On Tuesday, October 18, 2022, Delhi High Court dismissed the bail petition filed of activist Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student, in the larger conspiracy case of the Northeast Delhi riots. The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar, while dismissing Khalid’s appeal challenging the trial court order, passed the order stating that "We don't find any merit in bail petition, the petition is dismissed."

Khalid filed a bail petition in the High Court after the Karkardooma Court denied him bail on 24th March 2022. He was arrested on 13th September, 2020, and has been detained for 2 years.

Senior counsel arguing on behalf of Khalid in the bail proceedings, argued that the Amravati speech was given in the context of protests against CAA and that harsh words directed at the government cannot be considered an offence under UAPA. He argued that while the speech in question was clearly anti-CAA and against the government and its policies, there was no call for violence or incitement.

The prosecution submitted that speeches given by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Khalid Saifi showed that they were all connected at the time as part of a conspiracy to commit the 2020 riots. The prosecution also referred to Umar Khalid's Amravati speech as a "calculated speech" because it addressed not only the CAA and NRC-the focal points of protests-but also other issues specifically relating to the Muslim community. The Delhi Police had charged Khalid with disrupting religious sentiments and argued that he was a part of a larger conspiracy in the riots that jolted the national capital. Violence had erupted in these areas during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.

Noting the arguments of both sides, the bench observed that the speech may be offensive, but it is not a terrorist act saying that "…that the speech is in bad taste, does not make it a terrorist act. We understand that extremely well. If the case of the prosecution is premised on how offensive the speech was, that by itself won't constitute an offence. We will give them (prosecution) the opportunity."

The bench also stated that it could not test the veracity of witness statements during the bail stage under UAPA. The bench noted in its order of Umar Khalid's plea that his Amravati speech was obnoxious, hateful, and offensive, and thus prima facie not acceptable.

Case Details:

Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi