Long before his victory in the 2025 New York City mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani, now one of the most powerful Muslim politicians in the United States, took part in a controversial anti-India event where he read a letter written by Umar Khalid, the jailed student leader and accused conspirator in the 2020 Delhi riots.

The event, titled “Howdy, Democracy?!”, was held in June 2023 in New York, just days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official visit to Washington D.C. The programme was framed as a discussion on the “state of democracy and civil liberties in India,” featuring activists and academics known for their criticism of the Indian government.

Introducing the reading, Mamdani told the audience, “I’m going to be reading a letter from Umar Khalid, who is a scholar and a former student activist at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi… who organised a campaign against lynching and hate. He has been in jail for more than 1,000 days under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and has yet to face trial, though his bail application has been repeatedly denied. He has also faced an assassination attempt.”

He then proceeded to read excerpts from Khalid’s prison writings, first published in Outlook magazine. The letter, titled “The Sight of Free People,” described Khalid’s reflections while being taken to court from Delhi’s Tihar Jail and his thoughts on “reclaiming the country from the forces of hate and divisions.”

Khalid’s letter read in part: “After four months of captivity, the sight outside was more alluring for me… I could see people going to their offices and children to their schools. There were people in cars, buses, and on roads… They were free to go wherever, talk to whomever. It was a fascinating sight — the sight of free people.”

In another passage, Khalid wrote, “No tyrant lasts forever. He cannot trump the truth, and hate can never triumph over love forever.”

The reading drew applause from sections of the audience but also sharp criticism online, with commentators accusing Mamdani of glorifying an accused instigator of one of India’s most violent communal riots. Khalid, a former JNU student leader, was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly delivering inflammatory speeches and conspiring to incite violence during the Delhi riots, which left over 50 people dead. He and the other accused Sharjeel Imam have allegedly been stalling the trial in courts, and the Supreme Court is currently hearing his plea.

Mamdani, whose father is of Gujarati origin, has been a vocal critic of Prime Minister Modi and the Indian government – he even called PM Modi a “war criminal“. Earlier this year, he courted controversy for comparing Modi to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and invoking the 2002 Gujarat riots when asked whether he would appear alongside Modi during the Indian leader’s Madison Square Garden rally.

The 2023 event and Mamdani’s participation resurfaced in public discussion after his mayoral victory, with critics alleging that his political activism has long been aligned with far-left and anti-India circles in the United States.

(Source: The Telegraph Online)

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post When Radical Islamo-Leftist New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani Read 2020 Delhi Riots Accused Umar Khalid’s Prison Diary At 2023 Event appeared first on The Commune.

In a major development in the 2020 Delhi riots case, the Delhi Police is set to submit a 177-page affidavit to the Supreme Court claiming that the violence was not a spontaneous outburst but part of an organised “regime change operation” aimed at destabilising the Indian government and undermining national sovereignty.

CNN-News18 reported that the affidavit, filed in response to bail pleas by accused student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, outlines how investigators have compiled ocular, documentary, and technical evidence pointing to a deep-rooted conspiracy orchestrated along communal lines. “The plan was designed to weaponise public dissent against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and strike at the sovereignty and integrity of India,” the affidavit reportedly states.

According to the Delhi Police, the “organised and calibrated” violence in the national capital followed a nationwide pattern, mirroring similar outbreaks in states including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, and Karnataka. The affidavit characterises the riots as part of a “synchronised attempt to destabilise the government through orchestrated violence.”

The police have also accused the accused persons of “abusing the judicial process” through “frivolous applications” and coordinated tactics to delay proceedings. “Such conduct amounts to a brazen abuse of process,” the affidavit asserts, arguing that these actions have obstructed justice and hindered the trial’s progress.

The Supreme Court is expected to examine the affidavit as part of ongoing hearings concerning bail and procedural delays in the larger conspiracy case. Delhi Police is being represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocates Rajat Nair and Dhruv Pande.

The riots, which took place in February 2020 amid protests over the CAA, left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. The Delhi High Court previously observed that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were among the earliest organisers of anti-CAA protests in December 2019, mobilising crowds through speeches, pamphlets, and WhatsApp networks — actions investigators allege evolved into a coordinated plan to incite violence.

While the Delhi Police has described Khalid and Imam as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy, the accused have maintained that their activities constituted legitimate dissent protected by constitutional rights and bore no connection to the outbreak of violence.

(Source: News18)

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally. 

The post “2020 Delhi Riots Were ‘Organised Regime Change Operation,’” Says Police In Supreme Court appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned hearing on the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Gulfisha Fatima all accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case and booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Manmohan deferred hearing till Monday, September 22, on the batch of special leave petitions (SLPs) after an adjournment was sought on the petitioners’ behalf. In the previous hearing, the Justice Kumar-led Bench expressed difficulty in taking up the batch of SLPs and directed that the matters be listed for hearing on September 19.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to several activists and student leaders in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots. In its order passed on September 2, a Bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla observed, prima facie, that there was sufficient material on record to suggest that Imam and Khalid had masterminded the conspiracy.

The Justice Kaur-led Bench noted that Khalid and Imam had delivered inflammatory speeches on February 24, 2020, coinciding with the then US President Donald Trump’s State visit, which the prosecution alleged was deliberately timed to trigger riots on February 23 – 24 and draw international attention. “The alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicate their role in the alleged conspiracy,” the Delhi High Court said. In relation to Meeran Haider, it noted that she allegedly provided funds to the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI), where meetings of the JCC (JMI Coordination Committee) were held.

The Justice Kaur-led bench further noted the prosecution’s submission that the completion of the investigation against Haider did not constitute a material change in circumstances to justify bail, citing pending witness examination and the gravity of the alleged conspiracy.

According to the prosecution, Gulfisha Fatima used code words to instruct protesters to undertake actions in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy and received funds for it. The February 2020 Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Delhi Riots Case: SC Adjourns Bail Hearing Of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider And Gulfisha Fatima appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Gulfisha Fatima all accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case till next week.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria expressed difficulty in taking up the batch of special leave petitions (SLPs), noting that the case files had been circulated very late the previous night. Taking note of the submissions that the accused, booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), have challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant them bail, the Justice Kumar-led Bench directed that the batch of petitions be listed for hearing on 19 September.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to several activists and student leaders in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots. In its order passed on September 2, a Bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla observed, prima facie, that there was sufficient material on record to suggest that Imam and Khalid had masterminded the conspiracy.

The Justice Kaur-led Bench noted that Khalid and Imam had delivered inflammatory speeches on February 24, 2020, coinciding with the then US President Donald Trump’s State visit, which the prosecution alleged was deliberately timed to trigger riots on February 23 – 24 and draw international attention. “The alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicate their role in the alleged conspiracy,” the Delhi High Court said

. In relation to Meeran Haider, it noted that she allegedly provided funds to the Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI), where meetings of the JCC (JMI Coordination Committee) were held. The Justice Kaur-led bench further noted the prosecution’s submission that the completion of the investigation against Haider did not constitute a material change in circumstances to justify bail, citing pending witness examination and the gravity of the alleged conspiracy. According to the prosecution, Gulfisha Fatima used code words to instruct protesters to undertake actions in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy and received funds for it.

The February 2020 Delhi riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post SC Adjourns Bail Pleas Of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, And Others In 2020 Delhi Riots Case appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court will hear the bail pleas of four accused, Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Meeran Haider, and Gulfisha Fatima, in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case on Friday. The accused, booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), have challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny them bail in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria will hear the petitions filed by Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and Gulfisha Fatima. Meanwhile, a separate bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice K Vinod Chandran will take up the bail plea of Meeran Haider.

The 2020 Delhi riots, which erupted in the backdrop of widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in the deaths of over 50 people and injuries to hundreds. The Delhi Police had alleged that the violence was part of a premeditated conspiracy, orchestrated during the anti-CAA protests, and invoked UAPA provisions against several activists and student leaders.

Sharjeel Imam, a former student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested on January 28, 2020, from Jehanabad in Bihar for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University. He has been in custody since then and was later booked under UAPA charges for his alleged role in the riots.

Umar Khalid, also a former JNU student, moved the apex court on September 10 after the Delhi High Court rejected his bail plea in the UAPA case. Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider, associated with student activism, are also facing similar charges under UAPA, which has been strongly contested by civil rights advocates and legal experts.

The case has drawn significant national attention due to the nature of the charges and the prolonged incarceration of the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision on the bail pleas is expected to have major implications for how UAPA cases linked to protest movements are interpreted and handled.

-IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court To Hear Bail Pleas Of 2020 Delhi Riots Accused Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, And Others Today appeared first on The Commune.

Umar Khalid, one of the main accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, was denied bail by Delhi High Court yet again. However, the leftists and their media channels portray it as if the problem is with the courts – documents show otherwise – that it was an intentionally engineered tactic to delay facing trial.

His “comrades” have tried to paint Umar Khalid as a victim, a harmless academic persecuted by an authoritarian state. Petitions, op-eds, and international platforms have repeated the same script: Khalid is an “innocent” voice of dissent silenced by the government. But when we step away from the propaganda and examine Khalid’s own speeches, especially his 2016 address on Kashmir, a very different picture emerges.

This is not the voice of an innocent. This is the rhetoric of a man who openly challenges India’s sovereignty, delegitimizes democratic institutions, normalizes violence, and works to unite separatist and insurgent movements under a single banner. In the speech, he makes several secessionist statements, praises the “periyarite” movement, calls stone pelting a form of Gandhian protest, portrays the Army as the villains and others Indians from Kashmir. He also says that there will be peace if we let go of Kashmir. Let’s now take a deeper look at the statements he makes in his 42-minute speech.

Not Free Speech, But Sedition

Khalid’s speech is not an example of free speech, it is a manifesto of sedition. Here are the most damning statements that build an incontrovertible case for why he represents a clear and present danger to the integrity and security of the nation.

Kashmir Is Illegally Occupied By India

In a video that is now viral on social media, he says, “I am against the occupation of Kashmir by the Indian state and I make it very apparent here, I am not from Kashmir.”

“Kashmir is illegally occupied by India” – Umar Khalid

Anybody who supports this man is a potential terr*rist…. pic.twitter.com/pEFMHOQg10

— Mr Sinha (@MrSinha_) September 2, 2025

 Explicit Denial of Indian Sovereignty over Kashmir

Khalid does not mince words in his 2016 speech when it comes to his stance on Jammu and Kashmir. He explicitly echoes and endorses the secessionist position while invoking Dravidianist ideologue EV Ramasamy Naicker (Periyar). He says, “Periyar very eloquently and very straightforwardly said that Kashmir neither belongs to India. Kashmir neither belongs to Pakistan. Kashmir belongs only to the people of Kashmir.”

He then bemoans the fact that stating this position in Delhi would incite a “lynch mob,” establishing that he is fully aware that this view is a direct challenge to the constitutional framework of India. He isn’t advocating for a political discussion within the Indian Union; he is advocating for its dissolution in the region.

Advocacy for Plebiscite and Secession

Going beyond a mere opinion, Khalid champions a specific action that is the cornerstone of separatist and Pakistani policy: a plebiscite. Invoking BR Ambedkar, he said, “What Babasaheb Ambedkar said in his last speech after resignation of the cabinet that there should be a plebiscite in Kashmir…”

By championing a plebiscite, an idea India has legally and diplomatically rejected for decades, Khalid aligns himself with forces that seek to break the country apart. His grievance is that he cannot openly call for this division in Delhi without consequence. He speaks the language of self-determination – not within the Indian Union, but outside it.

When someone insists that Kashmir is “occupied” and that India is no different from a colonial oppressor, they are not engaging in democratic debate. They are advancing the very separatist agenda that fuels militancy and terrorism in the Valley.

Moral Equivalence and Sympathy for Terrorists

Perhaps the most grotesque part of Khalid’s speech is his attempt to humanize and rationalize the path of terrorism. Speaking about slain Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani, he asks, “Do we go and tell the Kashmiris that many of them who might be thinking of going the same path as Burhan that please don’t pick up the gun. Please participate in the next elections.”

This is an apology. He dismisses democratic participation as futile due to “rigged elections,” thereby implicitly justifying armed insurgency as a logical alternative. He creates a false binary where Kashmiris only have the choice between a “corrupt” election and picking up a gun, completely ignoring the peaceful citizens and the development efforts within the Union Territory.

Siachen Presence Is Troubling Him

What was even more shocking was when he mentioned Siachen and claimed that if we left Siachen, there will be peace. He said, “Why have you posted the army and every year army men are being killed not because of militants’ bullet not because even from a bullet coming from Pakistan but because of the ecological conditions that the ecological conditions such that living there is very difficult. Even Lance Naik Hanumanthappa did not die out of a bullet, Lance Naik Hanumanthappa died out of a natural calamity and that natural calamity the more the army stays that the more these natural calamities will happen, so you please don’t tell us about Lance Naik Hanumanthappa because you have the blood of Lance Naik Hanumanthappa on your hands, not us. At the same time by occupying that glacier of Siachen they’re leading our country and this entire region of South Asia towards an ecological catastrophe; if that glacier melts, where are we headed and what will happen, so for the geopolitical interest of India of the nation states of India and Pakistan they continue to militarize this region, they continue to fool a starving population that it’s in their interest that it’s happening and we keep believing them.”

Normalizing Violent Resistance

Perhaps most dangerously, Khalid’s speech normalizes the turn to arms. He openly entertains the question of whether “revolutionary violence” is justified against state repression. He paints Kashmiri youth taking up the gun as an “inevitable” and “rational” response to India’s presence.

He also justifies stone pelting saying, “Do I tell him that don’t take violent forms of protest because you’re going to die and it’s a self-destructive form of protest, take to some Gandhian form of protest, at the most you can do stone pelting, but don’t do this thing because that person can very well reply to me that I don’t need to be even be a stone pelter to be killed the way CRPF is barging into houses and killing people.”

This is intellectual cover for terrorism. By framing violence as natural and unavoidable, Khalid lends ideological legitimacy to the killing of soldiers, police, and civilians in Kashmir. Under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), such justification qualifies as support to terrorism.

Building a Radical Conspiracy

Khalid’s rhetoric does not stop at Kashmir. He draws connections between Kashmir, Bastar (Maoist insurgency), Dalit struggles, Rohith Vemula’s suicide, and even international causes like Balochistan and Palestine. He speaks of “17–18 universities” linked in solidarity networks.

He said, “But there is one place that is becoming very much like Kashmir in our own country and that place is Bastar in terms of militarization in terms of atrocities in terms of no information coming out in terms of attack on civil libertarians in terms of attacks on lawyers. An entire war is being waged once again, and similar news is coming out. It’s very important for us to understand that the same forces which are oppressing the people of Kashmir are oppressing the most oppressed people of this country as well and the people of Kashmir struggle is actually in our favor.”

This is exactly what the Delhi Police and NIA have alleged: a deliberate attempt to build a nationwide radical front that binds together separatists, Maoists, and identity-based grievances into one anti-state movement. Far from being a lone dissenter, Khalid casts himself as an architect of a broader conspiracy.

Country’s Defence Spends Are Unjustified

Khalid then makes a case for lowering defence spends for the army and protection in Kashmir. He says, “At one level this entire argument about taxpayers’ money was given in our country as per one government report, 77% of the people live on less than 20 rupees a day. Many parts of the country are worse than subsaharan Africa. Medical facilities and health are in shambles. Higher education. We all know what higher education what is happening to higher education. In the midst of all of this, our defence expenditure and especially on Kashmir to occupy a piece of land forcefully, to keep so many troops there and to invest so much of money year after year and to keep increasing that money with each unrest and to keep sending more troops in India to Kashmir while there are people dying out of hunger and malnutrition in this country while people are dying at child birth because there are not enough health facilities here That money needs to be spent here. Those who are concerned about taxpayers’ money should ask for demilitarization of Kashmir that money is being wasted there. People who said that we actually by talking about Kashmir we are disrespecting the Indian army. Well, what the Indian army is doing in Kashmir and the kind of things that they have done in Kashmir. Let me not get into that because then can it can become controversial. However, who are you to say that?”

Demonizing the State, Delegitimizing Institutions

Khalid does not merely criticize government policy; he calls India’s democracy a façade. The army is branded as a criminal force of rapists and murderers. His speech is replete with unverified, incendiary anecdotes presented as fact, mirroring Pakistani propaganda designed to incite hatred. He narrates stories such as that of “an 8-year-old boy who went out of his house to buy something or probably just went out of his house. It was curfew. That poor 8-year-old guy boy did not know what curfew is and what to be done and what not to be done. The CRPF gheraoed him from all directions and they beat him to death with bayonets that how dare you come out of this street, how dare you come out of the house.”

He adds one more story saying, “Two women in this place called Shopian in Kashmir. They go out of their house into the apple orchard. They are raped and killed by the army. Probably that’s the blasphemous thing to say today because I don’t know who might be sitting here and who might be recording and where it might be played and what meaning it will be given.”

Parliament and judiciary are portrayed as “Brahmanical tools”. He said, “This was the same government, the same people who after the Kargil war had done corruption even for the coffins of those who were killed in the Kargil war. They are the same people who after the recent Pampore attack, the same kind of Brahmanical forces, after the Pampore attack because the soldiers were lower class in Dalits they refused to even give them a proper funeral.”

Such language is not dissent. It is a systematic attempt to strip the state of all legitimacy, to portray India as a tyrannical occupier undeserving of loyalty or respect. In doing so, Khalid hands rhetorical ammunition to separatist and militant forces.

The Myth of the Innocent Activist

Khalid’s defenders constantly repeat that he is a “scholar,” a “Gandhian,” a “prisoner of conscience.” But his own words shred this façade. A Gandhian does not justify violence. A democrat does not question the very existence of democratic institutions. A constitutional activist does not argue that a part of India is “occupied territory.”

What remains is the truth: Khalid is a polished propagandist whose speeches echo the talking points of separatists and insurgents, giving them legitimacy among urban student circles.

Why Prison Is the Right Place

India is not wrong to jail Umar Khalid. On the contrary, it would be a dereliction of duty to ignore what he represents. His speeches fall squarely under provisions of the UAPA:

• Section 15 & 18: Incitement and conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
• Section 39: Support, even intellectual or ideological, to terrorist organizations.

To release him on the grounds of “free speech” would be to ignore the lethal consequences of such rhetoric in a country already battling separatism and insurgency.

Umar Khalid is not a martyr. He is not a misunderstood intellectual. He is a man who has chosen to stand with separatism, militancy, and the delegitimization of the Indian state. His words provide ideological fuel for violence and disintegration.

For that, he deserves exactly where he is – in prison. And not a day less.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Why Umar Khalid Deserves To Remain In Prison appeared first on The Commune.

On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court once again denied bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and the seven others involved in the case. However, a compelling narrative, widely echoed in certain sections of the media and activist circles, claims that the indefinite incarceration of these accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case is a “travesty of justice”, marked by a “sluggish judicial process” that has denied them bail unfairly.

Nonetheless, a detailed examination of court orders and the chronology of proceedings reveal a starkly different reality: the significant delay in commencing the trial was a calculated strategy employed by the accused themselves, particularly those out on bail, who then turned around to use this self-created delay as a ground for seeking liberty.

This strategy has now been explicitly called out and dismantled by the courts in a series of orders, the most recent being a judgement from the Delhi High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case, which lays bare the tactics used to protract proceedings.

The High Court’s Damning Indictment: Paras 22, 23, and 38

The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgement, left no room for ambiguity. The order sheets of the trial court, upon a bare perusal, clearly indict the defence counsel for the accused.

In Para 22, the Court states, “A bare perusal of the order sheets clearly indicate that the learned Counsel for the accused have taken many adjournments during the course of arguments on charge. The order-sheets show that the learned Counsel for the accused were not ready to argue the matter on charge, thereby protracting the proceedings. The facts and order sheets reveal that the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial at various points in time. The inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant herein is not due to the inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court.”

Para 23 absolves the trial court of any blame, highlighting its efforts to ensure a speedy and structured process – “Material on record shows that at no point of time, the learned Trial Court has or has unnecessarily delayed the arguments on charge. In fact, to facilitate the proceedings properly and in a speedy manner, the learned Trial Court has ensured that the proceedings take place in a structured manner, wherein liberty was given to the accused persons to come to a consensus as to who will argue the case sequentially.”

Perhaps the most revealing observation comes from Para 38, which describes a clear dichotomy between accused who are in prison and those on bail, and a conspiracy of delay: “Material on record indicates that certain accused persons have got bail and some of the accused persons are in prison. Those accused persons who got bail are trying to delay the arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The arguments on charge are being delayed by the accused persons who are out on bail at the cost of those accused persons who are in prison. Despite orders from the Court directing the Counsels for the accused persons to decide amongst themselves as to how and in what order the arguments on charge will be advanced by the accused, there seems to be no consensus among them.”

The court rejected the argument from Umar Khalid’s counsel, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, that they were merely “waiting in queue patiently,” noting that the accused did not advance arguments despite the court’s requests.

The Umar Khalid Bail Saga: A Timeline of Self-Inflicted Delay

The chronology of Umar Khalid’s bail petitions further cements the pattern of deliberate delay:

October 2022: The Delhi High Court denies Khalid bail, finding a prima facie true case against him.

December 2022: Khalid secures a one-week interim bail to attend his sister’s wedding.

April 2023: Instead of immediately appealing the High Court’s order, Khalid waits for four months after his interim bail ends to finally file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court – a full six months after the High Court’s rejection.

The Supreme Court Adjournments: Between April 2023 and February 2024, Khalid’s SLP was listed 14 times. An analysis shows that his own legal team, led by Kapil Sibal, sought adjournments in seven of those 14 hearings. This period was also marked by alleged attempts at “forum shopping,” with lawyers like Prashant Bhushan writing to the Chief Justice to have the case moved to a different bench.

February 2024: Kapil Sibal abruptly withdraws Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court, citing “changed circumstances,” and stated he would “try his luck” back in the trial court. This withdrawal coincided with a crucial January 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra that reinforced the strict standards for granting bail under UAPA, making Khalid’s chances in the top court exceedingly slim.

Even former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud endorses this.

Former CJI DY Chandrachud confirms what I had written about Umar Khalid’s bail application in SC. I had written that 7 times, it was Khalid who sought adjournment, ultimately withdrawing application. The cabal later played victim.

Here’s my story https://t.co/ui4YyovyuO pic.twitter.com/eOlWpar5ac

— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) February 14, 2025

The 2023 Conspiracy to Delay Charge Hearing

The most blatant example of coordinated delay occurred in September 2023. The trial court had fixed dates for day-to-day hearings on arguments for framing charges – the crucial step needed to finally begin the trial.

However, just as the prosecution was set to begin, several accused who were already out on bail, including Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, filed applications demanding a complete status report on the investigation before the arguments could start. They argued, speculatively, that the prosecution might file more supplementary chargesheets to “cover up” gaps.

This application, with no firm legal footing, was swiftly adopted by other accused out on bail, including Meeran Haider, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and others. The Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, vehemently opposed this, arguing it was a “frivolous application” filed deliberately to “disrupt the entire proceeding” on the very day hearings were to begin. He noted they had waited 40 days to raise this non-issue.

Significantly, at the same time, Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain (both in jail) were insisting the hearings should begin. This raised a critical question: why were those out on bail working to delay a trial that those still incarcerated were desperate to expedite? The Sessions Court, in its May 2024 order denying Khalid bail, answered this implicitly, noting that the delay was caused by the accused, not the prosecution.

The Legal Conclusion: Delay Cannot be a Self-Created Ground for Bail

The courts have consistently shut down the argument that delay is a valid ground for bail when the accused are the architects of that delay. The High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case emphatically concluded in Para 28: “it must be emphasised that in the facts of this case, majority delay is attributable to the accused and not the inability on the part of the prosecution to speed up proceedings”.

Further, in Para 39, the court warned against the tactic of deliberately delaying a trial only to then use that delay to demand bail: “The provision..”can easily be circumvented by delaying trial on one hand and pressing bail applications on the other”.

The evidence from the court records presents an undeniable picture: the much-lamented “delay” in the Delhi riots conspiracy trial was not a failure of the system but a deliberate strategy employed by the defence. The courts have not only seen through this strategy but have also unequivocally recorded it in their orders, debunking the popular media narrative that the accused are merely victims of a protracted judicial process.

This article is based on an X thread by Nupur J Sharma.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Court Documents Reveal How Accused In 2020 Delhi Riots Case Engineered Their Own Trial Delay appeared first on The Commune.

A shocking revelation has emerged, exposing that the 2020 Delhi riots were not spontaneous but a meticulously planned conspiracy that had been unfolding since 6 December 2019. Reports indicate that a key Congress office bearer played a crucial role in the orchestration of these events.

The central Congress figure involved was Sachin Rao, a close associate of Rahul Gandhi and a prominent party office bearer. He was a member of the DPSG WhatsApp group, which played a crucial role in planning and coordinating the 2020 Delhi riots.

On 14 December 2019, then-Interim Congress President Sonia Gandhi delivered an aggressive speech at the Bharat Bachao Rally in Ramlila Maidan. She urged people to take to the streets against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), referring to the agitation as an “aar ya paar ki ladai” (a fight to the finish) and suggesting that individuals should be willing to make sacrifices. This speech was later cited by some victims as a contributing factor to the riots.

Investigations have uncovered Congress’ deeper involvement, with evidence linking its student wing, NSUI, to groups coordinating violent protests on university campuses. NSUI member Reetam Singh was reportedly leading efforts to replicate protest strategies from Assam and Hong Kong, advocating for tactics such as “Chakka Jam” (road blockades). This strategy was later mirrored in the Shaheen Bagh protests and the riots in Delhi.

Significantly, the idea of “Chakka Jam” had first emerged on December 7, 2019, when activists Yogendra Yadav and Umar Khalid directed Sharjeel Imam to mobilize youth via social media. According to the Delhi Police chargesheet, a meeting was held on December 26, 2019, at the ISI Lodhi Colony, attended by individuals such as Harsh Mander, Yogendra Yadav, Umar Khalid, and others. It was in this meeting that strategies were formulated, including using women as the face of protests to prevent police intervention.

Further evidence links Congress figures to the conspiracy, with key members of the DPSG (Delhi Protests Support Group) WhatsApp group playing central roles. This group, created on 27 December 2019, was instrumental in coordinating the riots, with accused individuals such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam being active participants.

Of particular note is the involvement of Sachin Rao, a close aide of Rahul Gandhi. Rao was added to the DPSG group on 29 December 2019 and remained until 12 March 2020—shortly after the riots concluded. His participation raises questions about Congress’ role in the violence.

What’s DPSG WhatsApp group & Connection With Congress

The DPSG WhatsApp group played a central role in the planning and coordination of the 2020 Delhi riots. It was formed on 27 December 2019, following a key meeting held on 26 December at ISI, Lodhi Colony. This meeting was attended by several prominent individuals, including Harsh Mander, Yogendra Yadav, Umar Khalid, Nadeem Khan, Khalid Saifi, Sahil, Rahul Roy, Saba Dewan, Amrita Johri, and others.

During this meeting, critical decisions were made regarding organizing protests, ensuring demonstrations took place in Muslim-majority areas, emphasizing women’s participation to limit police action, arranging financial resources, and setting up legal support for detained individuals. The formation of the DPSG group was also decided in this gathering, and the minutes of the meeting were later shared in the group by Khalid Saifi.

Following its creation, the DPSG WhatsApp group became a key platform for coordination, with accused individuals such as Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam among its members. Evidence presented in court and investigative reports have repeatedly emphasized the group’s role in planning and executing the riots. Concerns were even raised within the group itself, as one member, identified as “Owais Sultan,” warned about an unfolding conspiracy to incite violence.

A particularly significant revelation from the group’s membership list was the presence of Sachin Rao, a close aide of Rahul Gandhi and a senior Congress office bearer. He was added to the group on 29 December 2019, and remained a member until 12 March 2020, when he was removed by the group admins. Given the group’s role in the riots, his continued presence raises questions about his awareness and involvement.

The DPSG group’s origins can be traced back to activist Rahul Roy, a key figure behind the “Not In My Name” protest. When members were initially added, questions arose regarding identity verification. On 29 December, an individual named “PC” insisted that all members disclose their identities, addressing Rahul Roy directly.

In that same message, “PC” also proposed mobilizing people to take to the streets and protect the Shaheen Bagh protest site.

Roy responded that only those present at the 26 December meeting had been added to the group.

During the introduction process, “PC” identified himself as Priyadarshi Chowdhury, a former serviceman linked to the Gandhi Peace Foundation and known for his association with the Aam Aadmi Party. At this point, Rahul Roy added another number to the group, which remained silent until 3 February 2020.

On this date, the individual using a number finally introduced himself as “Sachin Rao” and disclosed his affiliation with Congress. His presence in the group, which had already been flagged for inciting violence, raises critical concerns regarding the extent of political involvement in the conspiracy behind the riots.

Who Is Congress’ Sachin Rao?

Sachin Rao, who identified himself as “affiliated with Congress,” holds a more significant position within the party than a simple association. An analysis of the phone number added to the DPSG (Delhi Protests Support Group) WhatsApp group suggests that Sachin Rao is not only a key office-bearer in Congress but also a close associate of Rahul Gandhi.

According to the AICC (All India Congress Committee) office-bearers’ list, Sachin Rao, registered with the same mobile number, is designated as the in-charge of training for the Congress’ publication, Sandesh. Additionally, Rao serves as a “permanent invitee” to the Congress Working Committee (CWC), the party’s highest decision-making body.

Sachin Rao’s Political Role And Association with Rahul Gandhi

Sachin Rao has been widely recognized as a close and trusted aide of Rahul Gandhi. In 2022, when veteran Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad resigned, he penned a letter criticizing Rahul Gandhi’s reliance on his personal assistants and advisors. Among the names mentioned in Azad’s letter was Sachin Rao.

According to The Statesman, “Sachin Rao, who heads the Congress training cell, has moved out of Rahul Gandhi’s office, but his advice remains influential. He studied at Michigan Business School.”

Media reports have repeatedly highlighted Sachin Rao’s role within Rahul Gandhi’s inner circle since 2009.

• In 2009, Open Magazine reported that Rao was handpicked by Rahul Gandhi for his team.
• In 2013, Times of India described him as a key member of Rahul’s core team.
• India Today noted that while Rao rarely traveled with Gandhi, he played an important role in shaping social-sector policies, internal research, and coordinating activities of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI).
• In 2015, Business Standard listed Rao as part of Rahul Gandhi’s “2.0 team,” emphasizing that he was personally selected by Gandhi.
• In 2018, News18 identified Rao as an integral member of Rahul’s core team.
• In 2019, The Print described Rao as part of Rahul’s “Office of RG,” a team formed after he became Congress President in 2017. This team included a mix of political and non-political figures such as Nikhil Alva, Alankar Sawai, K. Raju, Praveen Chakravarty, Sandeep Singh, and K.B. Byju.

As recently as 2024, journalist Rasheed Kidwai described Sachin Rao as a close confidant of Rahul Gandhi.

Sachin Rao’s Presence In DPSG Group And His Removal

Sachin Rao was added to the DPSG WhatsApp group shortly after its creation. According to statements made by group members, only individuals present at the December 26, 2019, meeting were added. Rao introduced himself in the group on 3 February 2020—just hours after a message was sent requesting all members to identify themselves. This suggests that Rao was actively monitoring the group’s discussions.

However, on 12 March 2020, Sachin Rao was removed from the group by Rahul Roy. Another individual, Athar Khan, was also removed on the same day.

The timing of these removals is notable.

• The first arrest related to the Delhi riots took place on 5 March 2020.
• A broader conspiracy investigation (FIR 59/2020) was registered on 6 March 2020.
• The first arrest in the conspiracy case was made on 9 March 2020.
• By 11 March 2020, news of the arrests became public.

On 11 March one of the group members, Mariya Salim, urged that the DPSG group be deleted and that all members clear their chat histories, suggesting they reconvene on the Signal app. Rahul Roy then advised all members to delete their messages individually. Immediately after this exchange, on 12 March Sachin Rao and Athar Khan were removed from the group.

Significance Of Sachin Rao’s Removal

Athar Khan has since been identified as a key figure in the Delhi riots conspiracy. He was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), with the investigation highlighting his involvement in planning violent protests and road blockades during the visit of the U.S. President in February 2020.

Court documents cite multiple witness statements and WhatsApp chats indicating that Athar Khan participated in key meetings where violent escalation was discussed. His role in the conspiracy was considered substantial enough for the court to deny him bail in 2022, stating that the allegations against him were prima facie true.

Given these circumstances, Athar Khan’s removal from the DPSG group after the arrests became public appears understandable. However, Sachin Rao’s removal at the same time raises further questions, especially given his close association with Rahul Gandhi and his presence in the group.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post 2020 Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots Conspiracy: The Role Of Rahul Gandhi’s Close Aide And Congress Leader Sachin Rao appeared first on The Commune.

The Indian Express article titled “When Umar Khalid came home” exemplifies a troubling trend in journalism where individuals facing serious charges of violence and sedition are portrayed in an overly sympathetic light. By romanticizing the personal details of Umar Khalid’s life during his interim bail period, the article shifts focus away from the grave allegations against him, which include conspiracy in the 2020 Delhi riots that led to 53 deaths and left over 200 injured.

Problematic Quotes From The Article

Let’s take a look at some of the problematic quotes in the Indian Express article.

“How can staying in a cage for four years be easy for someone who loves being out in the public all the time?”

The use of the term “cage” paints Khalid as a victim rather than someone facing trial for orchestrating violence. It subtly undermines the gravity of the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

“He was savouring every ray of sunlight. It was as if he had returned to the city from a cave in a jungle.”

This poetic depiction trivializes the accusations of being part of a “larger conspiracy” that led to communal violence and death.

“She cooked non-vegetarian food for him every day… he’s very fond of mutton. His friends got burgers, pizzas, and cakes for him. He also likes cold drinks a lot.”

This focus on food and personal preferences risks trivializing the allegations and making Khalid appear relatable or sympathetic.

“There is a conception among others in jail that my son is a terrorist. It is not easy to convince them otherwise…”

This quote frames Khalid as a misunderstood victim, rather than addressing the evidence or allegations against him.

“The people who spent years in jail would have already lost their social identity and real lives by then.”

This sentiment, while valid in discussions on justice reform, glosses over the suffering of riot victims and the legal proceedings that led to Khalid’s incarceration.

Overall, getting such quotes from the family and publishing them in a national daily ensures that the narrative of portraying him as innocent to the public is established.

Let’s take a look at how such humanization and romanticization of terrorists is a common thread that runs across the world of journalism globally.

Romanticizing Terrorists And Those Accused Of Violence & Terror: A Pattern In “Journalism”

This isn’t the first instance where media outlets have softened public perceptions of individuals accused of heinous crimes. Some notable examples include:

Osama bin Laden

The New York Times described Osama Bin Laden as a “rich young millionaire” and focused on him being “a tall and handsome man“. They even published an elaborate obituary humanizing a terrorist.

Omar Sheikh

The Guardian reported terrorist Omar Sheikh being an “eccentric, good-humoured schoolboy” of Forest School and a member of the British arm-wrestling squad.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Washington Post referred to terrorist and Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as “Austere Religious Scholar” in its obituary.

Ajmal Kasab

BBC portrayed 26/11 Mumbai attack terrorist Ajmal Kasab as a village boy by publishing a video report after visiting his village.

During the trial of Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, some media outlets focused on his youth and background, with headlines like “Kasab’s Last Wish” which humanized a mass murderer.

Boston Bomber

Multiple media outlets such as Rolling Stone described the Boston Marathon bomber (2013) as a “handsome young man” and “promising student“.

Burhan Wani

After the killing of Burhan Wani, a Hizbul Mujahideen commander, some Indian journalists such as Barkha Dutt and her media outlet NDTV referred to him as a “son of a headmaster” and a “budding cricketer” or sometimes as “top rebel commander” focusing on his background and qualities rather than his role in violence and terrorism.

Afzal Guru

Afzal Guru, convicted for his role in the 2001 Parliament attack, was referred to as a “former fruit seller“, sometimes as a “family man” or “victim of systemic injustice” by certain sections of the media, downplaying his involvement in the attack.

"Afzal Guru was not a terrorist, he was very humanistic, he was loved by jail staff, jail staff cried for him when he walked to the gallows" ~ Kobad Ghandy.

1/2 pic.twitter.com/bt89WmYLY9

— Md Asif Khan‏‎‎‎‎‎‎ (@imMAK02) March 16, 2021

Yasin Malik

Yasin Malik, a terrorist who murdered four Indian Air Force officers in broad daylight at point-blank range, has often been described as a “top rebel leader” by certain media outlets, despite his involvement in violence and terrorism. Al Jazeera even wrote gloriously about how he “gave up arms and became a Gandhian“.

Romanticizing those accused of inciting or perpetrating violence undermines the seriousness of their alleged crimes and risks creating public sympathy for actions that have led to significant harm. In Khalid’s case, the Delhi riots left over 50 dead and hundreds injured, with property destroyed and communities traumatized. Instead of highlighting the suffering of the victims, articles like the one published by The Indian Express shift the narrative to the accused’s personal hardships and detach him from the crime.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The Indian Express Humanizes 2020 Delhi Riots Accused Umar Khalid – An Attempt At Shaping Whitewashing? appeared first on The Commune.