The decision of the Supreme Court of India on January 5 to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case has once again highlighted a disturbing reality of India’s criminal justice system—where identity appears to influence the application of law.

While bail was granted to several other accused, the Court held that Khalid and Imam stood on a “qualitatively different footing,” citing a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Legally, the reasoning may fit within the statute. Socially and morally, however, it reinforces the widespread perception among Muslims that the law treats them with exceptional severity. Prolonged Incarceration Without Conviction
Umar Khalid has now spent over five years in prison without a completed trial. Under UAPA, bail is extraordinarily difficult, turning pre-trial detention into a form of punishment.

Despite repeated judicial observations that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” this principle appears routinely suspended in cases involving Muslim activists.

If five or six years of incarceration without conviction does not violate constitutional liberty, then the question arises—what does? Selective Accountability and Political Silence
The sense of injustice deepens when one examines who has not faced similar legal consequences. Several political figures accused of delivering inflammatory speeches before the 2020 violence have neither been arrested nor charged under terror laws.

Among the names frequently cited in public discourse is Kapil Mishra. Despite court observations that complaints against him raised serious issues, there has been:
• No UAPA prosecution
• No prolonged custody
• No comparable urgency by investigative agencies

This contrast has fuelled the belief that Muslim protest is criminalised, while majoritarian provocation is normalised. Criminalising Dissent, Not Violence
The accused in the Delhi riots case were largely students and activists protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Their actions were political and constitutional.

Yet, dissent was reframed as:
• Terrorist activity
• Strategic conspiracy
• Economic sabotage

At the same time, open hate speech and calls for violence by powerful actors are often dismissed as political rhetoric. This imbalance undermines faith in democratic institutions. The Human Cost of “National Security”
Behind legal language lies profound human suffering:
• Years of youth lost in prison
• Families pushed into economic hardship
• Reputations destroyed without verdicts
• Academic and professional futures erased

For many Muslim accused, incarceration itself becomes the punishment—regardless of eventual acquittal. Conclusion: Equality Before Law Must Be Lived, Not Just Written
The denial of bail to Umar Khalid is not merely an individual legal outcome. It symbolises a broader crisis of equality before the law in India.

When:
• Terror laws are disproportionately used against one community
• Bail becomes an illusion rather than a right
• Political power shields some from accountability

The promise of constitutional equality rings hollow.

Questioning these patterns is not anti-national. It is an assertion of constitutional morality.

Justice must not only be written in judgments. It must be experienced equally—by everyone.