended the demonstration, with the JNU Students’ Union president stating that the slogans were ideological expressions rooted in long‑standing campus activism rather than personal attacks. Many participants framed their dissent as part of academic freedom and political voice.

Nevertheless, the response outside the campus was sharply critical. Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and allied student organisations condemned the chants, calling them “objectionable” and accusing the protesters of promoting divisive narratives. Some political actors described the event as emblematic of an “anti‑national ecosystem,” asserting that such slogans undermine respect for democratic institutions and national leadership.

The controversy also drew criticism from university authorities, who reportedly sought police intervention and considered filing formal complaints, citing breaches of the university code of conduct and potential public order concerns.

Broader Implications

The incident reignites long‑running debates about freedom of expression, the role of student activism in Indian universities, and the legal treatment of activists charged under stringent laws like the UAPA. JNU, in particular, has often been at the centre of national discussions over campus dissent, with earlier episodes — such as the 2016 controversy over alleged “anti‑national slogans” — leaving lasting legacies in public discourse.

Critics argue that the current episode reflects deeper national political polarisation, where judicial decisions, campus protests, and political rhetoric intersect in ways that shape public narratives. Supporters of the protest frame such dissent as essential to democratic life and robust academic engagement. Meanwhile, opponents see it as crossing the line from legitimate critique into bitter political opposition.

The MGMM Outlook

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case marked a decisive assertion of legal accountability, yet it immediately triggered predictable outrage among a section of students at Jawaharlal Nehru University. What began as a campus remembrance of the 2020 JNU attack quickly devolved into a politically charged demonstration, with slogans targeting the Prime Minister and Home Minister. This episode underscores a recurring pattern at JNU, where activism often blurs into partisan dissent, ignoring the broader social and legal implications of ongoing trials under stringent laws like the UAPA. The students’ actions, far from being a neutral exercise of free expression, fed into divisive narratives and drew justified criticism from authorities and the public alike.

Such protests at JNU not only disrupt the academic environment but also risk normalising a culture where ideological zeal overrides reasoned debate and respect for judicial processes. While proponents argue that campus dissent is vital for democratic engagement, the behaviour on display demonstrates a lack of responsibility, turning lawful legal outcomes into occasions for polarising theatrics. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue, the slogans amplified political partisanship and undermined the credibility of student activism, reinforcing perceptions of JNU as a breeding ground for anti-national posturing rather than informed civic participation.

(Sources: Moneycontrol, The Times of India, Business Standard)