Скачать или смотреть Umar Khalid UAPA CASE Supreme Court Live Proceeding – Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi,S Luthra

The Umar Khalid UAPA case, currently pending before the Supreme Court, arises from Khalid’s arrest in September 2020 in connection with what the Delhi Police describe as a meticulously planned “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. He is charged under several provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, including terrorism-related sections, as well as IPC offences for conspiracy, rioting, and sedition. The prosecution relies on witness statements, protest-related WhatsApp chats, coordination among various anti-CAA protest groups, and selected excerpts from speeches delivered by Khalid to argue that he played a central role in orchestrating unrest. Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court denied him bail, holding that the materials on record were sufficient to form a prima facie view of his involvement, thereby attracting the stringent bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA, which virtually prohibits bail where such a prima facie case exists. These orders have kept Khalid in custody for over five years without trial, during which the prosecution has yet to examine the bulk of its witnesses, raising serious concerns about the pace of proceedings.

Before the Supreme Court, Khalid and his counsel challenge the High Court’s reasoning and the broader application of UAPA, arguing that the prosecution’s case is speculative, politically motivated, and unsupported by direct evidence linking him to acts of violence. They emphasise that the alleged “conspiracy” rests largely on constitutionally protected actions—organising protests, delivering speeches, and coordinating civic mobilisation—which cannot, by themselves, be stretched into terrorism. In multiple hearings, the Supreme Court has pressed the State to clarify how speech acts, dissent against the CAA, or organisational activity can meet the legal threshold for “terrorist acts” or “unlawful activities” under the UAPA, signalling concern about the potential overbreadth of the State’s interpretation. The Delhi Police, however, continues to oppose bail, asserting that the conspiracy was multi-layered and aimed at provoking communal violence, and that Khalid’s release may undermine public order. After extensive arguments and examination of large volumes of case material, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment, making this case a crucial test of the balance between civil liberties and national security, the limits of anti-terror legislation, and the Court’s role in addressing prolonged pre-trial incarceration in politically sensitive prosecutions.

Umar Khalid v. State of NCT of Delhi,
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6334 of 2022.

-------------------------------------------------------------Fair Use Policy------------------------------------------------------------------

This content is shared strictly for purposes of news reporting, commentary, criticism, scholarship, and research, in accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 1976. Fair use is a statutory exception that permits limited use of copyrighted material for non-profit, educational, or personal purposes.

Court proceedings shown or described here are shared in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) and ANI Media Private Limited vs. Wikimedia Foundation(2025), which recognise the value of transparency, open courts, and public access to judicial hearings.