On September 14, 2020, Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student, was arrested by the Delhi Police’s special cell under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots, which resulted in the deaths of 53 people, mostly Muslims. Four years later, Khalid remains in Tihar Jail awaiting trial, with several bail applications rejected.

Although the Supreme Court has frequently emphasized that bail should generally be granted, even in UAPA cases, Khalid, now 36, continues to be held without bail. He has consistently asserted his innocence, arguing that his involvement was limited to participating in peaceful protests.

Umar Khalid Unending Wait: 4 Years of Injustice and Delayed Justice After the 2020 riots, over 2,500 people were arrested in various cases, with more than 2,000 granted bail in the past four years. However, Umar Khalid, identified as a key conspirator in a larger conspiracy case involving 17 others—many of whom are now out on bail—has not been granted bail.

Khalid’s initial bail request was denied by a Karkardooma court in March 2022, about 18 months after his arrest. His appeal to the Delhi High Court in October 2022 was also unsuccessful. He subsequently sought bail from the Supreme Court, but as of February 2024, his plea has been adjourned 14 times over 11 months, often due to the absence of lawyers or requests from the prosecution.

In August 2023, a bench led by Justices A.S. Bopanna and P.K. Mishra adjourned his case due to scheduling conflicts. The case was then reassigned to a bench led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, which also postponed hearings on several occasions due to reasons such as “paucity of time” or the unavailability of senior lawyers. Khalid’s bail request remains unresolved.

Umar Khalid Unending Wait: 4 Years of Injustice and Delayed Justice On February 14, 2024, Umar Khalid withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court, citing “changed circumstances.” He subsequently applied for bail through a trial court, arguing that the delay in his trial and the fact that many co-accused in the larger conspiracy case had been granted bail warranted his release. However, the trial court denied his plea on May 28. His request is now under consideration by a Delhi High Court bench, which, in July, sought the police’s response.

Banojyotsna Lahiri, a researcher in Delhi and Khalid’s partner, expressed her frustration over his continued imprisonment without trial. She described Khalid as an advocate for peaceful responses to hate and voiced her hope that he would receive a fair hearing soon.

Umar Khalid Unending Wait: 4 Years of Injustice and Delayed Justice In August 2023, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court reiterated that the principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” applies even to UAPA cases, emphasizing that denying bail in deserving cases infringes on fundamental rights. This followed a July ruling by another Supreme Court bench that highlighted bail should not be used as a form of punishment, regardless of the crime’s nature.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde has noted inconsistencies in the Supreme Court’s bail decisions, pointing out that different benches may issue conflicting rulings. He suggested that Umar Khalid’s case might not have been reviewed by a bench that aligns with recent pro-liberty judgments. Hegde remarked that people should not be kept in prison indefinitely for speeches that might be interpreted differently by various people.

Umar Khalid Unending Wait: 4 Years of Injustice and Delayed Justice Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose has voiced serious concerns about the disparity in bail timelines, noting that individuals accused of severe crimes like murder and rape often receive bail faster than Umar Khalid, whose case has been pending for years. Ghose remarked, “It is not Umar but our justice system that is on trial.”

Advocate Soutik Banerjee views Khalid’s case as a critical test for India’s constitutional courts to uphold constitutional rights against the restrictions of the UAPA. He emphasized that with the trial still far from completion, four years of pre-trial detention constitute a significant violation of Khalid’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Khalid’s prolonged incarceration without trial or bail has ignited discussions on justice, fundamental rights, and the handling of dissent in India. As Khalid awaits his court date, it remains to be seen whether the justice system will prioritize fairness or be swayed by political considerations.