Former JNU student Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court with a review petition, seeking reconsideration of its January 5 order that denied him bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. In his plea, he has specifically requested that the matter be heard in an open court rather than through the usual in-chamber process followed for review petitions.
The petition was mentioned before a bench, where senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, urged the court to allow a public hearing. The bench indicated that it would examine this request and determine the appropriate course, with the matter listed for hearing on April 15.
Khalid’s plea challenges the earlier Supreme Court ruling that denied bail to him and co-accused Sharjeel Imam. In that order, the court had observed that the prosecution’s material disclosed a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It noted that both Khalid and Imam allegedly played a “central and formative role” in what was described as a larger conspiracy behind the violence, going beyond isolated or spontaneous acts.
The court had distinguished their position from that of other accused in the same case. While several individuals, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, were granted bail, the bench held that Khalid and Imam stood on a “qualitatively different footing” based on the nature of allegations against them.
Additionally, the earlier order imposed conditions restricting their ability to reapply for bail. It stated that they could renew their plea only after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order.
Khalid, who was arrested in September 2020, has remained in custody since then. He faces charges including criminal conspiracy, rioting, and offences under the UAPA in connection with the February 2020 violence in northeast Delhi, which resulted in 53 deaths and injuries to hundreds of people.
The review petition now seeks to reopen the court’s assessment of the case and reconsider the denial of bail, with the added request that the proceedings be conducted transparently in open court.
