A hue and cry was raised by Sangh Parivar activists last weekend in Goa over a banner displayed at a student protest in Goa calling for the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. A student carried a banner that read: “Free Umar Khalid” and was taken into custody and interrogated.
Temporary custody falls under the framework of preventive detention laws in India. So, he was later freed after signing a bond because no formal criminal act or cognisable offence was established. The Panaji Police utilised preventive and administrative measures rather than standard penal code charges to manage the situation.
In the case of Umar Khalid itself, no final judgment or conviction has been passed even after six years. He faces accusations of masterminding a larger, premeditated criminal conspiracy to orchestrate the Delhi communal riots during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This case has been prolonged since 2020.
Recently, Justice A P Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, speaking at the Goa High Court Bar Association, criticised the prolonged incarceration of Khalid. He classified Khalid as a political dissenter and cited examples of how “some of the worst offenders are granted bail or remissions rapidly while Khalid languishes behind bars”.
Amnesty International views the prolonged detention of the Indian student activist Umar Khalid as a major derailment of justice, calling for his immediate and unconditional release. The UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in Opinion No. 66/2025, declared the prolonged detention of Indian activist Umar Khalid arbitrary and in violation of international law. After all, it is a fact that justice delayed is justice denied.
Civil society activists had sought to convince the police that the banners in Goa were not crimes. The police and Sangh-related activists raised slogans, and a tense situation evolved. Umar Khalid’s prolonged detention highlights major debates over Indian democracy, centred on extended pre-trial incarceration, the use of strict anti-terror laws, and the limits of free speech.
The Association for Democratic Reforms shows a total of 122 BJP Members of Parliament (MPs) who have self-declared criminal cases pending against them in their election affidavits. Under Indian law, a citizen is considered an accused until convicted by a court. The majority of these entries represent ongoing charges rather than finalised convictions. What is clear is that our judicial system is biased and inept.
Ranjan Solomon via email
