Umar Khalid Riots Case: Defence Assails Prosecution's Reliance on 'No Evidence, Only Delayed Statements'

New Delhi – In a powerful critique of the prosecution's methodology in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, counsel for activist Umar Khalid has argued that the case against his client is built not on evidence, but on witness statements recorded with "extremely suspicious" delays, some nearly a year after his arrest. Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, contended before a Delhi trial court that such a case, devoid of physical evidence, would ultimately "fall flat," challenging the very foundation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) charges.

The submissions, made before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts, mark a critical phase in the long-running legal battle surrounding FIR 59/2020. This FIR, investigated by the Delhi Police's Special Cell, alleges a large-scale conspiracy behind the communal violence that engulfed parts of Northeast Delhi in February 2020. Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar, has been in detention for over five years in connection with these charges.

---

The Core of the Defence: A Case of 'Statements Over Evidence'

At the heart of the defence's argument is the conspicuous absence of physical or forensic evidence linking Umar Khalid to the alleged conspiracy. Senior Advocate Pais launched a direct assault on the prosecution's reliance on testimonial evidence, particularly statements from protected witnesses recorded months after Khalid was taken into custody.

“You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything and that is a UAPA case," Pais argued forcefully in court. "The case of the prosecution is that I do not need evidence. I need statements. This is a case of no physical evidence… other than the speech.”

This line of argument raises fundamental questions about evidentiary standards under the stringent UAPA, a law where securing bail is notoriously difficult. The defence posits that the prosecution's strategy replaces the need for cogent, corroborative evidence with a collection of belated narratives, thereby undermining the principles of a fair trial. Pais questioned the viability of such a case, asking, “If you have statements only, where will the case go? It will go nowhere... It is not a case which should have proceeded as an FIR even.”

The defence emphasized that there has been no recovery of any incriminating material from Khalid and no allegations of him procuring funds for illicit activities. Furthermore, Pais highlighted that out of 751 FIRs registered in connection with the riots, Khalid is named as an accused in only one, suggesting a targeted prosecutorial focus.

Scrutinizing the 'Suspicious Timing' of Witness Accounts

A significant portion of the defence's submissions was dedicated to the chronology of the investigation. Pais contended that the timing of recording witness statements against Khalid was "extremely suspicious." The practice of gathering statements long after the incident and, more critically, after the accused has been arrested, opens the door to potential coaching, coercion, or fabrication.

“Normally there should be some kind of evidence before the FIR is registered," Pais stated, pointing out the procedural anomaly. "But you have named me and called it a conspiracy….”

This argument implicitly invokes the legal principle that an investigation should be a process of discovery based on leads and evidence, rather than an effort to build a narrative around a pre-selected suspect. The defence's position is that the delayed statements are not a product of a developing investigation but rather an attempt to retroactively justify the UAPA charges leveled against Khalid. This critique aligns with broader concerns raised in other cases about the use of "cyclostyled" or template-like witness statements, a practice recently noted by the Supreme Court in a separate matter.

Allegations of 'Pick and Choose' Prosecution

Building on a previously established line of argument, Pais reiterated that the Delhi Police engaged in a "pick and choose" action. He submitted that while Khalid was implicated, other individuals who were attributed "bigger roles" in the chargesheet itself were not named as accused. This selective prosecution, the defence argues, points to a biased investigation rather than an impartial quest for justice.

The defence also drew the court's attention to a troubling pattern observed in related Delhi riots cases. Pais flagged that trial courts have already identified instances of fabricated evidence in at least 17 of the 93 riots cases that have concluded in acquittals. This context, he suggested, should cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented in the larger conspiracy case.

The Broader Legal Implications for UAPA Jurisprudence

The arguments in Umar Khalid's case resonate deeply within the legal community, touching upon the core tenets of criminal jurisprudence and personal liberty, especially in the context of anti-terror legislation. The UAPA's stringent provisions, particularly Section 43D(5) which creates a high bar for bail, place immense weight on the materials presented by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage.

If the prosecution's case rests almost entirely on delayed statements from protected witnesses, it forces the judiciary to grapple with a critical question: What is the threshold of credibility for such evidence when it is uncorroborated by physical or circumstantial proof? A judicial determination that such evidence is insufficient to sustain charges or deny bail could have a significant impact on how UAPA cases are investigated and prosecuted nationwide.

The defence's challenge forces a re-examination of the balance between national security imperatives, which underpin the UAPA, and the fundamental rights of the accused to be presumed innocent and protected from arbitrary detention. The case has become a litmus test for whether the procedural safeguards of criminal law can withstand the prosecutorial power wielded under special statutes.

The matter is scheduled for further hearings on October 28 and 29, when these critical legal questions will continue to be debated.