In the ongoing Delhi riots case, Umar Khalid challenges his imprisonment, citing inequality in the treatment of co-accused granted bail, while his own appeal for bail is still pending.
Mohammad bin Ismail | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court heard the ongoing 2020 Delhi riots case against former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Umar Khalid on Thursday. Khalid, who was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the violence, questioned the rationale behind his continued imprisonment while his co-accused, including Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, had been granted bail despite facing similar charges.
Khalid’s lawyer, Trideep Payas, argued in the court that merely being a part of a WhatsApp group or attending protests cannot be equated with terrorism. He specifically refuted claims that Khalid had played an active role in inciting violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Payas emphasised that his client had not even participated in the online discussions within the group, and he had not posted a single message.
In his defence, Payas stated, “Joining a WhatsApp group does not make someone a criminal. Khalid was forcibly added to this group and never engaged with it. He was not involved in any wrongdoing.” He argued that the police had erroneously linked Khalid’s participation in protests to terrorism. “There is no offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in this case. Simply being present in a protest or meeting does not make one guilty of terrorism,” Payas asserted.
The lawyer also pointed to the fact that Kalita, Natasha, and Tanha, who were accused of being part of similar social groups and facing more serious charges, had been granted bail. He questioned the inconsistency in the treatment of the accused and stated that the principle of equality under the law should apply. Payas urged the court to consider the long period of Khalid’s detention without trial and the absence of formal charges, arguing that these factors should be grounds for granting bail. “The delay in the trial and the failure to frame charges after all this time is another reason why my client should be released on bail,” he added.
Umar Khalid’s arrest in the wake of the 2020 Delhi riots has sparked controversy, as many have questioned the use of the UAPA, a stringent law often criticised for its potential to stifle dissent. Khalid’s defence lawyers argue that he is being targeted for his political activism and his vocal opposition to the CAA and NRC. His arrest came after violent clashes erupted in East Delhi, leading to the deaths of 53 individuals and injuries to over 700 others. The violence, which coincided with large-scale protests, was blamed on both pro- and anti-CAA groups, with accusations of deliberate incitement and violence from multiple sides.
The case has garnered significant attention, as it is seen by some as a reflection of the growing tension between the Indian government and student activists. Khalid’s supporters argue that his arrest is politically motivated and part of a broader crackdown on dissent. “This is a classic case of using the law to suppress peaceful protests. Khalid was not involved in any violence, yet he remains behind bars while others, with similar charges, are granted bail,” said a close associate of Khalid, requesting anonymity.
Khalid’s legal team has also raised concerns over the prolonged detention without trial, with Payas pointing out that the lack of a charge sheet and the delay in the trial process is a clear violation of Khalid’s fundamental rights. “The law is supposed to be equal for all, but in this case, the inconsistency is glaring. If the principle of fairness and equality is upheld, there is no reason why Khalid should continue to be in jail while others facing similar charges walk free,” Payas said.
As the legal battle continues, Khalid’s supporters are hopeful that the court will consider the merit of his arguments for bail, and that justice will prevail. The case is set to resume for further hearings on March 4.