JNU Slogans Against PM: How Umar Khalid’s Bail Denial Sparked Campus Chants and BJP’s Reaction

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam on January 5, 2026, in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
• Hours later, students at JNU’s Sabarmati Hostel raised JNU slogans against PM Modi.
• The denial of bail was based on the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), citing “prima facie” evidence of conspiracy.
• The BJP condemned the slogans, viewing them as a disrespect to the judiciary and the Prime Minister, and highlighted concerns about law and order.
• The incident has reignited debates on freedom of speech, dissent, and respect for national institutions in India.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus, known for its lively discussions and student movements, recently became the scene of intense protests. These demonstrations followed a big decision from India’s top court. On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India said no to bail for student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. They are accused in a case about the 2020 Delhi riots. Within hours of this decision, JNU slogans against PM Modi filled the air at the university’s Sabarmati Hostel.

This event quickly captured national attention. The slogans were seen as a direct challenge to the government and its leader. This blog post will look closely at what happened. We will learn about the court’s decision regarding Umar Khalid bail denied JNU slogans, the reasons behind the JNU protests PM slogans, and the strong reactions from the ruling party, known as the JNU slogans PM reaction BJP. We will break down this important event piece by piece, helping you understand the different sides of this complex story.

The Catalyst: Umar Khalid’s Bail Denial

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam was the spark that set off the events at JNU. This ruling came after a long legal process and had immediate effects on the campus. It highlighted the tough laws under which they are charged and the long time they have already spent in jail.

Court Ruling Overview: A Big Decision

On January 5, 2026, a special bench of Supreme Court Justices, Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale, made a crucial announcement. They decided to deny bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. These two have been accused in the large conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. This decision meant they would stay in jail. However, the same court granted bail to five other people who were also accused in the same case. These five were Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. The court looked at each person’s situation differently. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

Legal Reasoning: Understanding the Law

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in jail was based on a very strict law called the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, often called UAPA. Specifically, it was based on Section 43D(5) of this act. The judges said that the evidence presented by the police, at first glance (what they call “prima facie”), showed that Khalid and Imam might have been part of a bigger plan, or “conspiracy.” This evidence suggested their involvement in planning, gathering people, and giving important directions related to the riots. The court observed that the two accused, Khalid and Imam, “stand on a qualitatively different footing” compared to others. This means their alleged roles were much more serious and distinct from those who were granted bail. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192 This legal hurdle makes it very difficult for someone accused under UAPA to get temporary freedom while their trial is ongoing. The court believed there was enough initial proof to keep them detained. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/suprme-court-denies-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-bail-allows-it-for-five-co-accused/articleshow/126363870.cms

Duration of Pre-Trial Detention: Five Years in Jail

One of the most talked-about parts of this case is how long Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have already been held. They have been in jail for more than five years, waiting for their trial to finish. This is a very long time for someone to be held without being found guilty. Many people, including human rights groups, have raised concerns about such long periods of pre-trial detention. They argue it can go against a person’s basic rights. This long wait has been a major point of discussion, especially as the judicial process continues to unfold. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192 The fact that they have spent so much time behind bars before their case is fully heard adds to the complexity and emotional weight of the Umar Khalid bail denied JNU slogans that followed.

Possibility of Future Bail Application: A Glimmer of Hope

Even though bail was denied this time, the Supreme Court did leave a door open for the future. The court said that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam can ask for bail again. This could happen after one year has passed from the date of this decision, or once all the “protected witnesses” have been questioned, whichever comes first. Protected witnesses are people whose identities are kept secret for their safety. This allowance shows that the legal process is still ongoing and that the court recognizes the need for periodic review. While the Umar Khalid bail JNU PM slogans erupted in immediate anger, this legal provision offers a potential pathway for their release down the line. It means their fight for freedom from detention is not entirely over, even after this significant setback. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/suprme-court-denies-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-bail-allows-it-for-five-co-accused/articleshow/126363870.cms

The Slogans and JNU Protests

Right after the Supreme Court’s decision, the atmosphere at JNU quickly changed. Students and activists gathered, and soon, their voices were heard through JNU slogans against PM Narendra Modi. These chants marked a powerful moment of protest on campus.

Timing & Location: Immediate Campus Outcry

The chants and protests started very quickly after the court’s decision. On Monday, January 5-6, 2026, just hours after the bail denial was announced, students gathered at the Sabarmati Hostel on the JNU campus. This shows how immediately and strongly the students felt about the court’s ruling. The hostel area became a focal point for their anger and disagreement. Such a quick response highlights the organized nature of student activism within the university. The location, Sabarmati Hostel, is a common spot for student gatherings and protests, making it a natural place for these demonstrations to begin. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

Who Led the Chants: Student Union Involvement

Reports indicate that leaders of the JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) were present during these chants. This suggests that the protest was not just a random gathering of angry students but an organized movement. The involvement of student union leaders means there was a degree of planning and official support behind the demonstrations. Their presence also gives more weight to the protest, showing that it represents the feelings of a significant part of the student body. The JNU protests PM slogans were therefore seen as an official statement of dissent from the student leadership against the judicial decision and its perceived implications for justice and freedom. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

Content of the Slogans: What Was Said

While media reports clearly state that “controversial slogans against PM Modi” were raised, they do not give the exact words or phrases used by the students. This lack of specific wording in mainstream news coverage is notable. It means that while the intent to criticize the Prime Minister was clear, the precise chants are not widely known. The students raised slogans that directly criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the exact wording of which has not been fully disclosed in mainstream coverage. This creates a gap in understanding the full extent and nature of the latest JNU slogans against PM. Without the exact text, people must rely on the general description provided by news outlets. This might lead to different interpretations of the slogans’ severity and their true meaning.

Nature & Intent: A Cry for Justice

The chants at JNU were more than just angry words. They were a strong reaction to what students saw as an unfair decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Many students and activists believe that the legal process in this case has been too slow and too harsh. They see the bail denial as a sign of injustice. The protests were also a way to show a broader disagreement with how the government is handling the 2020 Delhi riots case. Students used these slogans JNU PM news to express their deep concern about civil liberties, freedom of speech, and the rights of those accused under stringent laws like UAPA. It was a way for them to stand up for their fellow students and voice their concerns about the state of justice in the country. These expressions of dissent are a hallmark of JNU students slogans PM actions, often reflecting larger national debates.

Media Coverage: “Slogans at JNU Threaten PM”

The news media quickly picked up on the story, and their headlines often reflected the serious nature of the protests. For example, some news reports used headlines such as “Slogans at JNU threaten PM Narendra Modi after no bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam.” This kind of wording immediately painted the incident as a direct challenge or threat to the nation’s leader. Such headlines can shape how the public sees the protests, making them appear more aggressive or confrontational. The media coverage played a big role in spreading awareness about the JNU anti-PM slogans and how they were perceived by the wider public and political circles. The focus on the “threat” aspect amplified the political tension surrounding the campus protests. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

Political Repercussions: BJP’s Stance and PM’s Reaction

The JNU slogans against PM did not go unnoticed by India’s ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Their response was quick and strong, framing the student protests as disrespect towards both the judiciary and the Prime Minister. This section explores how the BJP and other political figures reacted to the campus chants.

Official BJP Response: Questioning the Dissent

The BJP, India’s dominant political party, swiftly condemned the student protests at JNU. A prominent voice in this condemnation was Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa. He publicly questioned the students’ actions, particularly their decision to protest a ruling made by the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the country. Sirsa’s direct quote highlighted this concern: “What is there left to say if they start protesting against the judgment of the Supreme Court?” This statement from the BJP leader underlined a key aspect of the party’s reaction. They viewed the chants not merely as a protest against the government’s policies but as an challenge to the authority and independence of the judiciary itself. Such a strong message from a minister sent a clear signal about how seriously the government took the matter. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

BJP’s Broader Condemnation: Disrespect to Institutions

Beyond individual statements, the BJP’s broader reaction to the JNU slogans PM reaction BJP was one of widespread condemnation. Party leaders across the board framed the chants as a grave act of disrespect. This disrespect, according to their narrative, was directed at two core institutions: the judiciary, by challenging a Supreme Court verdict, and the office of the Prime Minister, by directly targeting PM Modi. The BJP’s stance suggested that such protests indicated a dangerous erosion of respect for established institutions, which are pillars of India’s democracy. They argued that while dissent is a right, it should not cross the line into undermining judicial authority or showing contempt for the nation’s highest elected office. This was a consistent message across various party spokespeople, aiming to shape public opinion against the student protestors. The ruling party’s strong position further intensified the debate around freedom of expression versus institutional integrity.

PM Modi’s Indirect References: Law and Order Stance

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not release a direct statement specifically addressing the JNU slogans against PM in the immediate aftermath, BJP spokespeople were quick to reference his broader stance on law and order. When criticizing the student protests, these party representatives often spoke about “PM Modi’s stance on law and order.” This approach allowed the Prime Minister’s views to be subtly incorporated into the condemnation without him having to speak directly. It also positioned the protests as a challenge to the government’s commitment to maintaining peace and legal adherence. The use of the keyword PM Modi JNU slogans in this context helped reinforce the idea that the campus actions were seen as a direct affront to the Prime Minister’s administration and its principles. This indirect method allowed the party to leverage the Prime Minister’s authority while maintaining his formal distance from the specific campus incident.

Media Narrative: A Direct Challenge

The way the media reported on the incident strongly influenced public perception. News outlets, particularly those aligned with conservative viewpoints, often used headlines that reinforced the idea of a direct challenge to the Prime Minister. Phrases like “slogans at JNU threaten PM Narendra Modi” were common. This kind of reporting solidified the narrative that the JNU protests were not just about a court judgment but were a direct, hostile act against the nation’s leader. This narrative, reinforced by the BJP reacts JNU slogans PM statements, amplified the political tension surrounding the event. It created a perception that the students were actively trying to undermine the government, rather than simply expressing discontent over a legal ruling. The media’s framing played a crucial role in how the incident was understood by millions across the country, turning a campus protest into a national political issue. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/slogans-at-jnu-threaten-pm-narendra-modi-after-no-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-10381192

Political Implications: Dissent vs. Respect

The events at JNU and the subsequent reactions from the BJP have deepened a long-standing debate in India. This debate is about the delicate balance between the right to express disagreement, or dissent, and the need to show respect for national institutions like the judiciary and the office of the Prime Minister. The incident brought into sharp focus the differing viewpoints:

This clash of views is not new in India, but the JNU slogans PM reaction BJP further highlights the tension. It forces a national conversation about what forms of dissent are acceptable and where the line is drawn between voicing disagreement and undermining the system. This incident will likely continue to fuel debates about academic freedom, political expression, and the role of youth in shaping India’s future.

Legal & Institutional Context

To fully grasp the JNU slogans against PM incident, it’s essential to understand the legal framework and background of the case. This involves looking at the serious charges, the specific bail laws under which Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are held, and how courts have been interpreting these laws.

Overview of the 2020 Delhi Riots Case: A Serious Allegation

The core of this entire issue lies in the 2020 Delhi riots case. In February 2020, parts of Delhi saw severe communal violence, leading to many deaths and injuries. The police investigations claim that this violence was not spontaneous but part of a larger, premeditated conspiracy. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, along with many others, are accused of being key figures in this alleged plot. The charges against them are very serious, including being involved in a “terrorist act” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution alleges that they made inflammatory speeches and played a role in orchestrating the unrest. This underlying case, therefore, is about severe allegations of communal violence and criminal conspiracy, making the stakes incredibly high for all involved. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/umar-khalid-bail-application-tracker/

UAPA Bail Provisions: A Tough Road to Freedom

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has very strict rules when it comes to granting bail. Section 43D(5) of UAPA makes it much harder for someone accused under this law to get temporary release. This section states that if the court finds that the police’s evidence, at first glance (prima facie), seems to be true and suggests the accused committed the crime, then bail should generally not be granted. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that under UAPA, “delay in trial cannot be a trump card” for securing bail, especially when there’s strong initial evidence of involvement in serious offenses. This means that even if a trial takes a very long time, as it has in Khalid and Imam’s case, the court still has to prioritize the initial evidence presented by the prosecution. This stringent provision is why Umar Khalid bail denied slogans were heard, as the legal barrier to their freedom is exceptionally high. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/suprme-court-denies-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-bail-allows-it-for-five-co-accused/articleshow/126363870.cms

Recent Jurisprudential Trends: Evolving Interpretations

While UAPA’s bail provisions are tough, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of these laws has shown some evolution over time. In a 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the “presumption of innocence,” a fundamental principle in criminal law that states a person is innocent until proven guilty. This ruling stated that this postulate “cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” This suggests an evolving judicial approach where courts try to balance the strictness of laws like UAPA with basic constitutional rights. However, the recent denial of bail to Khalid and Imam, while granting it to five others, shows that the courts still carefully weigh the evidence against each accused person. This careful balance between legal stringency and human rights forms the complex backdrop for all discussions surrounding Umar Khalid bail JNU PM slogans and the broader UAPA framework. The legal landscape is constantly being shaped by these significant rulings. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/suprme-court-denies-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-bail-allows-it-for-five-co-accused/articleshow/126363870.cms

Media & Public Reaction

The incident of JNU slogans against PM quickly spread beyond the campus walls, amplified by news channels and social media. This widespread coverage led to diverse reactions from the public, shaping the national conversation.

News Headlines: Shaping the Narrative

Major news organizations across India covered the JNU protests extensively. Their headlines often used strong language that drew immediate attention. For instance, reports from NDTV and the Times of India frequently used phrases such as “JNU slogans against PM” and “Slogans at JNU threaten PM.” These headlines are very important because they often shape how people first understand an event. By using words like “threaten,” the media highlighted the confrontational aspect of the protests, reinforcing the idea that the students were directly challenging the country’s leader. This type of coverage helped frame the event in the public’s mind, making it a significant national incident. The constant repetition of slogans JNU PM news in these headlines meant the story remained at the forefront of public consciousness.

Social-Media Amplification: Hashtags and Trends

In today’s digital age, social media plays a huge role in how news spreads and how public opinion forms. After the JNU incident, hashtags like #JNUAgainstModi started trending rapidly on platforms such as Twitter (now known as X). This meant that many people were talking about the event online, sharing their views, and reacting to the news. The fast spread of information on social media allowed different perspectives to emerge, from strong support for the students’ right to protest to severe condemnation of their actions. Social media amplified the reach of the latest JNU slogans against PM, ensuring that the debate reached a much wider audience than just traditional news readers. It also provided a platform for both supporters and critics to voice their opinions directly and instantly.

Public Opinion Polls: Gauging Sentiment (If Available)

Understanding how the general public feels about such sensitive issues is crucial. If there were any recent public opinion polls conducted around this time, they could shed light on public sentiment regarding student protests versus the respect for the judiciary. Such polls might reveal if people tend to side more with the students’ right to express dissent or if they prioritize upholding the dignity of legal institutions and elected officials. For example, a poll might ask questions about whether student protests are helpful or harmful to democracy, or if court decisions should be immune from public criticism. While specific poll data for this exact event is not currently available in the provided research, its inclusion would offer valuable insights into the broader societal views on these complex issues. Public polls often show a mix of opinions, reflecting the diverse perspectives within a country.

Conclusion

The recent events at Jawaharlal Nehru University form a critical chapter in India’s ongoing dialogue about justice, dissent, and political power. It all began with the Supreme Court’s weighty decision on January 5, 2026, to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the serious 2020 Delhi riots case. This ruling, rooted in the stringent UAPA law, left the activists facing continued detention for alleged conspiracy.

Almost immediately, this judicial setback sparked vocal protests at JNU’s Sabarmati Hostel, where JNU slogans against PM Narendra Modi reverberated through the campus. These chants, led by student union figures, were a passionate expression of perceived injustice and a broader critique of government actions. However, these protests quickly drew sharp criticism from the ruling BJP, who saw them as a disrespect to both the Supreme Court’s authority and the Prime Minister’s office, further escalating the political tensions.

This chain of events highlights the continuing legal battle for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who may apply for bail again in the future. It also underscores a wider national debate on freedom of expression in Indian academia. The JNU anti-PM slogans have become a symbol of this delicate balance, pushing society to consider where the line lies between expressing disagreement and respecting institutions. The next chapter will depend on how the courts, the university community, and the political establishment navigate the delicate balance between dissent and institutional respect.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Why was bail denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam?
A1: The Supreme Court denied bail based on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, finding prima facie evidence suggesting their involvement in a conspiracy related to the 2020 Delhi riots.

Q2: When did the JNU protests and slogans occur?
A2: The protests and slogans happened shortly after the Supreme Court’s bail denial decision on January 5, 2026, with students gathering at the Sabarmati Hostel.

Q3: What was the BJP’s reaction to the JNU slogans?
A3: The BJP condemned the slogans, stating they showed disrespect to the judiciary and the Prime Minister, and raised concerns about law and order.

Q4: Can Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam apply for bail again?
A4: Yes, the Supreme Court indicated they can reapply for bail after one year from the decision or after protected witnesses have been examined, whichever comes first.

Q5: What does UAPA stand for and why is it relevant?
A5: UAPA stands for the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is a stringent anti-terrorism law that makes obtaining bail very difficult for accused individuals.