By Krishna Dua 
Umar Khalid Case Update: Legal Proceedings Remain in Focus
Entering the final days of 2025, the legal proceedings surrounding Umar Khalid, the jailed student activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) researcher, continue to draw intense scrutiny from courts, activists, and international observers. Charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for his purported involvement in the “larger conspiracy” of the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid has endured over five years of pretrial detention in Tihar Jail. The recent denial of regular bail, coupled with a fleeting interim relief for a family wedding and escalating global advocacy, has reignited debates on judicial expediency, human rights, and the application of draconian laws. As of December 31, 2025, with the Supreme Court still deliberating on his appeal, the case exemplifies the protracted nature of UAPA trials, where bail remains a distant prospect. This update examines the latest courtroom maneuvers, evidentiary hurdles, stakeholder reactions, and the broader implications for dissent in India, underscoring a saga that tests the boundaries of constitutional freedoms.
Recap of Charges and Prolonged Detention
Umar Khalid’s arrest on September 14, 2020, stemmed from Delhi Police’s investigation into the northeast Delhi riots, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The 22-year-old, known for his fiery oratory on social justice and Kashmir, was accused of masterminding violence through inflammatory speeches and coordination via encrypted apps. The 12,000-page chargesheet under FIR 59/2020 labels him a linchpin in a network involving co-accused like Sharjeel Imam, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita, invoking UAPA Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 for unlawful activities, conspiracy, and terrorist acts.
Khalid’s defense, spearheaded by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Trideep Pais, contends the charges are fabricated, lacking direct evidence of riot instigation. His February 2020 speech at Ambedkar University—criticizing CAA as discriminatory—was twisted by prosecutors as a blueprint for “chakka jam” blockades leading to chaos. Despite no convictions in the riots cluster after five years, UAPA’s Section 43D(5) erects a formidable bail barrier: release only if accusations appear “not prima facie true.” Trial courts and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly affirmed the charges’ validity, citing “national security threats,” leaving Khalid in limbo. As of December 31, over 1,000 witnesses and 700 documents pend, with hearings mired in adjournments—a stark violation of speedy trial mandates under Article 21.
Recent Courtroom Developments: Bail Hearings and Interim Relief
December 2025 witnessed a bittersweet chapter in Khalid’s legal battle. On December 12, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajaj of Karkardooma Court granted seven days’ interim bail (extended to 14 days)—from December 16 to 29—for his sister Ayesha Fatima Syeda’s wedding in Lucknow. Conditions were stringent: no media interactions, no protests, daily Delhi Police reporting, and a ₹50,000 personal bond. Khalid, emerging after 1,800 days inside, attended the low-key nuptials on December 20, sharing rare family moments that humanized his ordeal.
Surrendering on December 29 amid supporter vigils, Khalid returned to Tihar, where he resumed teaching inmates constitutional law—a quiet act of resistance. This interim nod echoes prior concessions, like 2022’s funeral parole, but underscores systemic rigidity: regular bail pleas face rejection. The Delhi High Court’s October 2022 denial by Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar held that Khalid’s “ideological leanings” posed risks, a stance upheld in August 2024.
The apex court’s proceedings dominate focus. Khalid’s Special Leave Petition (SLP Crl.) No. 6729/2022, filed post-high court rebuff, underwent 14 hearings before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. On October 15, 2025, arguments concluded, with the bench reserving orders after probing Delhi Police’s “conspiracy” narrative. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the evidence—WhatsApp chats and witness statements—as irrefutable, while Sibal decried it as “speculative hearsay,” invoking the Bhima Koregaon precedent where similar UAPA cases crumbled on appeal. As December closes, no verdict has emerged, fueling speculation of a January 2026 listing. Legal experts like Sanjay Hegde note the delay as emblematic of 4.4 crore pending cases nationwide, disproportionately affecting minorities.
Evidentiary Challenges and Trial Stagnation
At the heart of Khalid’s case lie evidentiary frailties that prolong proceedings. Prosecutors rely on 200+ protected witnesses, many anonymous under CrPC Section 161, whose statements—alleging Khalid’s “anti-Hindu” rhetoric—remain unexamined. Digital trails, including geolocated calls, are contested as invasive under privacy rights post-Puttaswamy. The “larger conspiracy” theory, borrowing from the aborted 2001 Parliament attack probe, links unrelated protests, but lacks forensic ties to the riots’ 53 deaths.
Khalid’s team has filed multiple discharge applications, arguing IPC Section 120B (conspiracy) misapplication. A December 20 hearing before Additional Sessions Judge Arul Varma deferred cross-examinations, citing witness safety—a UAPA staple that critics decry as a shield for weak cases. National Investigation Agency (NIA) parallels, like the 96% acquittal rate in UAPA appeals (per NCRB 2024), bolster defenses. Yet, with trials fragmented across sessions courts, cohesion eludes, extending Khalid’s limbo into a sixth year.
International and Domestic Advocacy: Amplifying the Cry for Justice
Global solidarity peaked in late December. On December 30, eight U.S. Congress members—led by Representatives Jamie Raskin and James McGovern, including Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar—addressed a letter to Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra. The bipartisan appeal demanded “immediate bail and a fair, timely trial,” citing ICCPR violations and UN arbitrary detention guidelines. It spotlighted Khalid’s 1,800-day pretrial stint as “inhumane,” extending support to co-accused like Gulfisha Fatima.
Echoing this, New York State Assemblymember Zohran Kwame Mamdani, of Ugandan-Indian heritage, penned a poignant handwritten note on December 28: “We’re all thinking of you… Don’t let bitterness consume you.” Shared via social media, it garnered 50,000 engagements, blending personal empathy with calls for due process. The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) amplified these on December 31, linking them to broader UAPA misuse against 80% Muslim/Dalit detainees.
Domestically, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) staged December 30 protests outside Tihar, while JNU alumni like Apoorvanand urged judicial intervention. Khalid’s father, SQR Ilyas, a CPI(M) veteran, told ANI on December 31: “Umar’s fight is for India’s soul—equality over enmity.” Countervoices, from BJP’s Amit Malviya, branded the interventions “foreign meddling,” defending UAPA as vital against “radicalism.” Social media polarized: #FreeUmarKhalid trended with 600,000 posts, clashing with #DelhiRiotsJustice demands.
Broader Implications: UAPA as a Dissent Deterrent
Khalid’s case illuminates UAPA’s weaponization, amended in 2019 to deem individuals “terrorists” sans trial. With 12,000+ annual cases (mostly undertrials), it boasts 72% conviction at trial but 96% reversals on appeal, per Lok Sabha data. In the Delhi riots’ 59 FIRs, 700+ arrests yielded scant closure for victims’ kin, like advocate Vrinda Grover’s clients seeking communal healing.
Stakeholders diverge: Amnesty International’s December 28 report termed it “lawfare against activists,” while Home Minister Amit Shah, in a December 25 Lok Sabha reply, affirmed UAPA’s role in foiling 1,500 terror plots. The Bar Council of India’s pending 2025 resolution seeks bail reforms, echoing Supreme Court murmurs in Vernon Gonsalves (2024) on “bail not jail.”
For youth like Khalid—once a Rhodes Scholar hopeful—the case stifles academia, with JNU’s free-speech legacy tarnished. Economically, it drains resources: ₹50 crore annually on Delhi riot probes alone.
Pathways Forward: Anticipating 2026 Resolutions
As 2025 ends, optimism flickers. A favorable Supreme Court ruling could dismantle the conspiracy edifice, granting bail and accelerating trials. Precedents like Teesta Setalvad’s 2023 release signal shifts. Civil society pushes for UAPA amendments via petitions to the Law Commission.
Khalid, undeterred, pens essays from jail on constitutionalism, smuggled via lawyers. His resolve mirrors the Preamble’s promise—justice for all.
Conclusion
On December 31, 2025, Umar Khalid’s case lingers in judicial shadows, a mirror to India’s democratic tensions. From interim wedding joys to U.S. pleas, it humanizes the abstract fight for liberty. Legal proceedings, though stalled, inch toward reckoning, reminding us: true security safeguards rights, not silences voices. As the gavel awaits, Khalid’s story demands not pity, but principled action—for in his chains, freedom’s fragility gleams.