Umar Khalid Seeks Open Supreme Court Hearing in Bail Review Petition

Jailed activist and former JNU student Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court with a review petition challenging the court’s earlier decision to deny him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The petition was filed on April 13, 2026, by Advocate N Sai Vinod before a bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar. During the proceedings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to allow an open hearing of the review plea. The bench did not issue an immediate order but agreed to consider the request, with the matter expected to come up again later this week.

Khalid is seeking a reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s January 5 ruling, which denied him bail. In that decision, the court had observed that there was sufficient material presented by the prosecution to suggest his involvement in planning and directing the violence during the riots.

The court had also noted that Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam were in a distinct category compared to others named in the case. It held that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act applied in their situation. While rejecting their bail pleas, the bench allowed them the option to reapply after either the examination of protected witnesses or the passage of one year.

In contrast, bail had been granted to five other accused in the same case.

The case is linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The violence left at least 53 people dead and many others injured.

Investigators have alleged that the unrest was not spontaneous but part of a larger, pre planned conspiracy aimed at destabilising the country. According to the police, the accused used protest platforms as a cover to incite communal violence. Authorities claim to have collected various forms of evidence, including witness statements, documents, and technical data, to support these allegations.

Khalid, who was arrested in September 2020, has spent more than five years in custody without the trial being completed. His legal team has now turned to the review process, arguing for a more transparent hearing in open court.

The case continues to draw attention, particularly around concerns over prolonged detention and the balance between national security and individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision on this review petition is expected to have significant implications for the case going forward.