Omar Khalid Bail Hearing: A Legal Battle Between Liberty and National Security

Source: Law Chakra Youtube Channel

New Delhi: In a significant development in the ongoing 2020 Delhi riots case, the bail pleas of former JNU student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam once again reached the Delhi High Court, after a previous round in the Supreme Court. The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, who have now reserved their judgment, signaling that a crucial verdict is imminent.

The case revolves around allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). These riots claimed 53 lives and injured over 400 people, making it one of the most violent communal clashes in recent years.

High Drama in the Courtroom

The hearing witnessed intense arguments as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta personally appeared for the Delhi Police, strongly opposing bail for the accused, including Khalid, Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, and several others who have been in judicial custody for over four years without charges being framed.

According to the defense, the prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Their argument:

“We have been in jail for years. Charges have not been framed, and the trial has not progressed. Grant us bail.”

However, SG Mehta dismissed this contention outright, asserting that national security overrides prolonged detention considerations.

“This is not about delay in trial; this is about a conspiracy to attack the sovereignty of India by targeting the national capital. If you act against the nation, you better be in jail,” Mehta told the court in a statement that created a charged atmosphere.

Delhi Police’s Case: A Planned Conspiracy

The Delhi Police and the prosecution maintain that the riots were not a “spontaneous flare-up” but a pre-planned, well-orchestrated conspiracy to divide the nation along religious lines. They allege that the accused acted in concert through WhatsApp groups, coordinating protests and violence to create chaos during then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India—a move intended to embarrass the Indian government internationally.

SG Mehta cited reports from international media outlets like The Guardian, claiming that the accused aimed to “globally defame India” by orchestrating large-scale violence on symbolic dates to maximize global attention.

“We are dealing with a well-organized conspiracy, executed from the heart of the national capital, designed for nationwide impact,” he argued.

The Solicitor General particularly focused on Sharjeel Imam’s controversial speeches, which allegedly suggested a four-week timeline for executing the conspiracy and called for cutting off the Northeast supply route to Assam, which the government argues was a call to action rather than political dissent.

The Core Debate: Dissent or Conspiracy?

The case has sparked a fierce public debate on the thin line between free speech and sedition. Supporters of Khalid and Imam argue that their speeches were selectively quoted, stripped of context, and that they were peaceful faces of the anti-CAA protests. They allege that the government targeted them because of their popularity and influence among protestors.

Critics, however, maintain that these individuals were intellectual architects of violence, using their ideology to radicalize crowds and destabilize communal harmony.

The court now faces a complex question:

• Can dissent survive in India if perceived as dangerous by the State?
• Should national security justify prolonged detention without trial?

What’s at Stake?

If the court denies bail, it could set a precedent that national security concerns justify indefinite incarceration without trial in certain cases. Conversely, if bail is granted, it reinforces the principle that even those accused of serious offenses retain the right to a speedy and fair trial—a cornerstone of Indian democracy.

The judgment, expected soon, will have far-reaching implications for civil liberties, judicial independence, and the interpretation of constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, political and ideological divisions continue to deepen on social media, where the debate has escalated into two camps:

• “This is dissent, not conspiracy.”
• “This is conspiracy disguised as dissent.”

Should the High Court reject bail, Khalid and Imam are likely to approach the Supreme Court, potentially bringing the matter before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for constitutional scrutiny.

Until then, this is more than just a bail hearing—it is a battle between freedom and security, expression and conspiracy, perception and procedure. The verdict will signal which narrative India’s judiciary upholds in one of the most contentious legal battles in recent times.