After languishing in prison for over four years, first with delayed chargesheet filing, then delayed trials, and in the interim multiple denied bails, Umar Khalid, the former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been granted a seven-day interim bail by a Delhi court to attend a family wedding, marking a significant moment in his ongoing legal battle related to the 2020 Delhi riots.
Khalid has been in custody since September 14, 2020, facing serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his alleged involvement in a larger “conspiracy” that led to the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.
The court’s decision, made by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, allows Khalid to be released from December 28 to January 3 under strict conditions, including restrictions on social media use and contact with witnesses.
This interim bail follows multiple rejections of his regular bail applications, with the Delhi High Court previously deeming the allegations against him as “prima facie true”.
Khalid’s case has drawn significant attention, raising questions about civil liberties, the application of the UAPA, and the treatment of dissent in India. His legal team has argued that there is a lack of direct evidence linking him to the violence, and they have sought parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail. As the legal proceedings continue, Khalid’s situation remains emblematic of broader issues surrounding political dissent and judicial processes in India.
Jargon
- Conditional interim bail: A temporary release from custody granted by a court under specific conditions, allowing the accused to attend significant personal events while ensuring they do not interfere with ongoing legal proceedings.
- UAPA: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, a stringent anti-terror law that allows for the detention of individuals suspected of involvement in activities deemed unlawful or terrorist in nature.
- Prima facie: A Latin term meaning ‘at first glance’ or ‘on its face,’ used in legal contexts to indicate that there is sufficient evidence to support a claim or charge without requiring further proof at that moment.
- Interim bail: A temporary form of bail granted for a specific period, often for personal reasons, allowing the accused to leave custody while still being subject to legal restrictions.
- Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, which can lead to criminal charges if proven.
Viewpoints 💭
- The left views Umar Khalid’s prolonged detention under the UAPA as a suppression of dissent and a violation of civil liberties, arguing that the lack of direct evidence against him highlights the misuse of draconian laws to stifle political opposition.
- They emphasise the selective nature of the charges, pointing out that other individuals present at the same meetings as Khalid, such as Yogendra Yadav and Rahul Roy, were not charged, suggesting a biased application of the law.
- The left criticises the judiciary for repeatedly denying Khalid’s bail despite the principle that ‘bail is a rule, jail is an exception,’ arguing that his case exemplifies the erosion of judicial independence and fairness.
- Khalid’s defence highlights the absence of physical evidence or recovery linking him to the riots, arguing that his speeches and actions were non-violent and that he is being targeted for his activism against the CAA and NRC.
- Civil rights groups and human rights organisations have condemned Khalid’s arrest as part of a broader pattern of using the UAPA to silence activists and dissenters, calling for his immediate release and a review of the charges against him.
- The left perceives Khalid’s detention as an attack on civil liberties and a misuse of the UAPA to suppress dissent, while the right views it as a necessary measure to address serious charges of conspiracy and maintain public order.
- While the left criticises the selective application of charges and the lack of evidence against Khalid, the right emphasizes the need for strict action against those accused of inciting violence and promoting anti-national narratives.
- The left argues that Khalid’s case highlights the erosion of judicial independence and fairness, whereas the right supports the judiciary’s decisions, citing the prima facie evidence and the potential threat to public order.
- The left calls for Khalid’s release and a review of the charges, viewing his detention as part of a broader pattern of using the UAPA to silence activists, while the right sees his detention as justified given the gravity of the charges and the ongoing investigation.
- The left views Khalid’s speeches and actions as non-violent and targeted for his activism, while the right argues that the evidence suggests his involvement in a larger conspiracy to incite violence and defame the government.
- The right views Umar Khalid’s arrest and detention as justified, given the serious charges under the UAPA related to the 2020 Delhi riots, which they argue were part of a larger conspiracy to incite violence and defame the government.
- They emphasise the need for strict measures against those accused of orchestrating riots, arguing that the evidence, including speeches and meetings, suggests Khalid’s involvement in promoting anti-national narratives.
- The right supports the judiciary’s decision to deny Khalid’s bail, citing the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and the potential threat to public order if he were released.
- They argue that the use of the UAPA is necessary to address the gravity of the charges and to prevent further unrest, viewing Khalid’s case as a test of the state’s resolve to maintain law and order.
- The right dismisses claims of selective prosecution, arguing that the legal proceedings are based on evidence and that Khalid’s prolonged detention is a result of the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing investigation.
Prominent Voices 📣
- Delhi Police (Law Enforcement Agency): Opposes Khalid’s bail, alleging his influence in amplifying the anti-CAA narrative as part of a planned conspiracy.
9
10
- Justice Siddharth Mridul (Delhi High Court Judge): Previously denied bail to Umar Khalid, emphasising the prima facie case against him under UAPA.
11
- Amit Prasad (Special Public Prosecutor): Supports the prosecution’s case against Khalid, arguing against his bail.
4