Introduction:
Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student and activist Umar Khalid has now completed four years in jail, a milestone that has sparked widespread debate and drawn international attention. Arrested in connection with the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, Khalid’s prolonged detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has raised significant concerns among human rights organizations, legal experts, and activists. His case sits at the crossroads of a heated debate on the limits of free speech, the use of anti-terrorism laws, and the suppression of dissent in India.
Background and Arrest:
Umar Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, in the wake of the deadly riots in northeast Delhi that resulted in 53 deaths and over 200 injuries. The violence erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), a controversial law that critics argued was discriminatory against Muslims. Khalid, a vocal critic of the government’s policies, was initially charged with inciting the violence. Although this initial case was dropped in December 2022, he remains in custody under UAPA, accused of conspiring to incite violence and disrupt public order.
The UAPA, India’s stringent anti-terrorism law, allows for detention without trial for extended periods, making it one of the most powerful tools in the government’s legal arsenal. Khalid’s arrest under this act marked a significant escalation, moving his case beyond a simple law-and-order issue to one of national security. According to the charges, Khalid is alleged to have masterminded the riots, using the anti-CAA protests as a cover to incite violence.
Legal Struggles and Repeated Bail Rejections:
Khalid’s legal journey has been fraught with challenges. His multiple attempts to secure bail have been consistently rejected by various courts. The Delhi High Court noted that the anti-CAA protests had “metamorphosed into violent riots” and that there seemed to be a conspiratorial element to these events, suggesting Khalid’s active involvement. Following the High Court’s rejection of his bail application, Khalid appealed to the Supreme Court.
However, his bail plea in the Supreme Court has faced numerous adjournments, with the proceedings postponed 13 times for various reasons. At one point, Khalid’s legal team, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, sought to withdraw the bail application due to a “change in circumstances.” This decision was made to challenge the UAPA’s provisions in the trial court, reflecting the complex legal strategy employed in Khalid’s defense.
In May 2023, a special court rejected Khalid’s second bail application, reiterating the prima facie case against him. Despite arguments that other activists had been granted bail in similar circumstances, the court maintained that the evidence against Khalid justified his continued detention. The persistent denial of bail has become a central aspect of the controversy, highlighting the challenges faced by those detained under UAPA.
Human Rights Foundation's Intervention:
On the fourth anniversary of his arrest, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) called for Khalid’s unconditional release, describing his detention as “arbitrary” and “excessively long”. HRF asserts that Khalid’s imprisonment is based on fabricated evidence and his criticism of the Indian government’s actions. According to HRF, Khalid is falsely accused of terrorism, sedition, and promoting religious enmity for speaking up for the rights of India’s minorities and marginalized communities.
HRF is preparing to submit a petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) on Khalid’s behalf. This move underscores the international dimension of Khalid’s case, as human rights organizations attempt to leverage global institutions to address what they see as a miscarriage of justice. The petition will request that the UNWGAD declare Khalid’s detention arbitrary under international law and urge the Indian government to release him and others unjustly held for exercising their right to free speech.
The Charges and Witness Testimonies:
Khalid faces severe charges, including conspiracy, terrorism, and promoting religious enmity. The case against him includes testimonies from several protected witnesses. One witness, codenamed “Bond,” alleged that Khalid and others orchestrated plans to incite violence during the anti-CAA protests. According to Bond, Khalid was involved in planning “chakka jams” (roadblocks) in various parts of Delhi to disrupt public order and create unrest. Another witness claimed that Khalid encouraged individuals to oppose the government by raising awareness about the CAA.
The chargesheet also references a speech Khalid gave in Amravati, Maharashtra, where he criticized the government and alluded to the upcoming visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump. This speech was interpreted by authorities as an attempt to provoke unrest during a high-profile international event, adding to the gravity of the charges against him.
Controversy Surrounding the UAPA:
The UAPA has long been criticized for its potential to suppress dissent and curtail civil liberties. Under this law, individuals can be detained without formal charges for up to 180 days, with limited scope for judicial review. Critics argue that the UAPA has been weaponized against activists, students, and journalists, creating a chilling effect on free speech and political dissent. Khalid’s case has become emblematic of these concerns, drawing attention to the broader implications of using such laws in a democratic society.
Khalid’s legal team has argued that his arrest under UAPA is an abuse of the law, aimed at silencing his political dissent rather than addressing any genuine threat to national security. However, the Indian government maintains that the UAPA is a necessary tool to combat terrorism and protect national security, and that Khalid’s actions posed a legitimate threat that warranted his detention.
International and Domestic Reactions:
The international community has been vocal in its concern over Khalid’s detention. Human rights organizations, activists, and academics have criticized the Indian government for what they see as a crackdown on free speech. The United Nations, various human rights groups, and global intellectuals have called for a review of the UAPA’s use and have urged the Indian government to adhere to international human rights standards.
Domestically, Khalid’s arrest has polarized opinions. Supporters view him as a political prisoner who is being persecuted for his activism and outspoken criticism of the government. They argue that his detention under UAPA is part of a larger pattern of suppressing dissent. On the other hand, critics of Khalid view his detention as justified, given the severity of the riots and the alleged conspiracy to incite violence. They argue that the state has a duty to act against individuals who threaten public order and national security.
Impact on Civil Liberties and Free Speech:
Khalid’s case has reignited debates on civil liberties and the right to free speech in India. While the government argues that it is acting within its legal mandate to maintain law and order, critics contend that such actions undermine democratic values and the right to dissent. The case has brought attention to the role of the judiciary in balancing state power and individual rights, particularly in cases involving national security.
The broader implications of Khalid’s detention extend beyond his individual case, touching on the fundamental principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the limits of state power. It has become a symbol of the ongoing struggle between state authority and the freedom of expression, a debate that continues to shape India’s political and social landscape.
Conclusion:
Umar Khalid’s four-year imprisonment remains a focal point in the ongoing debate over civil liberties, free speech, and the use of anti-terrorism laws in India. The international and domestic reactions to his case reflect a deep divide on issues of justice, state authority, and human rights. As Khalid continues to await trial, his case highlights the tension between the government’s efforts to maintain order and the rights of individuals to dissent and protest.
The Human Rights Foundation’s call for his release and the pending petition to the United Nations add to the mounting pressure on the Indian government to address the legal and ethical concerns surrounding his detention. Whether Umar Khalid will be granted bail or continue to face prolonged incarceration remains uncertain, but his case will undoubtedly continue to shape the discourse on civil liberties in India.
