Khalid moves top court for bail review, seeks open hearing in riot case

In a significant legal development, student activist Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a review of its earlier order denying him bail in the conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots.

Represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Khalid has urged the court to hear the review petition in an open court, rather than in chambers, where such pleas are typically considered. The bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar indicated it would examine the request and decide whether an open hearing is warranted.

Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), facing allegations of being part of a larger conspiracy behind the riots. The prosecution has claimed that he played a role in the planning, mobilisation, and strategic coordination of protests that allegedly escalated into violence. He is also booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy and rioting. Khalid has denied all charges, asserting that his speeches advocated peaceful protest.

In its January 2026 ruling, the apex court had denied bail to Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam, observing that there were reasonable grounds at this stage to believe the allegations against them. The court held that the two stood on a different footing compared to other accused, citing what it described as a “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy. At the same time, bail was granted to five others, with the court emphasising that culpability must be assessed individually.

The bench had also clarified that delays in trial cannot automatically justify bail under UAPA, given the law’s stringent provisions, particularly when a prima facie case is established.

The case, rooted in the violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, continues to carry strong political overtones. While investigating agencies maintain that the riots were part of a premeditated conspiracy threatening public order and national security, critics argue that the use of anti-terror legislation reflects a broader clampdown on dissent.

As the review petition comes up for consideration, the court’s decision on whether to grant an open hearing could shape the next phase of proceedings in a case that sits at the intersection of law, civil liberties, and politics.