Four Years Without Trial: The Case of Umar Khalid's Pre-Trial Incarceration

New Delhi— Four years after the Delhi Police named student activist Umar Khalid as a key conspirator in the February 2020 north-east Delhi riots, Khalid remains imprisoned in Tihar Jail without trial or bail.

Arrested by Delhi Police’s Special Cell under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on September 14, 2020, Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student, has been accused of orchestrating the riots that left 53 people dead, most of whom were Muslims.

Despite pleading not guilty and stating that he only participated in peaceful protests, Khalid’s efforts to secure bail have been repeatedly denied. The Supreme Court has often held that ‘bail is a rule,’ even for offences under special statutes like the UAPA, but Khalid continues to face significant legal hurdles.

A Larger Conspiracy Case

In the aftermath of the 2020 riots, the Delhi Police arrested over 2,500 individuals across various cases. Among them, Khalid was charged in a larger conspiracy case alongside 17 others, many of whom have since been granted bail. Khalid was denied bail for the first time in March 2022 by a Karkardooma court and later by the Delhi High Court in October 2022. Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

By February 2024, his plea had been adjourned 14 times over the course of 11 months. Adjournments were often attributed to absent lawyers or requests from the prosecution. In some instances, the case could not be taken up due to issues with the composition of the bench, or other scheduling conflicts. His hearing was last adjourned in November 2023 and again in January 2024 for different reasons.

On February 14, 2024, Khalid withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court, citing "changed circumstances," and reapproached the trial court on grounds of delay and parity with other accused. However, bail was once again denied on May 28, 2024. His plea is now pending before the Delhi High Court.

Anguish and Hope

Banojyotsna Lahiri, a Delhi-based researcher and Khalid’s partner, expressed her anguish over his prolonged detention, stating that Khalid has always advocated for love in response to hate. "He is in jail for years without trial, and all I hope is that he at least gets a hearing soon," she said.

'Bail is a Rule'

On August 13, 2024, a Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court reiterated that the legal principle ‘bail is the rule, jail is an exception’ applies even to cases under the UAPA. They granted bail to another accused under the same anti-terror law, stating that denial of bail in deserving cases violates fundamental rights. Earlier, in July, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the right to bail should not be withheld as punishment, irrespective of the crime's nature.

Different Voices in the Judiciary

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted that the Supreme Court, being a "polyvocal court," often sees different benches issuing divergent rulings on the same issue. "Umar Khalid’s bail may not have come before a Bench which has given the recent pro-liberty judgments," he observed, adding that people cannot be indefinitely imprisoned for speeches whose meaning may be interpreted differently by different people.

A Test Case for Justice

Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose decried the situation as a "travesty of justice," noting that many accused of heinous crimes such as murder and rape have been granted bail much earlier than Khalid. "It’s not Umar, but our justice system that is on trial," he said.

Advocate Soutik Banerjee further pointed out that Khalid's case serves as a test for constitutional courts to reaffirm the supremacy of fundamental rights over statutory restrictions imposed by UAPA on bail. "Four years of pre-trial incarceration, in a case where the trial isn’t likely to finish anytime soon, severely curtails his rights under Article 21," Banerjee added.

As Khalid’s legal battle continues, the broader question of balancing national security laws with individual liberties remains a critical issue for India’s judiciary.