India's Supreme Court granted bail to five Muslim students and activists on Monday who had been imprisoned for more than five years in connection with the 2020 religious riots in New Delhi, but denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who will remain in jail awaiting trial. The denial of bail for Khalid and Imam raises questions about the prolonged detention of individuals awaiting trial and the application of India's legal system in cases involving accusations of sedition and inciting violence.

Shamshad Ahmed's son, Shadab Ahmed, was among those granted bail, concluding a wait that began in April 2020. The release of these individuals highlights the complexities of India's judicial process, where individuals can be held for extended periods without a trial.

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both scholars and activists, have been accused of inciting violence through their speeches prior to the 2020 riots. The charges against them include sedition, conspiracy, and promoting enmity between different groups. Their continued detention has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and international bodies, who argue that the charges are politically motivated and that their detention violates international human rights standards.

The legal basis for their continued detention rests on India's sedition law, a colonial-era provision that criminalizes speech that incites disaffection towards the government. Critics argue that this law is often used to suppress dissent and target political opponents. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the sedition law, with hearings scheduled to determine its validity and scope.

The prosecution argues that Khalid and Imam's speeches contributed to an environment that led to the riots, while their defense maintains that their words were taken out of context and that they did not advocate violence. The trial has been delayed due to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and procedural issues.

The continued detention of Khalid and Imam has sparked debate about the role of artificial intelligence in the judicial system. AI-powered tools could potentially be used to analyze large volumes of evidence, identify patterns, and assess the risk of releasing individuals on bail. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for bias in AI algorithms, which could lead to discriminatory outcomes.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for later this month. The Supreme Court will consider arguments from both sides before deciding whether to grant bail to Khalid and Imam. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of free speech and political dissent in India.