In a recent development in the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Delhi 2020 riots, activist and former student leader Umar Khalid informed the court that he was “singled out” by the police, alleging that many other participants who played bigger roles were not made accused. His remarks underscore questions over investigative fairness and selective prosecution, raising debates on the broader handling of communal violence in India.

Background: Delhi 2020 Riots

The Delhi riots of 2020 erupted in the northeast and north-east regions of Delhi, resulting in widespread violence, property destruction, and loss of life. The clashes occurred in the backdrop of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and other socio-political tensions. Over 50 people were killed and several hundred injured, with thousands displaced during the violence.

Law enforcement agencies initiated multiple investigations into the cause, spread, and participants involved in the riots. The Delhi Police filed numerous FIRs and identified several individuals as accused. Among them, Umar Khalid, a prominent activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student, was booked under various sections related to instigating violence and promoting enmity.

Umar Khalid’s Court Statement

During the court proceedings, Khalid emphasized that he was unfairly targeted while other individuals who played larger roles in the violence were not included as accused. He stated:

“Many others with bigger roles were not made an accused. I was specifically singled out.”

Khalid’s defence team argues that his case is a classic example of selective prosecution, where the authorities allegedly focused on individuals based on their political or ideological affiliations rather than their actual involvement in the riots.

Selective Prosecution Allegations

The allegations of selective prosecution have been a major point of contention in high-profile riot-related cases in India. Khalid’s counsel claims that:

1. Investigation Bias: The police investigation did not consistently identify all participants based on evidence. Instead, certain individuals were deliberately targeted.

2. Political Influence: The selection of accused may have been influenced by political or ideological considerations, affecting fairness in the judicial process.

3. Evidence Discrepancies: The defence points to inconsistencies in evidence presented against Khalid compared to other participants who played larger roles but were not charged.

This raises significant questions about the integrity of riot-related investigations, and whether systemic biases may influence legal outcomes.

Legal Proceedings and Challenges

Umar Khalid’s case has seen multiple court hearings, with defence arguments focusing on:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Alleged targeting of Khalid infringes on his constitutional rights, including equality before law and freedom of speech.

• Unfair Investigative Practices: The defence highlights lack of impartiality in police investigations, suggesting that evidence against Khalid may have been selectively emphasized.

• Need for Fair Trial: Lawyers argue that selective prosecution undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability in criminal proceedings.

The Delhi courts are now considering these submissions while reviewing the evidence, FIRs, and investigative methods employed by the police.

Wider Implications on Riot Cases in India

The remarks by Khalid also shine a spotlight on broader issues related to communal riot investigations in India:

1. Accountability of Police: Allegations of targeting specific individuals highlight the need for transparent and unbiased investigations in cases of communal violence.

2. Justice for All Victims: Ensuring that all participants responsible for violence, irrespective of political or ideological affiliation, are held accountable is essential for public trust.

3. Legal and Political Intersection: Riot cases often intersect with political discourse, and selective prosecution can erode confidence in judicial independence.

Experts note that cases like Khalid’s are a test of India’s legal system in handling politically sensitive communal violence cases with fairness and impartiality.

Human Rights and Advocacy Perspective

Several human rights organizations and civil society groups have expressed concern about selective prosecution in riot cases. They argue that targeting individuals based on ideological affiliations rather than evidence can:

• Undermine rule of law

• Encourage perceived injustice among communities

• Reduce trust in policing and judiciary systems

Khalid’s statements may therefore resonate with activist communities advocating for transparent legal processes and accountability in riot-related investigations.

Previous Developments in Khalid’s Case

Umar Khalid has been under investigation for his alleged role in mobilizing protests and organizing events around the CAA demonstrations. Previous hearings have included:

• Review of social media activity and speeches

• Examination of alleged connections with other accused individuals

• Analysis of mob violence patterns in affected areas

Despite multiple hearings, Khalid maintains that his role has been exaggerated by authorities, while individuals with more direct involvement have avoided charges.

Court Proceedings and Next Steps

The Delhi court is expected to continue examining evidence and submissions from both prosecution and defence. Key considerations include:

• Verification of accusations: Assessing whether charges against Khalid are substantiated by concrete evidence

• Comparative investigation: Determining why other participants with larger roles were not included in the FIRs

• Ensuring fair trial: Guaranteeing Khalid’s legal rights and preventing political or ideological bias from affecting judicial outcomes

The court’s rulings will likely influence future riot-related cases, setting precedents for fairness, evidence evaluation, and selective prosecution in India.

Public and Media Response

Khalid’s remarks have been widely covered in national and international media, sparking debates on police impartiality, justice in communal riots, and political influence on legal processes. Many civil society groups have called for independent investigations to ensure accountability and restore public trust.

Public reactions highlight the polarized nature of discourse around riot-related cases, with supporters emphasizing civil liberties and legal fairness, while critics stress the need for strict law enforcement against all riot perpetrators.

Conclusion

Umar Khalid’s statement that he was singled out during the Delhi 2020 riots draws attention to serious concerns about investigative impartiality and selective prosecution. By asserting that others with bigger roles were not charged, Khalid and his defence team raise questions about the fairness, transparency, and accountability of riot-related investigations in India.

As the case progresses in court, it remains a significant test of the judicial system in balancing law enforcement, political sensitivities, and individual rights. Ensuring justice in such sensitive cases is critical not only for the parties involved but also for maintaining public confidence in India’s legal and policing institutions.

The ongoing hearings will determine whether Khalid’s allegations of bias are substantiated and how future riot investigations can be conducted to uphold the principles of equity and justice.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.