The Debate | Opinion | South Asia

Umar Khalid: 2,000 Days in Prison Without Trial 

His continued incarceration is a telling example of the erosion of both India’s judicial independence and its democracy.   

In this Sep. 7, 2017, file photo, Umar Khalid speaks during a protest in New Delhi against the killing of senior journalist in Bangalore, India.

Two thousand days. That is how long Umar Khalid has spent in prison without trial, as of March 6, 2026. Those 2,000 days not only symbolize the erosion of India’s justice system but also expose the Modi government’s willingness to weaponize the criminal justice system to delegitimize, incapacitate, and penalize dissent.  

In 2019 and 2020, Khalid emerged as an influential voice during nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that marked a departure from India’s secular citizenship framework and triggered widespread constitutional challenges. As the practice of casting minorities as “doubtful citizens” persists – through aggressive Special Intensive Revision drives of India’s voter rolls and sustained rhetoric of “illegal infiltration” by the top leadership of the ruling party – Khalid remains in Tihar without trial, his bail plea dismissed by the highest court. This reveals an unmistakable pattern in India, where criticism is contained while the politics that provoked it endure.  

The latest decision came on January 5, 2026, when the Supreme Court denied Khalid’s bail and barred him from filing another application for a year under stringent measures in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In doing so, India’s highest court interpreting the prosecution evidence as prima facie sufficient to deny bail for Khalid and his co-accused Sharjeel Imam. Not only did the court order avoid scrutiny of the prosecution material, but it imposed a one-year bar on review applications, effectively prolonging the pre-trial detention and leaving future bail prospects at the discretion of prosecutorial progress.

Khalid’s 2,000 days in prison set a dangerous precedent, normalizing indefinite pre-trial detention. The implications stretch far beyond this single case. Through its investigation, the People’s Union for Civil Liberty has demonstrated how the UAPA has been systematically misused to silence dissent. According to the data from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, 10,440 people were arrested under the UAPA between 2019 and 2023, while only 335 convictions were recorded.  

For five years, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and experts worldwide have called for the immediate release of Umar Khalid and for his prolonged detention to be recognized as arbitrary. They have warned that India’s application of the UAPA in cases like Khalid’s may violate international human rights law, including India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and international standards of due process, proportionality, and equality before the law. 

As early as 2021, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and various U.N. special rapporteurs have consistently expressed concern that India’s UAPA fails to meet international human rights standards. In 2023, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other U.N. mandate holders similarly criticized its vague definitions and restrictive bail provisions, which enable prolonged pre-trial detention.  

In December 2025, eight members of the U.S. Congress urged the Indian government to grant Khalid bail and ensure him a fair trial, warning that his detention raised serious concerns under international human rights law. Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, sent a public solidarity message, praising Khalid’s work and courage.  

Despite international criticism, Khalid remains behind bars.  

Beyond Khalid’s individual fate, these 2,000 days reveal deeper trends in India’s democratic backsliding. In recent years, India has been downgraded from a “Free” to a “Partly Free” country in Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report, reflecting sustained attacks on civil liberties, the targeting of journalists and human rights defenders, and the shrinking space for independent civil society. The V-Dem Institute has likewise classified India as an “electoral autocracy,” citing the concentration of executive power, the erosion of judicial independence, and increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and minority rights.  

The slide toward autocracy rarely happens overnight. It advances through incremental shifts and the quiet erosion of the rule of law. In such moments, the judiciary must stand as the guardian of the Constitution and a bulwark against the excesses of executive power. Today more than ever, the Indian judiciary carries that responsibility. Yet in Khalid’s case, the court meekly deferred to the government’s arguments. 

At a time when chaos and tyranny unfold within India and abroad, the credibility of India’s democracy will depend on whether its courts choose to defend and protect fundamental and human rights, or allow their erosion. 

Get to the bottom of the story

Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.

Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.

Unlimited articles and expert analysis

Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights

16-year archive of diplomatic coverage

Ad-free reading on all devices

Support independent journalism

Already have an account? Log in.

Two thousand days. That is how long Umar Khalid has spent in prison without trial, as of March 6, 2026. Those 2,000 days not only symbolize the erosion of India’s justice system but also expose the Modi government’s willingness to weaponize the criminal justice system to delegitimize, incapacitate, and penalize dissent.  

In 2019 and 2020, Khalid emerged as an influential voice during nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that marked a departure from India’s secular citizenship framework and triggered widespread constitutional challenges. As the practice of casting minorities as “doubtful citizens” persists – through aggressive Special Intensive Revision drives of India’s voter rolls and sustained rhetoric of “illegal infiltration” by the top leadership of the ruling party – Khalid remains in Tihar without trial, his bail plea dismissed by the highest court. This reveals an unmistakable pattern in India, where criticism is contained while the politics that provoked it endure.  

The latest decision came on January 5, 2026, when the Supreme Court denied Khalid’s bail and barred him from filing another application for a year under stringent measures in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In doing so, India’s highest court interpreting the prosecution evidence as prima facie sufficient to deny bail for Khalid and his co-accused Sharjeel Imam. Not only did the court order avoid scrutiny of the prosecution material, but it imposed a one-year bar on review applications, effectively prolonging the pre-trial detention and leaving future bail prospects at the discretion of prosecutorial progress.

Khalid’s 2,000 days in prison set a dangerous precedent, normalizing indefinite pre-trial detention. The implications stretch far beyond this single case. Through its investigation, the People’s Union for Civil Liberty has demonstrated how the UAPA has been systematically misused to silence dissent. According to the data from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, 10,440 people were arrested under the UAPA between 2019 and 2023, while only 335 convictions were recorded.  

For five years, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and experts worldwide have called for the immediate release of Umar Khalid and for his prolonged detention to be recognized as arbitrary. They have warned that India’s application of the UAPA in cases like Khalid’s may violate international human rights law, including India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and international standards of due process, proportionality, and equality before the law. 

As early as 2021, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and various U.N. special rapporteurs have consistently expressed concern that India’s UAPA fails to meet international human rights standards. In 2023, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other U.N. mandate holders similarly criticized its vague definitions and restrictive bail provisions, which enable prolonged pre-trial detention.  

In December 2025, eight members of the U.S. Congress urged the Indian government to grant Khalid bail and ensure him a fair trial, warning that his detention raised serious concerns under international human rights law. Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, sent a public solidarity message, praising Khalid’s work and courage.  

Despite international criticism, Khalid remains behind bars.  

Beyond Khalid’s individual fate, these 2,000 days reveal deeper trends in India’s democratic backsliding. In recent years, India has been downgraded from a “Free” to a “Partly Free” country in Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report, reflecting sustained attacks on civil liberties, the targeting of journalists and human rights defenders, and the shrinking space for independent civil society. The V-Dem Institute has likewise classified India as an “electoral autocracy,” citing the concentration of executive power, the erosion of judicial independence, and increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and minority rights.  

The slide toward autocracy rarely happens overnight. It advances through incremental shifts and the quiet erosion of the rule of law. In such moments, the judiciary must stand as the guardian of the Constitution and a bulwark against the excesses of executive power. Today more than ever, the Indian judiciary carries that responsibility. Yet in Khalid’s case, the court meekly deferred to the government’s arguments. 

At a time when chaos and tyranny unfold within India and abroad, the credibility of India’s democracy will depend on whether its courts choose to defend and protect fundamental and human rights, or allow their erosion. 

Dr. Ritumbra Manuvie is a tenured assistant professor at the University of Groningen, and founder director of Foundation Diaspora in Action for Human Rights and Democracy.  

India judicial system

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

© The Diplomat