A Question of Justice
An Interactive Analysis of the CPI(M) Statement on the Delhi Riots Case
The Heart of the Matter
On September 3, 2025, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) released a statement condemning the Delhi High Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and eight others detained for over five years under the UAPA in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. The party labels the decision a "travesty of justice." This application explores the key claims and comparisons made in that statement, providing a visual and interactive breakdown of their argument.
The Core Issue: Five Years in Detention
The CPI(M) statement centers on the prolonged detention of ten individuals without trial. The core facts presented are the duration of incarceration and the repeated denial of bail, which are visualized below. This section sets the stage by quantifying the situation that the statement addresses.
Individuals Detained
Years Under Detention
Under the draconian
UAPA(Unlawful Activities Prevention Act)
Detention Timeline
2020
Arrests made in connection with Delhi Riots. Detention begins under UAPA.
2020 - 2025
Multiple bail applications filed and subsequently rejected by courts.
Sept 2025
Delhi High Court denies bail for the 5th time. Charges still not framed.
The Central Argument: A Study in Contrasts
The CPI(M) statement builds its case on two key comparisons to allege a miscarriage of justice. The interactive cards below allow you to explore these contrasts directly, reflecting the core logic of the press release.
Comparison 1: Delhi Riots Actors
The Accused
(Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & 8 others)
Jailed for 5+ Years
No trial, no conviction
The Alleged Instigators
(Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur)
Roaming Free
Accused of "incendiary speeches"
Comparison 2: High-Profile UAPA Cases
Delhi Riots Case
(Umar Khalid, etc.)
Detained Without Trial
Bail repeatedly denied
Malegaon Blasts Case
(Pragya Thakur, etc.)
Acquitted
Judicial process completed
Conclusion of the Statement
The CPI(M) concludes by framing the Delhi High Court's decision as a "grave judicial contradiction" and a "negation of the principle that 'grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception'." By contrasting this case with others, the party argues for what it sees as a selective and unjust application of the law, demanding the release of all those arrested under UAPA in this matter.
