New Delhi, January 7, 2026 — Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has publicly expressed solidarity with activist Umar Khalid after the Supreme Court of India denied him bail in a high-profile case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 north-east Delhi riots. Moitra shared a poem on social media invoking themes of resilience and endurance, offering a message of support to Khalid, whose detention has remained a flashpoint in debates around political dissent, free speech, and national security.

The poem, originally written by the renowned American poet and activist Maya Angelou, was shared by Moitra on her X account under the title “You will rise, Umar Khalid.” The lines reflect defiance in the face of adversity:

“You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt,
But still, like dust, I’ll rise…
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise.”

Moitra’s post underscores her view of Khalid as someone facing systemic adversity yet maintaining steadfastness, echoing broader political narratives about dissent and justice. Her use of Maya Angelou’s words, celebrated for articulating resilience against oppression, has drawn attention across social media platforms, sparking discussions on civil liberties, political activism, and the judiciary’s role in cases of national importance.

The Supreme Court had earlier on Monday rejected bail pleas for both Umar Khalid and fellow activist Sharjeel Imam. Both are accused in a case that alleges a coordinated, larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots of 2020. These riots, which took place in the city’s north-east region, were marked by violent clashes and significant communal tension, leaving several dead and hundreds injured. The case has been politically sensitive, often invoked in debates over law enforcement, freedom of speech, and national security.

While Khalid and Imam were denied bail, the Supreme Court granted bail to other accused individuals in the same case, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. This selective release has prompted reactions from multiple quarters, reflecting the polarising nature of the case.

The judicial decision also triggered campus protests, particularly at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where groups of students allegedly raised slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The slogans referenced Khalid and Imam’s political positions and actions, and the campus unrest was seen by critics as a demonstration of political dissent within academic spaces.

These protests drew sharp criticism from prominent BJP leaders. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis condemned the slogans, asserting that “the offspring of Sharjeel Imam were born at JNU” and that “such wicked intentions that speak the language of breaking the country would be crushed.” Fadnavis’ remarks framed the protests as an affront to national unity, implying that certain political ideologies, particularly those associated with Khalid and Imam, were subversive to the country’s integrity.

Similarly, BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawala weighed in, branding the protesting student groups and aligned political actors as an “anti-India urban naxal gang.” Poonawala alleged that the Congress, Left parties, and the broader ecosystem supporting such activism prioritise individuals like Khalid and Imam above national security. He argued that their focus on political symbolism and vote-bank considerations undermined the country’s safety and legal institutions.

Delhi Home Minister Ashish Sood also criticised the incident at JNU, describing the sloganeering as “unfortunate and condemnable.” In his statements to the media, Sood linked the slogans to prior speeches and actions by Khalid and Imam, referencing statements advocating separatist ideas such as the “Chicken’s Neck corridor” and slogans allegedly calling for the fragmentation of India. Sood categorised these actions as bordering on treason, underscoring the tension between state security priorities and expressions of dissent.

The juxtaposition of Mahua Moitra’s poem and the stern reactions from government officials highlights the polarized nature of the discourse surrounding Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. On one hand, supporters view Khalid’s detention as emblematic of struggles for justice, civil rights, and protection of political dissent. On the other, critics emphasise concerns about national security, social cohesion, and the potential misuse of political platforms to incite unrest.

Mahua Moitra’s engagement also reflects a broader political strategy of highlighting individual cases to signal advocacy for human rights and civil liberties. By invoking Maya Angelou’s poem, Moitra framed Khalid’s situation as part of a larger narrative about resilience against systemic power structures, a theme resonant in both literary and activist traditions. Her post gained traction on social media, prompting debates among academics, journalists, and political commentators about the boundaries of dissent, the responsibilities of public figures, and the role of the judiciary in balancing civil liberties with public order.

The Supreme Court’s decision has set a precedent in the ongoing handling of high-profile cases connected to the 2020 Delhi riots. The legal proceedings against Khalid and Imam involve allegations of orchestrated violence and conspiracy, raising questions about the evidentiary threshold for granting bail in cases implicating national security. Observers note that the court’s selective bail grant to some accused while denying it to Khalid and Imam could reflect both judicial caution and the gravity of the charges.

Meanwhile, student activism at JNU and similar campuses continues to spark debates about the role of universities as spaces for political expression. The campus protests after the Supreme Court decision highlight the enduring tensions between freedom of expression and perceived threats to national unity. BJP leaders, including Fadnavis and Poonawala, have portrayed such activism as emblematic of ideological opposition to the state, while critics of the government argue that universities should remain spaces where dissenting voices can engage in dialogue without fear of repression.

The Khalid-Imam case remains a focal point in discussions about India’s political climate, civil liberties, and the judiciary’s role in politically sensitive matters. As the trial progresses, the contrasting reactions—from parliamentary leaders, campus activists, and law enforcement officials—are likely to continue shaping public discourse on national security, dissent, and the balance between legal accountability and freedom of speech.

In the immediate term, Mahua Moitra’s poem and the public discourse around it underscore the enduring power of literary expression as a tool for political commentary. Her invocation of resilience, defiance, and hope in the face of adversity reflects a broader trend among public figures to use art and literature to comment on ongoing political and judicial developments. Whether these expressions influence the case itself or the wider societal conversation, they highlight the intersection of culture, politics, and justice in contemporary India.

As India grapples with the complex legacies of the 2020 north-east Delhi riots, the case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam remains emblematic of larger questions about accountability, justice, and political dissent in a democracy. While the judiciary continues to adjudicate the matter, the surrounding debates on campus activism, civil liberties, and national security illustrate the contested terrain in which such high-profile cases unfold.