Today, 10th April, Umar Khalid’s impact on Delhi Police bail hearings through manipulation of social media narratives is a crucial aspect of ongoing legal proceedings. His alleged involvement in crafting online narratives to influence court decisions underscores the evolving dynamics between social media advocacy and legal outcomes. This case highlights the intersection of digital activism and judicial processes, prompting scrutiny of how online platforms can shape legal perceptions and proceedings.
New Delhi: Today (10th April), According to the Delhi Police’s statement in court, former JNU student Umar Khalid’s pattern of crafting social media narratives to sway bail hearings, as revealed in his WhatsApp conversations. Khalid, who implicated in the alleged larger conspiracy related to the 2020 northeast Delhi communal riots and faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), presented his second bail plea before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, concluding his arguments, emphasized,
“The applicant’s WhatsApp chats also revealed that he is in the habit of creating media and social media narratives at the time of listing of bail applications of persons booked in cases clearly to influence bail hearings.”
He further added that the plea should be rejected in the interest of justice. Prasad stated
“An analogous strategy is being employed to influence the bail hearings of the applicant, as evidenced by samples of posts on X’s previous Twitter activity with hashtags related to the applicant,”
He referenced social media posts featuring the hashtag ‘Free Omar Khalid,’ shared by several individuals such as Amnesty India, its former director Aakar Patel, activist Teesta Setalvad, Swati Chaturvedi (Twitter handle @bainjal), and Kaushik Raj (Twitter handle @kaushikrj6).
Read Also:Umar Khalid Bail Plea Adjourned
Providing details about these posts, the SPP highlighted content such as a comparison between Ram Rahim’s parole grant and the alleged 14 time deferment of Khalid’s bail by the Supreme Court, a post denouncing the denial of Khalid’s bail as a severe infringement of his rights, an assertion that Khalid’s bail hearing serves as a “litmus test for the judiciary,” and the denial of his bail being a “major setback to the right of peaceful protest.“
Prasad stated,
“In spite of their claims of facing a media trial, observe how they manipulate the media, with Khalid’s father participating in media interviews alongside others associated with him,”
During the court session on Tuesday, the SPP presented a video in which Khalid’s father was interviewed by a news portal.
Highlighting a statement made by the accused’s father to the portal regarding their lack of faith in the Supreme Court, Prasad remarked,
“Their lack of faith in the Supreme Court led them to approach the trial court. This is how they construct a narrative in his favor.”
Prasad also mentioned specific individuals and entities to whom Khalid provided links, self-generated content, and social media posts, requesting them to share these materials on their social media platforms to shape a narrative in his favor and amplify it.
The SPP mentioned news portals and personalities such as Pooja Bhatt, Zeeshan Ayub, Swara Bhasker, Sushant Singh, Congress leader Jignesh Mewani, and activist Yogendra Yadav, according to Khalid’s counsel.
Responding to the arguments, Khalid’s senior advocate Trideep Pais countered by stating that no incriminating evidence was found on Khalid and that “terrorist acts are imposed” on him based on unsubstantiated statements without witness support.
He argued that both the Delhi High Court and the Special Court, which denied Khalid’s bail requests, failed to differentiate between alleged offenses and the individuals involved.
Emphasizing the need to evaluate the case based on individual circumstances, Pais stated,
“They have generalized everything without considering the specifics,”
He raised objections to the prosecution’s reliance on call detail records (CDRs), labeling it as “weak evidence.”
Pais also challenged the prosecution’s claim that Khalid involved Bangladeshi children and women in the Anti-CAA protests. He questioned,
“Has any woman come forward and accused me of this?”
Highlighting shifts in judicial perspectives, Pais noted, “The Supreme Court’s interpretation of ‘prima facie evidence’ against an accused evolved.” He referenced instances such as activist Vernon Gonsalves being granted bail in July 2023 and academic activist Shoma Kanti Sen being granted bail on April 5 in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.
According to UAPA provisions, bail can be refused if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against an accused is prima facie true.
Khalid’s counsel remarked,
“One of the witnesses in my case initially remained silent but suddenly changed their stance two weeks later. It appears as if all the witnesses in this case have remarkable memory enhancements.The case demands a thorough examination, not a superficial reading of the chargesheet. Mere association among accused individuals does not equate to terrorism.”
He further asserted that the prosecution relied on “third-party evidence” to connect Khalid with terrorist groups, highlighting the absence of a credible conspiracy case for committing offenses.
The case scheduled for further proceedings on April 24.