Umar Khalid, a former student activist from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has entered his fifth year in jail this week. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which has been a major point of contention in his ongoing case.
The Delhi Police’s 2020 chargesheet labels Khalid as a ‘veteran of sedition,’ accusing him of conspiring to organise protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). These protests allegedly led to violence during then U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India.
At the heart of Khalid’s case is the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of UAPA. This section criminalises acts aimed at threatening India’s unity, integrity, or security, including the use of bombs or other means of violence. The prosecution argues that the ‘chakka jam’ (road blockade) Khalid is accused of organising should be classified as a terrorist act, as it allegedly falls under the category of “any other means.”
The evidence against Khalid largely consists of statements from over two dozen protected witnesses, identified by code names like Saturn and Echo. These witnesses claim that Khalid discussed the need for violent protests during secret meetings. Some allege that he made provocative speeches, such as “aandolan khoon maangta hai” (a movement demands blood). However, Khalid’s defence team has challenged the reliability of these testimonies. They point out that the statements were recorded almost a year after the initial FIR and lack corroborating physical evidence, such as weapons or banned literature.
Despite the challenges to the evidence, Khalid’s bail pleas have been repeatedly rejected. Courts have cited the Supreme Court’s 2019 Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali ruling, which restricts judges from questioning the merits of UAPA allegations during bail hearings. As the trial has yet to commence, the broader legal debate over the interpretation of UAPA’s provisions continues, with potential implications for Khalid’s future.
This case not only underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding UAPA but also raises important questions about the balance between national security and individual rights.
