The long wait for justice: Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and the rule of law

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

The prolonged incarceration of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case continues to provoke debate over the balance between national security, individual liberty, and the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial. More than four years after their arrests, neither has been convicted, while the trial remains incomplete. Their continued detention has become a focal point in a broader discussion about due process, pre-trial incarceration, and the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Umar Khalid was arrested on 13 September 2020 in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. Sharjeel Imam, who had been arrested earlier in January 2020 in separate cases, was subsequently named in the larger conspiracy investigation. The prosecution maintains that both played significant roles in a conspiracy leading to the violence that claimed more than 50 lives and caused extensive damage to property. The accused, however, have consistently denied the allegations and maintain that they are being prosecuted for their political views and participation in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The repeated rejection of their bail applications has intensified public scrutiny of the legal process. While courts have considered the seriousness of the allegations and the provisions of the UAPA in declining bail, critics argue that prolonged detention without the conclusion of a trial risks undermining the principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A key element cited by investigators against Umar Khalid is his speech delivered in Amravati on 17 February 2020, shortly before the Delhi riots. In the speech, he urged people to participate in peaceful protests during the visit of then US President Donald Trump. He appealed for non-violent resistance, stating that protesters should respond to hatred with love, carry the Constitution and the national flag, and remain committed to peaceful democratic methods even if they faced arrests or violence.

Supporters argue that the speech was an explicit appeal for peaceful protest rooted in constitutional values. Investigating agencies, however, contend that the speech cannot be viewed in isolation and must be assessed alongside other evidence presented in the alleged conspiracy case. During bail proceedings, the Delhi High Court described aspects of the speech as "obnoxious" and "hateful" while considering the prosecution's broader allegations. Importantly, these observations were made during bail hearings, and no court has found Umar Khalid guilty of the charges against him.

The prolonged detention has attracted criticism from a range of political leaders, academics, lawyers, and human rights organisations. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has questioned whether keeping an accused in prison for years before the completion of trial is consistent with the principles of justice. Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State Assembly, has also raised concerns about Khalid's continued detention, describing it as an issue of due process.

International organisations such as Amnesty International, along with Indian civil liberties groups including the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR), have repeatedly expressed concern over the use of stringent anti-terror laws in cases involving extended pre-trial detention. Their common argument is that denial of bail for prolonged periods can effectively convert the judicial process itself into punishment before conviction.

Those raising concerns frequently refer to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), in which the Court held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail in UAPA cases where trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. They argue that the principles laid down in that judgment deserve careful consideration in cases involving prolonged incarceration.

The debate surrounding the Delhi riots cannot be separated from the wider political climate that existed during the anti-CAA protests. Several statements made by political leaders before the violence attracted widespread public attention and legal scrutiny. These included slogans and speeches by BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, and Parvesh Verma, which critics described as inflammatory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's remark that those involved in violence could be identified "by the clothes they are wearing" also generated considerable political debate.

Whether these statements contributed to communal tensions has remained a matter of public controversy and legal discussion. The contrasting treatment of different speeches during the period continues to be cited by critics who question the consistency of legal standards applied in cases involving alleged hate speech and incitement.

At the heart of the debate lies a larger constitutional question: how long should an accused remain imprisoned before guilt is determined through a completed trial? Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, while Indian criminal jurisprudence has consistently recognised that bail is generally the rule and jail the exception. However, laws such as the UAPA impose significantly stricter conditions for granting bail, making prolonged incarceration more likely when trials are delayed.

This has prompted legal scholars and civil liberties advocates to argue that excessive delays risk weakening the constitutional safeguards designed to protect personal liberty. They contend that when judicial proceedings extend over many years, the distinction between detention pending trial and punishment after conviction becomes increasingly blurred.

At the same time, it is equally important to recognise the state's responsibility to investigate serious crimes, prosecute those responsible for violence, and ensure accountability through the legal process. The allegations in the Delhi riots conspiracy case are grave, involving accusations that go beyond individual speeches and encompass an alleged wider conspiracy. These claims remain subject to judicial determination and have yet to be tested through the completion of the trial.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply whether the accused are eventually convicted or acquitted. It is whether the criminal justice system can simultaneously protect national security, uphold the rule of law, and preserve the constitutional rights of those facing prosecution. Democracies are often judged not only by their ability to punish wrongdoing but also by their commitment to ensuring that justice is delivered fairly, transparently, and within a reasonable timeframe.

The continued incarceration of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam has thus evolved into more than an individual legal dispute. It has become a broader test of India's criminal justice system and its ability to reconcile security concerns with constitutional freedoms. Whatever the eventual outcome of the trial, the case is likely to remain central to ongoing debates over due process, the application of anti-terror legislation, and the meaning of personal liberty under the Constitution.

---

Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a group that works to counter disinformation on social media