Student activist Umar Khalid has described prison as an experience that has reshaped his sense of identity and exposed the emotional cost of years of incarceration without trial in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Speaking in his first interview since his arrest in 2020, Khalid said the years spent in Tihar Jail had “wreaked havoc” on his mind and body, while the public portrayal of him as either a symbol or a villain had made it harder to hold on to his ordinary humanity. He said being reduced to an image, whether negative or supportive, had deepened the strain of captivity.
Khalid, 38, was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities Act in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 violence in north-east Delhi. The riots left 53 people dead and caused widespread destruction in several neighbourhoods. Police have accused him and others of planning unrest under the cover of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Khalid has denied the allegations.
His remarks have brought renewed attention to one of the most closely watched civil liberties cases in the country, where bail proceedings have stretched across several courts while the trial has yet to begin. Khalid remains in custody after repeated bail rejections. On January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting bail to five co-accused, finding that their roles had to be assessed separately under the stringent UAPA framework.
The case has turned into a wider argument over protest, public order, prolonged detention and the threshold for bail under anti-terror law. Khalid’s lawyers have argued that the prosecution case relies heavily on speeches, meetings and group communications that do not establish direct involvement in violence. Prosecutors have maintained that the violence was not spontaneous and that Khalid played a central role in mobilisation, coordination and the alleged conspiracy.
Khalid said the hardest part of imprisonment was not only the loss of freedom but the gradual erosion of hope. He described sunset in prison as a moment when the weight of another day in captivity becomes unavoidable. He also spoke of the social isolation produced by public vilification, saying even people around him in jail sometimes repeated the language used against him outside.
The interview also highlighted the psychological pressure created by the long gap between arrest and trial. Khalid said repeated disappointment over bail had taken a heavy emotional, mental and physical toll. His comments are likely to intensify scrutiny of pre-trial detention in UAPA cases, where the legal bar for bail is high once courts find the accusations to be prima facie true.
Khalid first rose to national prominence during student politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University. He was among the visible faces of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which critics said discriminated against Muslims. The government has rejected allegations that the law is discriminatory and has maintained that the Delhi riots investigation is being pursued on the basis of evidence.
The February 2020 violence followed weeks of polarisation around anti-CAA demonstrations. Several protest sites had emerged across Delhi, drawing students, activists, residents and civil society groups. Khalid’s speeches from that period have been central to the prosecution narrative, while his defence has pointed to statements in which he called for non-violent protest.
The legal record has also been shaped by delays, multiple bail rounds and arguments over parity with co-accused. Courts have previously examined whether prolonged incarceration can justify bail when the trial is yet to commence. In Khalid’s case, higher courts have held that the statutory restrictions under UAPA and the nature of the allegations weighed against release at the bail stage.
Rights groups and civil liberties campaigners have treated Khalid’s imprisonment as a test case for dissent and due process. The government and police position has been that the matter is before independent courts and that the charges relate to a serious conspiracy, not protected political expression.
