Jailed activist Umar Khalid has reacted with a mix of relief for his co-accused and resignation about his own future after the Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant him bail in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case. According to his partner, academic and writer Banojyotsna Lahiri, Khalid said he was “happy and relieved” for those who secured bail, even as he came to terms with continuing life behind bars.

The Supreme Court, in its January 5 order, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting relief to five other accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad. The court held that there was a prima facie case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that all accused in the case did not stand on the same footing and that bail decisions must reflect a “hierarchy of participation”.

Following the order, Lahiri shared Khalid’s reaction in a post on X, offering a rare glimpse into his state of mind after more than five years in jail as an undertrial. “Umar said, ‘I am really happy for the others, who got bail! So relieved’,” she wrote, recounting a conversation with him after the verdict.

The post also conveyed Khalid’s acceptance of the court’s decision regarding his own bail. Lahiri said she told Khalid that she would come to meet him in jail on Tuesday. “Good good, aa jana. Ab yahi zindagi hai (Do come. This is my life now),” Khalid reportedly replied.

The statement has resonated widely, symbolising both the emotional toll of prolonged incarceration and the uncertainty faced by undertrials booked under stringent anti-terror laws. Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader, was arrested on September 13, 2020, in connection with what the Delhi Police allege was a conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February that year.

The riots, which erupted amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured, with large-scale damage to homes, shops and places of worship. The police have accused Khalid and others of being “masterminds” who planned and instigated the violence, a charge that Khalid and his co-accused have consistently denied.

Despite the passage of nearly five years since his arrest, the trial in the case has yet to begin. Khalid’s lawyers have repeatedly argued that such prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial violates his fundamental right to personal liberty. However, the Supreme Court, while considering the bail pleas, made it clear that delay in trial by itself could not be treated as a “trump card” for granting bail in cases involving serious allegations under the UAPA.

All seven accused whose pleas were considered by the court were charged under the UAPA, along with multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to conspiracy, rioting and promoting enmity between groups. The UAPA places a high threshold for bail, requiring courts to deny relief if the accusations appear prima facie true.

While five accused were granted bail, the court’s refusal in Khalid’s and Imam’s cases was seen as reinforcing the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters involving alleged national security and terror-related offences. The bench noted that the nature of allegations and the roles attributed to the accused were key factors in its decision.

Khalid’s reaction, as described by Lahiri, stood in contrast to the legal setback. Rather than expressing anger or bitterness, he appeared to focus on the relief granted to others. Supporters of Khalid have interpreted this response as reflective of his long-standing political temperament and resilience, even as they criticised the legal process that has kept him incarcerated for years without trial.

His father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, reacted with visible disappointment to the Supreme Court’s order. “It is very unfortunate,” he said. “The judgment is there, and I have nothing to say about it.” The brief comment underscored the family’s sense of exhaustion after years of legal battles and repeated bail rejections.

Civil liberties groups and opposition leaders have renewed their criticism of the use of the UAPA in the Delhi riots case, arguing that the law has effectively normalised prolonged pre-trial detention. They contend that continued incarceration without conviction amounts to punishment before guilt is established, particularly when trials are yet to commence.

The prosecution, however, maintains that the gravity of the allegations, the scale of the violence, and the alleged role of the accused in orchestrating it justify strict judicial scrutiny and continued custody.

For Umar Khalid, the Supreme Court’s decision means that jail remains his immediate reality. His reported words — “This is my life now” — capture not only his personal situation but also the broader debate around undertrial detention, the balance between national security and civil liberties, and the human cost of protracted legal proceedings.

As the case inches forward with no clear timeline for trial, Khalid’s response has once again brought focus to the question of how long an accused can be kept behind bars while awaiting their day in court — a question that continues to divide legal opinion and public sentiment alike.