Why Umar Khalid is still in jail | Let Me Explain 109 | Pooja Prasanna

The Supreme Court said this week that the right to a speedy trial applies no matter how serious the offence is.

That keeping someone in jail for years, without real progress in trial, is a punishment.

It also said that if the State cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail simply by pointing to the gravity of the crime.

And yet 

Just two days earlier, another bench of the same Supreme Court did the exact opposite.

It denied bail to Umar Khalid, who has now spent over five years in jail.

No conviction

No conclusion of trial

No finding of guilt.

So what exactly is happening here?

How can the Supreme Court say prolonged incarceration violates liberty, and still keep someone in prison for five years without trial?

Is bail really about principle, or about who the accused is and which law applies?

Umar Khalid’s case forces us to confront how bail actually works under laws like the UAPA.

How liberty becomes the exception.

How delay becomes the punishment.

And how someone can remain in prison for years without ever being found guilty.

Let me explain.

Cases like Umar Khalid’s are legally complex and politically charged, and they’re often flattened into noise on television. What gets lost are the details. 

At The News Minute, this is the kind of work we focus on —  reporting that looks at power, due process, and dissent without shouting.

And journalism like this needs support.

If you value Let Me Explain and the work we do, consider becoming a subscriber.

Like Pooja’s LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme

If you are watching from abroad, click this link: https://buy.stripe.com/28o01q9md0OPdtm8wR

Now, let’s go back to where this began.

The violence in northeast Delhi erupted in February 2020, amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, or CAA.

Fifty-three people were killed, over 700 were injured, and most of those who died were Muslims. Several mosques were burned during those days of violence.

The CAA had been passed by the BJP-led Union government in December 2019.

It fast-tracked citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from neighbouring countries, while explicitly excluding Muslims.

That exclusion triggered protests across the country, led by students, women, and civil society groups.

Umar Khalid emerged as one of the prominent voices in this protest movement.

In September 2020, he was arrested by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA.

The allegation was that he was part of a “larger conspiracy” behind the Delhi riots.

He has remained in jail ever since.

It is important to pause here and be clear about one thing.

Umar Khalid has been discharged or granted bail in cases involving direct allegations of stone pelting or physical violence.

What continues to keep him behind bars is one specific case — FIR 59 of 2020 — the so-called larger conspiracy case under the UAPA.

In March 2022, a Delhi sessions court denied him bail in this case.

The judge however noted there were inconsistencies in witness statements and conceded that many alleged acts of Umar Khalid appeared innocuous on their own.

Yet the court held the allegations “prima facie true”, reasoning that in a conspiracy no act can be viewed in isolation.

It said even a harmless act may appear incriminating as part of a larger chain.

This reasoning was analysed in depth by writer Shuddhabrata Sengupta in a 2022 Caravan article.

He pointed out the circular logic at play. A conspiracy is first assumed, and that assumption is then used to convert ordinary political activity into proof of the conspiracy itself.

The prosecution’s case relies heavily on meetings, WhatsApp groups, speeches, and protest strategies such as road blockades meant to disrupt everyday life.

These are just political tactics and they are commonly used across India, including by the BJP itself.

But in Umar Khalid’s case, these actions are framed as acts of terror.

A key example is a speech Umar Khalid delivered in Amravati on February 17, 2020.

In the full speech, he repeatedly spoke about non-violence, about responding to hate with love, and about holding the Constitution even in the face of bullets.

But the prosecution relied on a short, edited clip of this speech, first circulated by BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya and later amplified by Republic TV.

The full speech, which clearly undercut the allegation of incitement, was not presented as evidence.

This pattern — selective evidence, an aggregation of otherwise lawful acts, and heavy reliance on protected witnesses — runs through the chargesheet.

Now let’s turn to what the Supreme Court has said.

In January 2026, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

At the same time, it granted bail to several other accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and Mohammed Saleem Khan.

The court said it had avoided a collective approach and had examined the role of each accused individually.

According to the bench, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were “architectural” figures — ideological drivers of the alleged conspiracy — involved in conceptualising, planning, and coordinating events.

While the others were local-level facilitators.

This distinction is central to the court’s reasoning.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged something else.

It recognised that prolonged incarceration affects the right to personal liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to a speedy trial.

It said that delay in trial demands closer judicial scrutiny.

And yet, despite acknowledging this, the court still denied bail to the two people who have spent the longest time in prison.

The court relied on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which severely restricts bail.

The court said it is only required to see whether the prosecution has presented a prima facie believable case.

They cannot examine defence evidence in detail.  

The court also adopted an expansive interpretation of what constitutes a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA.

It said terrorism is not limited to the use of explosives or weapons, but can include acts that disrupt civic life, choke essential supplies, or paralyse economic activity.

On this basis, speeches and protest strategies like road blocks were treated as capable of threatening the security of the state.

This reasoning was reported in detail by LiveLaw in its analysis of the judgment.

The bench further observed that conspiracies are often articulated in the language of non-violence.

Therefore, it said, a non-violent speech cannot automatically be treated as evidence that can absolve the accused at the bail stage.

It also rejected the argument that Umar Khalid was not present in Delhi during the riots.

In a phased conspiracy, the court said, physical absence at the final site of violence does not end the inquiry 

The court repeatedly emphasised that it was not deciding guilt.

These questions, it said, would be examined during trial.

But that trial has still not happened.

By September 2025, Umar Khalid had completed five years in prison.

A Guardian report that month described him as India’s most prominent political prisoner, still unconvicted and still awaiting trial.

It noted that in several other Delhi riots cases, courts have found that Delhi Police fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses — though the police have denied these allegations.

Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have called Khalid’s continued detention unjust and emblematic of a broader pattern of repression.

In all these reports, again and again, the same phrase comes up: the process is the punishment.

Back to 2016, the JNU controversy, televised accusations of sedition, doctored videos, and the branding of dissenters as the “tukde tukde gang”.

The Wire also documents how television channels ran parallel prosecutions, how police narratives were amplified on prime-time debates, and how senior editors openly spoke about ensuring that Umar Khalid did not come out on bail.

It also points out who never made it into the chargesheet — political leaders who made direct calls to violence and enjoyed the protection of power.

All of this forms the backdrop against which the Supreme Court’s language today must be read.

The court says bail is being denied because of role differentiation, security concerns, and prima facie material.

But the cost is five years of a young life — time that cannot be returned even if acquittal comes later.

The Supreme Court has given Umar Khalid the liberty to apply for bail again, after protected witnesses are examined or after another year.

Which raises a larger question.

At what point does pre-trial detention itself become punishment?

And what happens when protest, planning, and political speech are treated as terrorism — not after conviction, but long before trial?

That is the question Umar Khalid’s case forces us to confront.

Produced by Megha Mukundan, Script by Lakshmi Priya, Camera by Ajay R, Edit by Nikhil Sekhar ET

For suggestions and feedbacks, write to lme@thenewsminute.com

Like Pooja’s LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme

If you are watching from abroad, click this link: https://buy.stripe.com/28o01q9md0OPdtm8wR

Become a TNM subscriber- https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription