Umar Khalid UAPA Case: Defense Assails Prosecution's Reliance on Belated Statements, Cites Lack of Material Evidence

NEW DELHI – In a sharp critique of the prosecution's case in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots "larger conspiracy," counsel for activist and former JNU scholar Umar Khalid have argued that the entire case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is precariously built on delayed witness statements and devoid of any material or physical evidence. The arguments, presented before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts, challenge the very foundation for framing charges against Khalid, who has been in judicial custody since September 2020.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Khalid, contended that the Delhi Police Special Cell's case hinges on a narrative constructed months after the riots, rather than on tangible proof. His submissions underscore a critical legal debate on evidentiary standards required to sustain charges under India's stringent anti-terror law.

---

The Core Argument: Statements Over Evidence

During the ongoing arguments on the framing of charges, Pais launched a frontal assault on the prosecution's methodology, asserting that the case against Khalid exemplifies a dangerous precedent where belated, questionable witness accounts supplant the need for concrete evidence.

"You can catch hold of anyone 11 months after the event, get them to say anything, and that’s a UAPA case," Pais submitted before the court. "The case of the prosecution is that they do not need evidence, they need statements."

This assertion forms the crux of the defense's challenge. Pais highlighted that Khalid is not named as an accused in any of the 751 FIRs related to specific violent incidents during the riots, except for FIR 59/2020, the overarching conspiracy case. The defense emphasized the complete absence of corroborating evidence: no arms were recovered from Khalid, no financial trail linking him to riot funding has been established, and call detail records (CDRs) allegedly disprove his presence at a key conspiratorial meeting cited by the prosecution.

Pais argued that witnesses conveniently "came out of the woodwork" a year after Khalid's arrest to belatedly name him, questioning why statements about a crucial meeting in December 2019 were only recorded in August 2020. "If you have statements only, where will the case go? It will remain in the manner in which it has been in the last five years," he argued, suggesting the case should not have proceeded beyond the FIR stage on such flimsy grounds.

Allegations of Selective Prosecution and Political Motivation

The defense has repeatedly raised the issue of selective targeting. Umar Khalid’s father, Dr. SQR Ilyas, pointed out the disparity in how individuals associated with the anti-CAA protests were treated by investigators. He questioned why prominent figures like Yogendra Yadav and Professor Apoorvanand Jha, who were members or admins of the same WhatsApp groups cited by the prosecution, were made witnesses while his son was branded a "mastermind."

"Those who have created the WhatsApp groups planning the chakka jams have been made witnesses instead of accused, and I, who never exhorted violence and spoke of peaceful protest, have been jailed," Pais reiterated in court on behalf of Khalid.

Dr. Ilyas asserted that the case is politically motivated, designed to delegitimize the nationwide anti-CAA movement by linking it to the riots. "Linking the Delhi riots to the anti-CAA movement and its protesters is a big conspiracy and plot," he stated. "It was not just to divert attention from the real culprits of the riots, but basically to implicate and target people involved in the anti-CAA movement."

This narrative is further bolstered by the timeline of the investigation. Khalid's name did not appear in the initial 17,000-page charge sheet filed in September 2020. He was added later as 'Accused No. 18' in a supplementary charge sheet filed in November 2020, a fact the defense uses to question the prosecution's claim that he was a central conspirator from the outset.

Dissecting the Speeches: Incitement or Constitutional Protest?

A significant portion of the prosecution's case rests on speeches delivered by Khalid, particularly one in Amravati, Maharashtra. The defense argues that the charge sheet selectively quotes a single sentence to create a misleading impression of incitement.

Dr. Ilyas revealed that the defense presented the full transcript of the speech to the Supreme Court, challenging the prosecution to identify any part that was unconstitutional or violent. He quoted Khalid as saying: "We will not respond to bricks with bricks; if you throw stones, we will offer flowers... We will stand with the tricolour, we will stand with the Constitution." The defense contends that Khalid's speeches consistently invoked Gandhian principles of non-violence and constitutionalism, a stark contrast to the conspiratorial role he is accused of playing.

The Long Road to Bail and Judicial Delays

The case also brings into sharp focus the procedural challenges and prolonged pre-trial detention faced by UAPA accused. Khalid's bail plea journey has been arduous. After being denied bail by the trial court in March 2022 and the Delhi High Court in October 2022, his plea languished in the Supreme Court for nine months, facing over a dozen adjournments before it was finally withdrawn in February 2024.

Dr. Ilyas refuted recent remarks by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, who alleged the defense sought seven adjournments. Citing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Ilyas clarified that the defense requested only two adjournments, with the rest attributable to the judiciary. This highlights the systemic delays that can indefinitely prolong incarceration, effectively rendering the legal principle of 'bail not jail' moot under the stringent provisions of UAPA.

Legal Implications and the UAPA Conundrum

The arguments in Umar Khalid's case raise profound questions for the legal community regarding the interpretation and application of the UAPA. The defense's focus on the quality and timing of evidence challenges the prosecution to meet a higher standard of proof, even at the stage of framing charges.

For legal professionals, this case serves as a critical study in: 1. Evidentiary Threshold in Terror Cases: It tests whether uncorroborated, significantly delayed witness statements can form the sole basis for framing charges under UAPA, which carries severe consequences for personal liberty. 2. The Doctrine of Selective Prosecution: The defense's arguments compel a judicial examination of whether the choice of accused versus witness was arbitrary or discriminatory, a cornerstone of fair trial rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Criminalizing Dissent: The case lies at the intersection of free speech and national security. The judiciary's interpretation of Khalid's speeches will have far-reaching implications for how political dissent and protest are viewed within the framework of anti-terror legislation.

As the Karkardooma Court prepares to hear further arguments on October 28 and 29, the legal fraternity watches closely. The eventual order on framing of charges will not only determine Umar Khalid's fate but will also contribute significantly to the evolving jurisprudence surrounding UAPA and the fundamental principles of criminal justice in India.