संविधान‑समझ वाले और लोकतंत्र‑विश्वासी के लिये ‘उमर ख़ालिद को मुक्त करो’ वैध बयान

'Free Umar Khalid' Is A Valid Statement For Those Who Understand Constitution & Believe In Democracy : Adv Vrinda Grover

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

15 Sept 2026 8:27 AM IST

Advocate Vrinda Grover recently said that student activist Umar Khalid has been incarcerated for six years without trial in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots for the ideas that he holds.

"What is clear and on which there is no dispute, he[Umar Khalid] has been put behind bars for his ideas, for his thinking, for the active exercise of his citizenship, rather than to be a passive person who perhaps goes cast a vote once in a while. That is why he is behind the bars. That is what his chargesheet also says."

Grover was speaking in an online meeting to mark six years of Khalid's incarceration as an undertrial prisoner under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. She said that expressing dissent in today's political atmosphere has become almost impossible because those persons exercising their citizenship through speeches and posters are made to face punitive consequences.

"There is a fear of ideas. There can't be democracy without the exchange of ideas. They have this fear. If somebody puts a poster saying "Free Umar Khalid, or if somebody raises a slogan of free Umar Khalid, that becomes a criminal act. So, I want to say this very categorically and with full responsibility as somebody who engages with law that 'free Umar Khalid' is a valid statement to be made by any person who understands the Indian Constitution and who believes in Indian democracy."

Grover also remarked that Khalid's incarceration shouldn't be treated as 'undertrial' as he is still in the pre-trial stage, as the trial is yet to begin. She also criticised the Supreme Court's judgment denying bail to Khalid on the grounds that he was the alleged "ideological driver" of the larger Delhi riots conspiracy and that his role differed from those who were ultimately granted bail by the bench.

"After the Gulfisha Fatima judgment, the Supreme Court created an artificial hierarchy of participants in the anti-CAA struggle which took place in Delhi...There are several petitions pending in the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of CAA, which many of us believe are against India's Constitution because allows one to claim citizenship based on religion, which the Constitution prohibits."

She also referred to the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu(2026), where the two-judge bench criticised Gulfisha Fatima's judgment(also by a two-judge bench) for diluting a three-judge bench's judgment in KA Najeeb on the principle that the rigours of the UAPA embargo on bail will melt down if there has been a prolonged period of incarceration and that there is an unlikelihood of trial in the near future. It affirmed that bail, and not jail, remains the rule even under UAPA.

"You have two benches of the Supreme Court, one of which says Gulfisha Fatima's judgment is incorrect, and the second, which denied them bail. This is a matter of discussion. We should go ahead and talk about this. This is a phase where we are saying that articulate political activists challenging the way this country is moving forward are made to face the consequences. If you[the Delhi Police] have evidence, complete the trial in a fair manner and use the evidence to prosecute the person. But pre-trial without testing evidence is something we should absolutely reject. Even though some benches of the Supreme Court are endorsing it, we should reject it. In a democracy, if you have a view different from the regime, your place is not in jail but in the Parliament."

Powered by Nyaya 247 News