NEW DELHI, INDIA — Five years in jail. No trial. No conviction. This is the stark reality for activist Umar Khalid. On October 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of India unleashed its frustration over this very delay, sharply questioning the Delhi Police for the "travesty" of keeping Khalid imprisoned without trial since 2020. The Umar Khalid bail hearing, tied to the controversial 2020 Delhi riots, has become a flashpoint for debates on justice, dissent, and the use of India's stringent anti-terror law, the UAPA.
In a packed courtroom, the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria did not mince words. When the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, requested yet another extension—this time for two weeks—to file replies, the court firmly refused. "This is not acceptable," the bench declared, highlighting the five long years Khalid has already spent in pretrial detention. "Bail is not punishment. The process itself cannot become the punishment."
This judicial rebuke is the latest chapter in the saga of the Umar Khalid case. He, along with other student activists like Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima, was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for an alleged "larger conspiracy" to orchestrate the riots that followed widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The violence in February 2020 left 53 dead and hundreds injured. Five years later, as Khalid's legal team, led by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argues for his liberty, a glaring contrast emerges: while activists remain incarcerated without trial, convicted rapists and murderers with political connections frequently walk free on parole. This article delves into the critical details of today's hearing, the systemic issues it exposes, and the stark "two-justice" system it puts on trial.
SC Grills Delhi Police Over 5-Year "Travesty" of Delay
Today's Supreme Court hearing was a masterclass in judicial impatience. The bench's sharp observations cut through the routine legalese. "He has been in jail for five years. Five years! And you are still asking for time to file a reply?" Justice Kumar pointedly asked ASG Raju. The police's justification—the "voluminous record" and "complexity" of the conspiracy—was met with skepticism. "However complex it may be, five years is five years. This is a travesty of justice," the bench remarked.
Kapil Sibal, arguing for Khalid, hammered this point home. "The process has become the punishment. They have no evidence to start a trial, so they keep him jailed using the process itself. This is a classic case of misuse of UAPA." Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sharjeel Imam in a parallel matter, echoed the sentiment, arguing that the denial of bail in such a prolonged scenario fundamentally violates Article 21, the Right to Life and Liberty. The court's refusal to grant the police more time and its firm scheduling of the next hearing for October 31, 2025, has sent a strong signal that the days of endless delays may be numbered.
5-Year Limbo: Umar Khalid's Grueling Fight for Bail
Umar Khalid's journey through the judicial system has been a long and arduous one. Arrested in September 2020, the former JNU student has seen his bail pleas rejected at every level. The trial court first denied him bail in March 2022, finding that the allegations against him were "prima facie true" under the stringent test of the UAPA. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in October 2022.
His legal team then approached the Supreme Court. However, in a strategic move, Khalid withdrew his plea in February 2024, possibly due to a shifting bench composition, only to refile it later. This October 2025 hearing is the culmination of this renewed push for freedom. Throughout his incarceration, his father, Syed Qurban Hussain, has maintained his son's innocence, stating, "Umar's only crime was to speak for the constitution." This five-year period without a trial starting underscores the central critique of the UAPA: it enables indefinite detention based on accusations alone.
Parallel Case: Sharjeel Imam's Multi-State Legal Battle
Often heard alongside Khalid's plea is the case of Sharjeel Imam, a PhD scholar from Jamia Millia Islamia. Imam faces a more complex legal web, with charges not only in the Delhi riots UAPA case (FIR 59/2020) but also multiple sedition cases filed across several states (like Assam, Manipur, and Uttar Pradesh) for his speeches during the anti-CAA protests. He was arrested even before Khalid, in January 2020.
While he has managed to secure bail in some of the state-level sedition cases, he remains firmly imprisoned under the Delhi UAPA charges. His lawyers argue that his speeches, which called for a "chakka jam" (road blockade), were a form of protest and not an incitement to violence. The prosecution, however, paints him as a key instigator. His case, like Khalid's, highlights how protest speech can be criminalized and entangled in a multi-state legal morass that makes release virtually impossible.
Broader Web: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, and the CAA Protests
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are not alone. The same "larger conspiracy" FIR ropes in over a dozen other student leaders and activists. Among them are Gulfisha Fatima, an MBA graduate and community organizer from Seelampur, and Meeran Haider, a PhD scholar from Jamia. Both were arrested in early 2020 and have also been denied bail repeatedly under the UAPA.
These activists were the backbone of the peaceful, women-led sit-in protests against the CAA, most notably at Shaheen Bagh. The police charge sheet alleges that these protests were a "facade" for a deeper conspiracy to create communal unrest. The accused, however, maintain they were practicing their democratic right to dissent against a law they view as discriminatory against Muslims. Their continued incarceration serves as a chilling message to others who might consider organizing similar grassroots movements.
UAPA: The Law That Makes Bail Nearly Impossible
At the heart of the Umar Khalid case is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). What makes this law so draconian is one specific clause: Section 43D(5). This provision states that bail cannot be granted to an accused if the court, after reviewing the case diary and police report, believes that the accusations are "prima facie true."
This effectively flips the bedrock principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head. For bail, the accused must essentially prove their innocence, a near-impossible task without a full trial or the ability to cross-examine evidence. As legal experts from Amnesty International have pointed out, this clause is the primary tool that enables the state to keep individuals in "preventive detention" for years, regardless of the eventual strength of the case. The trial, in effect, becomes redundant, as the punishment of imprisonment is already served.
A Tale of Two Justice Systems: Activists Jailed, Rapists on Parole
The frustration in the Umar Khalid bail hearing is magnified when contrasted with the treatment of convicted criminals who enjoy apparent political or religious clout. This isn't a comparison of "bail" (for undertrials) versus "parole" or "remission" (for convicts), but rather a stark look at the intent and speed of the state machinery. While the state fights tooth and nail to prevent bail for an activist without a conviction, it actively facilitates the release of convicts.
This disparity creates the public perception of a two-tiered justice system: one for dissenters and minorities, and another for the politically powerful. The following cases are an unmissable part of this conversation.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim's Frequent Paroles
Gurmeet Ram Rahim, the head of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, is serving a life sentence for rape (since 2017) and the murder of a journalist. Despite these heinous convictions, he has been granted parole at least 17 times. These releases often coincide suspiciously with election periods. For example, he was granted a 20-day parole in October 2024, just before the Haryana assembly elections, where his massive follower base is a significant "vote bank." He received another 40-day parole in August 2025. This pattern suggests a "quid pro quo" where a convict's freedom is allegedly traded for political support, a stark contrast to the five-year un-tried detention of Umar Khalid.
Asaram and Chinmayanand's "Health" Bails
The pattern continues with other powerful figures. Asaram Bapu, convicted for the rape of a minor in 2018, has repeatedly received bail or furlough on "health grounds," including an extended release from March to September 2025. His son, Narayan Sai, also convicted of rape, enjoys similar benefits. Similarly, Swami Chinmayanand, a former BJP Union Minister, was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020 just months after being accused of raping a law student. The victim who filed the case was, in a shocking turn, later charged with extortion. This lightning-fast release on "health grounds" for powerful men stands in jarring opposition to the five-year procedural stonewalling in the Umar Khalid case.
Echoes of Bilkis Bano: When "Remission" Shocked the Nation
Perhaps the most shocking example was the case of Bilkis Bano, a survivor of the 2002 Gujarat riots. In August 2022, the 11 men convicted of her gang rape and the murder of her family members were granted "remission" (early release) by the Gujarat state government. They were garlanded and celebrated upon their release. This decision was seen as a profound failure of justice.
It was only after a long legal battle by Bilkis Bano that the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment in January 2024, quashed the remission, calling it "fraudulent" and an "abuse of power." The men were ordered back to prison. This case highlights a state government's willingness to release convicted rapists and murderers, while the same state machinery (in Delhi's case) opposes the bail of an un-tried activist. For more context, see Scroll.in's coverage.
Public & Media React: "Process is the Punishment"
The phrase "process is the punishment," used by Kapil Sibal, has become a rallying cry on social media. Following today's hearing, X (formerly Twitter) was flooded with reactions. "#UmarKhalidBail" and "#DelhiRiots" trended, with users expressing outrage. "Five years without trial is not justice, it's a kidnapping by the state," one user tweeted. Another posted, "Reminder: Rapists on parole for elections, students in jail for speeches. This is the New India."
Media editorials have also grown more critical. Noted journalist Rajdeep Sardesai tweeted: "Date after date, hearing after hearing. The SC must finally put an end to this. Justice delayed is justice denied." The public fury isn't just about Umar Khalid; it's about the erosion of faith in a system that appears to be weaponized against dissent.
Human Toll: Families Caught in the Endless Wait
Behind the legal arguments and political debates lies a profound human cost. For five years, families of the accused have been on a painful journey. Umar Khalid's father, S.Q.R. Hussain, has been a stoic presence at every hearing, a symbol of a family's unbreakable hope. Sharjeel Imam's mother speaks of sending home-cooked food to Tihar, clinging to memories. Gulfisha Fatima's family, from a humble background, has navigated a complex legal world they never expected to be a part of.
Meeran Haider's wife has spoken about raising their child, answering unanswerable questions about when "Papa" will be home. These families have lost five years of milestones—birthdays, anniversaries, and simple daily moments. Their quiet suffering is a testament to the real-world damage inflicted by a justice system mired in delays.
Is Reform Possible? The Path to Fairer Bail Laws
Today's Supreme Court observations are a welcome step, but legal experts argue that systemic reform is the only long-term solution. India's judiciary is crushed under a backlog of over 50 million cases. The Umar Khalid case exposes the urgent need for:
- UAPA Reform: A complete review or repeal of Section 43D(5) to bring it in line with the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
- Time-Bound Trials: Legislating mandatory, time-bound trials, especially for cases where bail is denied under stringent laws.
- Judicial Accountability: A mechanism to hold investigating agencies accountable for deliberate delays and "fishing expeditions."
Without these fundamental changes, activists and dissenters will continue to languish in jail, and the "process" will remain the "punishment."
Global View: International Watchdogs Condemn Delays
The Umar Khalid case has not gone unnoticed by the international community. His prolonged detention has been flagged by numerous global human rights organizations. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in an October 2025 statement, called his detention a "violation of international norms" and urged for his immediate release or a fair trial. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have repeatedly cited his case as part of a broader, alarming pattern of "stifling dissent" and "targeting minorities" in India.
This global scrutiny puts India's democratic and judicial credentials under a microscope. As Al Jazeera reports, the outcome of the October 31 hearing is being watched closely, not just by Khalid's family, but by a global audience concerned about the state of civil liberties in the world's largest democracy. The question remains: will the Supreme Court finally cut the Gordian knot of delay, or will the wait for justice continue?
JPhilips 
