NEW DELHI – In a recent decision, India’s Supreme Court refused to grant bail to two Muslim student activists, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have been detained for several years without trial. The case is tied to one of India’s most devastating instances of religious violence.

Khalid and Imam were arrested five years ago under stringent state security laws. Both are accused of conspiring to incite the communal riots that erupted in parts of Delhi in February 2020, during which 53 people, predominantly Muslims, lost their lives. The violence coincided with extensive protests against a controversial 2019 citizenship law, criticized for its alleged discrimination against Muslims.

In contrast to Khalid and Imam, the court granted bail to five other accused individuals in the same case. The court underscored that Khalid and Imam played a “central role in the conspiracy” and stated that the prolonged delay in their trial was not a valid reason to grant bail.

“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the Supreme Court remarked in its ruling, as reported by Bar and Bench, a legal news outlet.

Both activists were prominent figures in the protests against the citizenship law, which posed a significant challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist administration. Their detention has sparked widespread criticism, with rights groups highlighting it as part of a broader suppression of dissent under Modi’s government. Concerns have been raised about the use of anti-terror laws to target activists and student leaders.

In the months following the riots, police charged several activists and organizers, including Khalid and Imam, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that in the past was used only to quell violent insurgencies but under Modi has been largely used to silence political opposition. Activists and other dissenters targeted under the law can be held in pretrial detention almost indefinitely, often resulting in years of detention until the completion of trial.

Prosecutors representing the Delhi police had strongly opposed Khalid and Imam’s bail request, arguing that the violence was not a spontaneous outbreak but a deliberate plot intended to tarnish India’s global image, and that they made provocative speeches and instigated violence. Khalid and Imam’s lawyers argue that there is no evidence linking them to the violence and deny the charges against them.

Dozens of other Muslims were also charged in similar cases related to the riots and held under prolonged detention. Some of those cases later unraveled because police were unable to provide evidence linking many detainees to the riots.

Last week, eight U.S. lawmakers wrote to India’s ambassador in Washington expressing concern over Khalid’s prolonged pretrial detention. They urged Indian authorities to grant him a fair and timely trial.

International human rights groups have also repeatedly urged Khalid and Imam’s release, saying their detention suppresses dissent and breaches fundamental legal protections.

Amnesty International in a statement last year said Khalid’s “imprisonment without trial exemplifies derailment of justice” and is “emblematic of a broader pattern of repression faced by those who dare to exercise their rights to freedom of expression.”