Umar Khalid Breaks Silence After Nearly Six Years In Pre-Trial Detention

Umar Khalid has issued his first public statement since his arrest, describing the psychological and physical toll of nearly six years in pre-trial detention. The statement was relayed through family and friends to a journalist because prison conditions ruled out a direct meeting.

Khalid remains in Delhi’s Tihar Jail without trial, while Tunisian human rights defender Sihem Bensedrine faces the possibility of re-arrest after being sentenced to a combined 25 years in prison in two cases linked to her work. The two cases highlight prolonged detention, delayed proceedings and legal action brought against human rights defenders in separate countries.

Umar Khalid’s detention and the delayed trial

Khalid is an Indian human rights defender, historian and student activist who has been held without trial in Delhi’s Tihar Jail since September 2020. He faces charges under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, in connection with communal violence that broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February 2020.

Six years after his arrest, his trial has still not begun. Front Line Defenders describes him as one of the most prominent faces of dissent in India and says his continued imprisonment has come to symbolise the use of anti-terror laws against people campaigning for pluralism and constitutional values.

Khalid’s first public statement since his arrest came on 30 June 2026. According to the account, he spoke about the psychological and physical toll of nearly six years in pre-trial detention. He also described the experience of being reduced in the public eye to a simplified image, either vilified or presented as a hero.

Khalid said that this public portrayal erased his ordinary human vulnerabilities. He said the years in custody had taken a real toll on his mental and physical health. The account also said that the detention had not dulled his convictions.

He has spoken about what he sees as the growing normalisation of hate speech in Indian public life. He has also described how repeated delays, adjournments and recusals in his bail hearings have worn him down. He described the slow erosion of hope as one of the hardest parts of being in prison.

The latest statement came after a series of legal setbacks. His bail applications have been turned down repeatedly while he has remained in custody in the broader UAPA “larger conspiracy” case. Several co-defendants have received bail, but Khalid has remained behind bars.

On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court described five years of pre-trial detention as the “natural pace” of proceedings, even though the trial had not begun. The description came in the context of Khalid’s continuing detention and the absence of a trial.

On 5 January 2026, the Supreme Court acknowledged the considerable delay in bringing the case to trial but declined to grant Khalid regular bail. The Court cited the seriousness of the allegations and the material placed before it. It also barred him from filing a fresh bail application for a year.

The same judgment granted bail to several of his co-defendants, including Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman and Meeran Haider. Khalid was left as the only member of that group still behind bars, according to the account.

The release of those co-defendants did not end the legal cases against them. Their underlying cases remained open, and no trial date had been set. Their release therefore did not mean that the legal jeopardy had ended.

The charges over Delhi’s communal violence

The case against Khalid concerns communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020, during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and after Delhi’s legislative assembly elections. The violence was fuelled in part by online misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric from figures aligned with the ruling party, according to the account.

Hindu mobs targeted Muslim residents, mosques and people identified by name or by physical markers of religious identity. Some Muslims retaliated, the account says. Over three days, 53 people were killed, most of them Muslim, and hundreds more were injured.

When Delhi Police brought charges over the violence, they named no figures from the ruling party and very few of the Hindu participants, according to the profile. Khalid, who was roughly 1,000 miles from Delhi when the riots broke out, was instead accused along with more than a dozen other human rights defenders and student activists of “masterminding” and “engineering” the violence.

The accusation described the violence as part of a coordinated conspiracy against the state. Investigators relied heavily on Khalid’s public speeches to build terrorism and conspiracy charges, according to the account. The profile says that explicitly non-violent language calling for solidarity was treated as evidence of an armed plot.

Khalid was charged under the Indian Penal Code with offences including sedition, unlawful assembly, promoting enmity between religious groups, murder and attempted murder. He also faces charges under Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the UAPA covering unlawful activities, terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist acts and conspiracy.

The charges also include offences under India’s Arms Act. In December 2022, a Delhi court acquitted Khalid in a separate case involving rioting and property damage. He nevertheless remained in custody in the broader UAPA “larger conspiracy” case.

The continuing detention is central to the significance of the case for the organisations following it. Front Line Defenders says that those following Khalid’s case closely see his imprisonment as evidence of a wider moment in India involving the expanding use of anti-terror laws against dissent.

The organisation also points to the role of a compliant media in shaping public perception before any trial takes place. It describes a pattern across a number of UAPA cases in which broad terrorism definitions and restrictive bail provisions can function as punishment before, or entirely without, a conviction.

According to the same assessment, that pattern disproportionately affects human rights defenders, journalists and students who exercise their rights to peaceful assembly and free expression. The claim is presented as part of the wider context in which Khalid’s detention is being examined.

Khalid’s academic and political background

Khalid was born and raised in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar, a Muslim-majority neighbourhood in the southeast of the city. He has said that he witnessed how rising Hindu nationalist politics fractured Indian society along religious lines and pushed Muslims further to the margins.

He has spoken about how growing up amid that marginalisation made political engagement unavoidable for him. His academic work later focused on the history and rights of communities that he believed had long been pushed to the margins of power.

Khalid studied history at Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi. He later completed an MA, an MPhil and a PhD at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for Historical Studies.

His MPhil research examined the rights and history of tribal communities in Singhbhum. His doctoral dissertation, submitted in 2018, was titled “Contesting Claims and Contingencies of the Rule on Adivasis of Jharkhand.”

The dissertation examined the history of Adivasi societies in Singhbhum under British colonial rule and their changing relationship with state authority. That research was later published by Juggernaut as the book Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power.

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, which the profile describes as a university long known for left-leaning student politics and for being a target of right-wing criticism, Khalid was known as a sharp and critical mind. His approach was shaped by a campus culture that valued critical thinking and a commitment to marginalised communities, according to the account.

People who knew him at the time describe him as someone who was not career-minded. They describe him as consistently speaking up for the rights of Adivasis, the dignity and rights of Dalits, the concerns of minorities, and the rights of workers and farmers.

They also describe him as speaking against communalism in all its forms. These concerns ran alongside his academic interest in the histories of communities whose voices he believed had long been excluded from power.

Khalid had already faced threats to his safety before his 2020 arrest. In August 2018, while attending an event called “Khauf Se Azaadi”, or “Freedom from Fear”, near Delhi’s Constitution Club, a gunman opened fire at him. He was unharmed.

The attack came after he had reportedly received death threats and sought police protection. In 2017, he became one of the public faces of United Against Hate, a civil society initiative formed in response to a wave of lynchings and communal violence.

The initiative worked through fact-finding missions, public campaigns and awareness drives. Khalid’s activism increasingly focused on minority rights, resistance to communal discrimination and the defence of India’s constitutional values.

Earlier sedition case and the CAA protests

In February 2016, Khalid and several other JNU students were arrested and charged with sedition after a political event on campus. The event marked the anniversary of the 2013 execution of Afzal Guru and was organised in part as a protest against capital punishment.

Khalid spent 24 days in custody in that case. The case and the government’s use of sedition charges against university students turned him into a prominent and controversial symbol in the national debate over dissent and nationalism.

He was rusticated from JNU for a semester as a result. Indian television channels branded him an “anti-national”, which Khalid has said permanently changed the course of his life.

The university later refused to accept his completed doctoral thesis. Khalid challenged that decision in the Delhi High Court and won, finally submitting his PhD in 2018.

In late 2019 and into 2020, he became one of the most visible speakers in the nationwide movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens. He travelled widely and addressed public meetings across the country.

Khalid argued that citizenship should never be determined by religion. He also argued that the CAA-NRC framework violated the constitutional principle of equal citizenship.

His speeches during this period drew on the Constitution, the history of India’s freedom struggle and the lived experience of marginalised communities. He criticised what he saw as an attempt to redefine Indian citizenship along religious lines and to remake India as a Hindu-majoritarian state.

Sihem Bensedrine’s convictions in Tunisia

In Tunisia, prominent human rights defender Sihem Bensedrine is facing seven criminal cases connected to her work as former president of the country’s Truth and Dignity Commission. The commission is also referred to as the IVD.

Bensedrine was arbitrarily detained from August 1, 2024 until February 19, 2025. On February 19, 2025, the Tunis Court of Appeal ordered her release on bail pending trial.

On June 26, 2026, a Tunis court sentenced her to a combined 25 years in prison in two of the cases. The proceedings were described as having been marred by fair-trial violations.

Amnesty International says Bensedrine is at risk of re-arrest and imprisonment following the convictions. She remains at liberty pending appeal but continues to face five separate cases and a travel ban.

Another account identifies the court as the Tunis Court of First Instance and says the combined 25-year sentence was imposed in two separate cases. It says the cases concern the content of the Truth and Dignity Commission’s final report, particularly findings relating to corruption in the banking sector.

Bensedrine has appealed the convictions and remains at liberty pending appeal. Amnesty International says the proceedings were marred by serious fair-trial violations.

Bensedrine and her lawyers had not received a copy of the indictment decision when her trial began. She faces five additional criminal cases, all connected to her work as president of the Truth and Dignity Commission.

The commission’s work is central to all seven cases described in the material. Bensedrine served as its president between 2014 and 2018, according to Amnesty International’s appeal.

The organisation says the charges relate to her legitimate and legally mandated work as president of the commission. It calls for the convictions to be quashed and for all charges and proceedings arising solely from that work to be dropped.

Bensedrine has also been subjected to a travel ban since 2023. Amnesty International describes the ban as arbitrary and calls for it to be lifted immediately.

The organisation also says she was arbitrarily detained for over six months. It links that detention to the broader legal pressure she continues to face.

Fair-trial concerns and the appeal

Amnesty International says that any appeal proceedings must fully comply with international fair-trial standards while Bensedrine’s convictions remain in place. It specifically calls for her defence to receive full and timely access to the case file.

It also calls for all hearings to be public. The demand is linked to the organisation’s description of the original proceedings as having been affected by serious fair-trial violations.

The organisation’s account says Bensedrine should not be punished for seeking truth and accountability. Its appeal describes the prosecution as targeted and unfounded and says that all seven criminal cases relate to her legitimate work with the Truth and Dignity Commission.

Amnesty International is urging the Tunisian authorities to quash Bensedrine’s convictions and drop all charges relating to her legitimate human rights work. The appeal also asks authorities to lift the travel ban and ensure a fair appeal.

The public appeal asks supporters to send letters to government officials and provides a sample letter for that purpose. The stated deadline for sending the letter is March 25, 2027.

The appeal identifies the charges as concerning the findings in the commission’s final report, including findings about corruption in the banking sector. It says Bensedrine and her lawyers lacked a copy of the indictment decision when the trial began.

That detail is the specific fair-trial concern recorded in the material about the start of the proceedings. The wider demand is that the appeal provide the defence with full and timely access to the case file and that all hearings be public.

A wider concern about detention before trial

The cases of Khalid and Bensedrine involve different allegations and different legal systems. The shared concern raised by the source material is the use of criminal proceedings and detention against people described as human rights defenders.

In Khalid’s case, the trial has not begun despite his continued detention since September 2020. In Bensedrine’s case, the source says she has already been convicted in two cases but remains at liberty pending appeal while facing five additional cases.

Front Line Defenders says Khalid’s continued imprisonment has become a symbol of the use of anti-terror laws against those campaigning for pluralism and constitutional values. It also says the broader pattern disproportionately affects human rights defenders, journalists and students exercising peaceful assembly and free expression.

Amnesty International’s appeal says Bensedrine’s cases arise from her work with the Truth and Dignity Commission. It calls for the charges and proceedings connected solely to that work to be dropped.

In September 2025, Front Line Defenders joined Amnesty International, CIVICUS, FORUM-ASIA, the International Commission of Jurists, FIDH and OMCT in calling for Khalid’s immediate and unconditional release. The organisations also called for bail standards to be applied equally regardless of who is accused.

Their appeal further called for accountability for those actually responsible for the 2020 violence and for reform or repeal of the UAPA. The call came ahead of the five-year anniversary of Khalid’s arrest.

The organisations’ position connects Khalid’s imprisonment to wider concerns about anti-terror legislation, bail standards and accountability for the Delhi violence. The source material does not record a trial date for the broader case.

For Bensedrine, the immediate issue is the appeal against the combined 25-year sentence and the possibility of re-arrest. She also remains subject to five separate cases and a travel ban.

The latest information therefore leaves both defenders facing continuing legal uncertainty. Khalid remains in custody without a trial, while Bensedrine remains at liberty pending appeal but faces the risk of imprisonment and further proceedings.