Since 2020, Umar Khalid, an Indian student activist and former scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has been at the focus of a widely reported judicial lawsuit. On September 13, 2020, the Delhi Police detained him and booked him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with what they said a "larger conspiracy" related to the rioting in Northeast Delhi in February 2020 that followed demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Defence attorneys contend that there is no solid evidence connecting him to the rioting and that he has no relation to the actual violence. They claim that no weapons, money, or reliable material evidence against him have been found.
The Indian legal system has taken notice of Khalid's case. Numerous courts have heard his bail requests on multiple occasions. After several hearings, the Supreme Court most recently postponed making a decision regarding his bail request and that of fellow activist Sharjeel Imam. His legal team continues to maintain that he has not committed any crimes, but the Delhi High Court previously denied bail, characterising his participation as highly severe.
Concern has been raised internationally over the extended confinement without charge or trial. Amnesty International and other organisations called for Khalid's release, claiming that his ongoing detention highlights flaws in the legal system and calls into question India's fair legal system and freedom of speech.
While Khalid's detractors and authorities insist that his words and deeds were part of a larger scheme linked to disturbance, his friends and certain international rights organisations characterise him as an advocate for civil liberty and nonviolent protest. In India's current national security and civil liberties debate, the outcome of his ongoing judicial processes is still being closely monitored.
On this Special Report, the focus is on significant remarks made by the former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, regarding the incarceration of under-trial prisoners. Speaking at the 'Ideas of Justice' session during the Jaipur Literature Festival, the former CJI addressed the Umar Khalid case, stating as a citizen that 'if a person remains in jail as an under trial prisoner for 5 or 7 years and is finally acquitted, the lost years cannot be compensated.' He emphasized that the foundation of Indian law rests on the presumption of innocence and reiterated that bail should be the rule rather than the exception. Chandrachud outlined three specific conditions under which bail can be refused: danger to society, risk of absconding, or potential tampering with evidence. The discussion highlights the legal and human rights concerns surrounding long-term imprisonment without conviction, particularly in high-profile cases that have sparked national debate over judicial processes and the rights of the accused.
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has accused the Congress of creating stricter provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act during its UPA tenure.
In this edition of Democratic Newsroom, Preeti Choudhry and a panel of editors discuss the Supreme Court's rejection of bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Legal Editor Nalini Sharma and Senior Legal Correspondent Anisha Mathur analyse the verdict, highlighting the court's observation that 'delay is not a trump card' to displace statutory safeguards. The discussion explores the 'polyvocal' nature of the Supreme Court, comparing this ruling with previous UAPA judgments. Senior Executive Editor Gaurav Sawant argues that national security outweighs individual liberty in serious offenses, while the panel debates the consistency of judicial reasoning.
On this Special Report, host Maria Shakeel examines the fresh political storm at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) following the Supreme Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The programme features insights from former Solicitor General Harish Salve and senior advocate Salman Khurshid regarding the limits of free speech and campus activism. Mr. Salve expressed concern over the university becoming 'hate laboratories' and a 'playground of negative politics,' suggesting that 'intellectual terrorism' is being fed to students. Conversely, Mr. Khurshid argued for the 'right to offend' as part of free speech, noting that slogans like 'kabru' (grave) might be intended as a 'metaphor involved' rather than a literal threat. The discussion follows a police complaint filed by the JNU administration against JNUSU President Aditi Mishra and others for allegedly raising controversial slogans against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The report explores whether these protests constitute legitimate dissent or a defiance of constitutional authority amidst claims of 'urban Naxalism' and institutional defamation.
In this Special Report, former Solicitor General Harish Salve joins India Today’s Maria Shakil to discuss the Supreme Court’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Salve argues that ‘context and course of conduct’ are crucial in conspiracy cases, asserting that individual acts like speeches cannot be vivisected from a larger plan to disrupt the state. He strongly criticizes the atmosphere in universities like JNU, describing them as ‘hate laboratories’ and factories producing ‘urban Naxalites’. Salve contends that while campus issues should be resolved internally, external influences feeding ‘intellectual terrorism’ require firm legal intervention.
The big talking point of this episode of Newstrack is provocative slogans that were raised against PM Modi and Amit Shah at a JNU event organised by students after the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
This special report provides an in-depth analysis of significant global and domestic issues. The program examines the U.S. President's 'Donro Doctrine,' detailing the administration's reported seizure of Venezuelan and Russian oil tankers and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. It also covers the diplomatic stir caused by the U.S. ambition to acquire Greenland, drawing reactions from Denmark and NATO. On the domestic front, the report highlights an anti-encroachment drive at Delhi's Turkman Gate that turned violent following rumors about the Faiz-e-Ilahi mosque. Furthermore, it presents a legal examination of contrasting Supreme Court bail judgments under UAPA and PMLA, referencing the cases of Umar Khalid and Arvind Dham. Finally, the broadcast investigates an unusual political realignment in Maharashtra's civic polls, where the BJP and Congress formed a local alliance in Ambernath, sidelining the Shiv Sena.
This edition of News Today examines the US President Trump's 'Donro Doctrine,' detailing the administration's reported seizure of Venezuelan and Russian oil tankers and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
This report analyses two contrasting Supreme Court judgments delivered in January 2026 regarding bail under UAPA and PMLA. On 5th January, a bench comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing the gravity of the offence. Conversely, on 6th January, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe granted bail to Amtek group promoter Arvind Dham, ruling that the right to a speedy trial cannot be eclipsed by the nature of the offence. The report highlights the inconsistency in judicial interpretation of Article 21, noting, 'The same statute, the same constitution, but two parallel universes of liberty.'
A special report analyzes recent, contrasting Supreme Court bail judgments, raising questions about the application of personal liberty. On January 5, a bench denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, stating the gravity of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) outweighed trial delays. Just a day later, a different bench granted bail to former Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham in a money laundering case, asserting that the fundamental right to a speedy trial is not eclipsed by the nature of the offense. The court noted that if the state cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail. A panel of legal experts discusses these outcomes, with Senior Advocate Satyapal Jain questioning if the law is 'tilting towards the rich,' while Former Justice Sanjeev Banerjee argues that 'bail is really the rule.' The program explores the differing interpretations of the PMLA and UAPA laws and the apparent subjectivity in constitutional interpretation.
The big focus of this episode of To The Point is on the judgment of two different Benches of the Supreme Court delivering starkly different judgments, underscoring the inherent subjectivity of constitutional interpretation, exposing how judicial outcomes often hinge less on settled law, and more on interpreted choice.
On this Special Report, the focus is on the Supreme Court's contrasting bail orders. While the apex court granted bail to Amtek Group promoter Arvind Dham in a PMLA case, it denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case. Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar critiques the denial, stating that the 'libertarian conscience' of the Constitution and Article 21 must prevail against long incarceration. He argues that five years of jail time is 'unconscionable'. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi discusses the 'one-year window' for re-application and the apportionment of delay between the accused and prosecution. The programme explores the legal nuances of personal liberty versus statutory restrictions under UAPA and PMLA.
A special report examines contrasting Supreme Court bail judgments, raising questions about judicial consistency and personal liberty under Article 21. One bench denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Conversely, another bench granted relief to business promoter Arvind Dham in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), citing the right to a speedy trial. Hosted by Preeti Choudhry, a debate explores these divergent outcomes. Former Chief Justice Sanjeev Banerjee observes, "It's not rule of law but its rule of bench," highlighting judicial inconsistency. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argues that "tyranny is the ability to make a harsh law and use it selectively." In defense of the court's discretion, BJP representatives Satyapal Jain and Pinky Anand cite the "seriousness of the role." The program also shifts to Maharashtra, where journalist Sudhir Suryavanshi analyzes the BJP's controversial local alliances with AIMIM and Congress.
In an exclusive interview with India Today, former Solicitor General of India, Harish Salve called anti-Modi chants in JNU a worrisome trend and the campus has become a hornet's nest.
On this Special Report, anchor Preeti Choudhury examines the fresh controversy at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) following provocative slogans raised against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The protests erupted after the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, coinciding with the sixth anniversary of the 2020 campus violence. The JNU administration has lodged a police complaint against JNUSU President Aditi Mishra and Vice President Gopika Babu, describing the chants as 'highly objectionable, provocative and inflammatory'. While the BJP has branded the protesters as 'urban naxals', the student body maintains that the event was a peaceful vigil and an expression of their 'constitutional right to dissent'. The programme features a heated debate between ABVP's Vaibhav Meena, CPI's Vivek Srivastava, and analysts Sanjay Jha and Rajat Sethi on whether the slogans represent legitimate ideological disagreement or something more sinister. The report highlights the deepening ideological divide within one of India's premier educational institutions.
In this edition of To The Point, the focus is on the renewed controversy at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) following the Supreme Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
On this Special Report, host Preeti Choudhry examines the escalating tension at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) following controversial slogans raised during a student vigil. The debate centers on whether the rhetoric, including slogans targeting the Prime Minister, constitutes 'pure ideological dissent' or something 'far more sinister' as the university management lodges an FIR. Panelists including Sanjay Jha, Rajat Sethi, Vaibhav Meena, and Vivek Srivastava discuss the implications of the protest against the Supreme Court's decision to deny bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. While student bodies claim their stance is being mischaracterised, critics argue the slogans cross a 'fine red line' into anti-national territory. The programme explores the friction between the JNU administration and student groups, especially in the context of 2026 government guidelines regarding internal security. The discussion highlights the deep ideological divide regarding the limits of free speech and the role of premier educational institutions in national discourse.
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is witnessing a fresh political storm after controversial slogans were allegedly raised against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. The protest, organised by left-wing student groups, marked the anniversary of the 2020 campus violence and opposed the Supreme Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The JNU administration has filed a complaint naming JNUSU President Aditi Mishra and Vice President Gopika Babu. The BJP has condemned the incident, branding the protesters as 'urban Naxals', while the students defended the slogans as an ideological expression of dissent. The controversy has once again placed the university at the centre of a national debate on freedom of speech and nationalism.
In a breaking report on India Today, JNUSU defends the 'Kabar Khudegi' slogans raised during the January 5 vigil, terming the backlash a 'deliberate effort' to defame the university. Reporter Shreya Chatterjee confirms the student body's statement, which clarifies the event was to commemorate the 2020 JNU attack anniversary. The statement links the emotional sloganeering to the Supreme Court's January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. JNUSU asserts the chants were an expression of 'ideological dissent' and a constitutional right, rejecting claims of a sinister conspiracy.
On this Special Report, the focus is on the controversy at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) where slogans of 'Modi-Shah ki qabr khudegi' were raised after bail was denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. JNUSU President Aditi Mishra defends the slogans, stating they are 'a reflection of the movement... against the Hindutva ideology' and not personal attacks. In contrast, ABVP leader Mohd Mehndi condemns the act, asking 'What kind of mentality is this?' and questioning the support for 'anti-nationals'. Union Minister Giriraj Singh also reacts, calling JNU a 'camp office of the Tukde Tukde Gang'. The programme explores the political fallout and the clash between Left groups and the BJP.
