Skip to main content
Loading page, please wait…
HomeCurrent AffairsEditorialsGovt SchemesLearning ResourcesUPSC SyllabusPricingAboutUPSC AI ToolsUPSC AI ToolAI for UPSCUPSC ChatGPT

© 2026 Vaidra. All rights reserved.

PrivacyTerms
Vaidra Logo
Vaidra

Top 7 items + smart groups

UPSC GPT
New
Mains Evaluator
Test Generator
Geography Lab
New
Current Affairs
Daily Solutions
Daily Puzzle

Version 2.0.0 • Built with ❤️ for UPSC aspirants

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

After relief from Supreme Court to others, another Delhi riots accused files bail plea seeking parity

After relief from Supreme Court to others, another Delhi riots accused files bail plea seeking parity
Salim Malik, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, has filed a fresh bail application seeking parity with a co-accused who was granted bail by the Supreme Court; the application argues that his role is similar to that of the co-accused. The Supreme Court had earlier granted bail to five accused but denied…
Overview The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to five individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case has spurred further legal action. Salim Malik alias Munna , another accused, has filed a fresh bail application, arguing that he faces similar charges as one of those released and should be granted parity. This development raises important questions about the application of justice and the interpretation of evidence in cases involving multiple accused. Key Developments Bail Application by Salim Malik Salim Malik , identified as one of the alleged organizers and speakers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting, has applied for bail before an Additional Sessions Judge. The application cites the Supreme Court's decision on January 5, 2026 , to grant bail to co-accused Saleem Khan , arguing that Mr. Malik's situation is comparable. Basis for Application: The application contends that the prosecution's case against Mr. Malik positions him as a local operative associated with meetings at the Chand Bagh protest site, similar to Saleem Khan. Allegations Against Malik: Mr. Malik is allegedly involved in arson at a car showroom on February 24, 2020 , in northeast Delhi's Bhajanpura area. Court Hearing: The court has scheduled a hearing on Mr. Malik's bail application for January 8 . Supreme Court's Previous Bail Order The bail application emphasizes that the Supreme Court's order noted that the actions of the accused who were granted bail were primarily based on directives issued by others. Mr. Malik's application argues that there is no evidence suggesting he had autonomous authority over the larger conspiracy or occupied a position of strategic escalation. Parity Argument: The application claims that the activities alleged against Mr. Malik do not indicate that he functioned as a conduit between principal architects and secondary actors, as observed by the Supreme Court in Saleem Khan's case. Prayer for Bail: The application requests that Mr. Malik be released on regular bail based on parity with the bail granted to Mohd. Saleem Khan on January 5, 2025 . Supreme Court's Stance on Other Accused The Supreme Court had granted bail to five accused – Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad – categorizing them as 'facilitators.' However, it denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam , stating that all accused do not stand on the same footing. Status of Other Accused Out of the 20 accused named in the case, two are still absconding. Of the remaining 18 who applied for bail, seven are still in prison, including Mr. Malik, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, former Aam Aadmi Party leader Tahir Hussain, Athar Khan, Tasleem Ahmed, and Khalid Saifi. Tahir Hussain's bail application is pending in the Karkardooma Court. Trial Court's Previous Decision Charges were framed against Mr. Malik on July 24, 2023 , when the trial court stated that discharging him at the final stages of the trial would be unmerited. Conditions Imposed by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court imposed several conditions while granting bail, including: Each accused must execute a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. They must remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of the trial court. Prima Facie Case Against Khalid and Imam The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria stated that there was a prima facie case against Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) . UPSC Relevance This news article is relevant to GS2 (Polity and Governance) and GS3 (Internal Security) . It highlights the complexities of the criminal justice system, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties, and the implications of laws like the UAPA. The case also touches upon issues related to social movements, public order, and the balance between national security and individual freedoms. Important Facts The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on January 5, 2026 . Salim Malik has filed a bail application seeking parity with co-accused Saleem Khan . Mr. Malik is accused of being one of the organizers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting. The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam . Charges were framed against Mr. Malik on July 24, 2023 . The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is invoked in the case.
Loading article...

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court bail parity debate reignites in Delhi riots case, testing UAPA’s limits

Key Facts

  1. Supreme Court granted bail to five accused (Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmad) on 5 Jan 2026.
  2. Salim Malik alias Munna filed a bail plea on 8 Jan 2026, seeking parity with co‑accused Saleem Khan.
  3. Malik is alleged to have organised the anti‑CAA/NRC meeting and participated in arson at a Bhajanpura car showroom on 24 Feb 2020.
  4. UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) was invoked; the bench held a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
  5. Supreme Court imposed a ₹2 lakh personal bond and restriction to stay within Delhi for each bailed accused.
  6. Out of 20 accused, two are absconding; seven, including Malik, remain in custody pending bail applications.

Background

The Delhi riots case underscores the judiciary's role in balancing national security statutes like UAPA with individual liberty. It highlights how courts differentiate between ‘facilitators’ and ‘principal architects’ of communal violence, a key issue in internal security and criminal justice governance.

Mains Angle

GS‑2/GS‑3 candidates can discuss the tension between preventive security laws and procedural fairness, evaluating whether bail criteria under UAPA are consistent with constitutional guarantees of liberty.

Explore:Current Affairs·Editorial Analysis·Govt Schemes·Study Materials·Previous Year Questions·UPSC GPT
  1. Home
  2. Prepare
  3. Current Affairs
  4. Politics
  5. Burning Issues
  6. After relief from Supreme Court to others, another Delhi riots accused files bail plea seeking parity
GS275% Exam RelevanceBurning Issues
Prelims
52%
Mains
64%
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete

Overview

Full Article

Overview

The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to five individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case has spurred further legal action. Salim Malik alias Munna, another accused, has filed a fresh bail application, arguing that he faces similar charges as one of those released and should be granted parity. This development raises important questions about the application of justice and the interpretation of evidence in cases involving multiple accused.

Key Developments

Bail Application by Salim Malik

Salim Malik, identified as one of the alleged organizers and speakers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting, has applied for bail before an Additional Sessions Judge. The application cites the Supreme Court's decision on January 5, 2026, to grant bail to co-accused Saleem Khan, arguing that Mr. Malik's situation is comparable.

  • Basis for Application: The application contends that the prosecution's case against Mr. Malik positions him as a local operative associated with meetings at the Chand Bagh protest site, similar to Saleem Khan.
  • Allegations Against Malik: Mr. Malik is allegedly involved in arson at a car showroom on February 24, 2020, in northeast Delhi's Bhajanpura area.
  • Court Hearing: The court has scheduled a hearing on Mr. Malik's bail application for January 8.

Supreme Court's Previous Bail Order

The bail application emphasizes that the Supreme Court's order noted that the actions of the accused who were granted bail were primarily based on directives issued by others. Mr. Malik's application argues that there is no evidence suggesting he had autonomous authority over the larger conspiracy or occupied a position of strategic escalation.

  • Parity Argument: The application claims that the activities alleged against Mr. Malik do not indicate that he functioned as a conduit between principal architects and secondary actors, as observed by the Supreme Court in Saleem Khan's case.
  • Prayer for Bail: The application requests that Mr. Malik be released on regular bail based on parity with the bail granted to Mohd. Saleem Khan on January 5, 2025.

Supreme Court's Stance on Other Accused

The Supreme Court had granted bail to five accused – Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad – categorizing them as 'facilitators.' However, it denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that all accused do not stand on the same footing.

Status of Other Accused

Out of the 20 accused named in the case, two are still absconding. Of the remaining 18 who applied for bail, seven are still in prison, including Mr. Malik, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, former Aam Aadmi Party leader Tahir Hussain, Athar Khan, Tasleem Ahmed, and Khalid Saifi. Tahir Hussain's bail application is pending in the Karkardooma Court.

Trial Court's Previous Decision

Charges were framed against Mr. Malik on July 24, 2023, when the trial court stated that discharging him at the final stages of the trial would be unmerited.

Conditions Imposed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court imposed several conditions while granting bail, including:

  • Each accused must execute a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
  • They must remain within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and not leave its territorial limits without prior permission of the trial court.

Prima Facie Case Against Khalid and Imam

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria stated that there was a prima facie case against Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Exam Relevance

This news article is relevant to GS2 (Polity and Governance) and GS3 (Internal Security). It highlights the complexities of the criminal justice system, the role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties, and the implications of laws like the UAPA. The case also touches upon issues related to social movements, public order, and the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

Important Facts

  • The Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on January 5, 2026.
  • Salim Malik has filed a bail application seeking parity with co-accused Saleem Khan.
  • Mr. Malik is accused of being one of the organizers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting.
  • The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
  • Charges were framed against Mr. Malik on July 24, 2023.
  • The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is invoked in the case.
Read Original

Supreme Court bail parity debate reignites in Delhi riots case, testing UAPA’s limits

Key Facts

  1. Supreme Court granted bail to five accused (Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shadab Ahmad) on 5 Jan 2026.
  2. Salim Malik alias Munna filed a bail plea on 8 Jan 2026, seeking parity with co‑accused Saleem Khan.
  3. Malik is alleged to have organised the anti‑CAA/NRC meeting and participated in arson at a Bhajanpura car showroom on 24 Feb 2020.
  4. UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) was invoked; the bench held a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
  5. Supreme Court imposed a ₹2 lakh personal bond and restriction to stay within Delhi for each bailed accused.
  6. Out of 20 accused, two are absconding; seven, including Malik, remain in custody pending bail applications.

Background & Context

The Delhi riots case underscores the judiciary's role in balancing national security statutes like UAPA with individual liberty. It highlights how courts differentiate between ‘facilitators’ and ‘principal architects’ of communal violence, a key issue in internal security and criminal justice governance.

Mains Answer Angle

GS‑2/GS‑3 candidates can discuss the tension between preventive security laws and procedural fairness, evaluating whether bail criteria under UAPA are consistent with constitutional guarantees of liberty.

Analysis

Prelims Facts (Factual Knowledge)

  1. Date of Supreme Court's bail order: January 5, 2026.
  2. Number of accused granted bail by the Supreme Court: Five.
  3. Names of some accused still in prison: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Salim Malik.
  4. Act under which some accused are charged: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
  5. Location of alleged arson incident: Bhajanpura, northeast Delhi.
  6. Year of Delhi riots: 2020.

Mains Angles (Analytical Discussion)

  1. Analyze the role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties in cases involving national security concerns.
  2. Discuss the implications of granting bail based on parity in cases involving multiple accused.
  3. Evaluate the impact of the CAA/NRC debate on social cohesion and public order.
  4. Critically examine the use of UAPA in cases related to public protests and dissent.

Essay Themes (Critical Thinking)

Balancing National Security and Individual Freedoms: The Role of the Judiciary

The Impact of Social Movements on Indian Democracy

Related PYQs

No related PYQs linked to this article yet.

Practice Questions

GS3
Medium
Prelims MCQ

Criminal Justice – Bail provisions under UAPA

1 marks
5 keywords
GS2
Easy
Mains Short Answer

Judicial review and equality before law

5 marks
5 keywords
GS3
Hard
Mains Essay

UAPA, civil liberties, internal security

20 marks
6 keywords
Related:Daily•Weekly

Loading related articles...

Loading related articles...

Tip: Click articles above to read more from the same date, or use the back button to see all articles.

After relief from Supreme Court to others,... | UPSC Current Affairs

Related Topics

  • 📰Current AffairsSupreme Court Grants Bail to Ex‑Jharkhand Minister Anosh Ekka, Raises Issue of Overlapping CBI Prosecutions
  • 📰Current AffairsSupreme Court ने Jharkhand High Court को मौद्रिक जमा से जुड़ी शर्तीय anticipatory bail के लिए फटकारा
  • 📚Subject TopicWhat are the Key Facts of the Case and the Supreme Court’s Ruling?
  • 📚Subject TopicWhat are the Supreme Court’s Rulings and Legal Notifications on the Aravallis?
  • 📚Subject TopicSupreme Court Ruling on the SC and ST Act 1989