Delhi | 25°C (windy)

Umar Khalid Escalates Legal Battle to Supreme Court in Delhi Riots Case

  • Nishadil
  • September 11, 2025
  • 0 Comments
  • 1 minutes read
  • 6 Views
Umar Khalid Escalates Legal Battle to Supreme Court in Delhi Riots Case

Activist Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to deny him bail in connection with the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. This significant legal move marks a new chapter in a case that has garnered considerable national attention.

Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader, is a key accused in the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) case, which alleges a conspiracy behind the violent communal clashes that erupted in February 2020.

The Delhi High Court had previously rejected his bail plea on October 18, 2022, asserting that the allegations against him were 'prima facie true.' This finding, under the stringent provisions of the UAPA, often makes securing bail exceptionally difficult.

His petition to the apex court seeks to overturn the High Court's ruling, arguing that he has been wrongly implicated and that there is no substantial evidence to link him to the alleged conspiracy.

Khalid has consistently maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, denying any involvement in orchestrating the protests that allegedly led to the riots.

The First Information Report (FIR) filed in the case posits a grand conspiracy to disrupt the national capital during US President Donald Trump’s visit in February 2020, through planned protests and blockades.

Khalid was arrested in September 2020 and has been in judicial custody since, facing charges under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code.

This appeal to the Supreme Court signifies Khalid's persistent legal fight to secure his freedom, bringing the complex and politically charged case under the scrutiny of India's highest judicial body.

The outcome of this petition will be closely watched, not just by legal experts but by the wider public interested in civil liberties and due process.

.

Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on