Eight members of the US Congress have written to India’s Ambassador in Washington, urging the Indian government to grant bail to Umar Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, and to ensure what they described as a “fair and time-bound” judicial process.
The letter, led by Democratic lawmakers Jim McGovern and Jamie Raskin, raises concerns over Khalid’s continued incarceration under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for over five years without the commencement of trial. The lawmakers argued that prolonged detention without trial runs contrary to international legal norms and sought his release on bail pending judicial proceedings.
Umar Khalid, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student, was arrested for allegedly being part of a larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020. He has been in judicial custody since his arrest, with multiple courts examining the gravity of charges framed against him under anti-terror legislation.
Earlier this month, I met with the parents of Umar Khalid, who has been jailed in India for over 5 years without trial. @RepRaskin & I are leading our colleagues to urge that he be granted bail & a fair, timely trial in accordance with international law. pic.twitter.com/tBIbG1aOwc
— Rep. Jim McGovern (@RepMcGovern) December 30, 2025
Besides McGovern and Raskin, the signatories to the letter include Democratic lawmakers Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch, Pramila Jayapal, Jan Schakowsky, Rashida Tlaib, and Lloyd Doggett. The lawmakers stated that they respect India’s democratic institutions but questioned why the trial had not begun even after several years.
McGovern also disclosed that he had recently met Umar Khalid’s family members in Washington, following which the letter was written to Indian authorities.
However, the US has to stop these kinds of interventions, underlining that India’s judicial process is an internal matter governed strictly by constitutional procedures and independent courts, and not subject to commentary or pressure from foreign legislators.
Also Read: A Question of Judicial Priorities in Delhi: Interim Bail to Umar Khalid Raises Sharp Concerns
Not Appropriate nor Acceptable
Sources pointed out that it is neither appropriate nor acceptable for US lawmakers to comment on or seek influence over India’s internal legal proceedings, particularly when similar or worse human rights concerns persist within the US itself. Critics have cited long-standing issues such as the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay, where detainees have been held for decades without trial, as undermining Washington’s moral authority to lecture other democracies on due process and humanitarian values.
People on social media bashed the US l; lawmakers by making them remember the systematic targeting of whistleblowers like Julian Assange.
One social media user wrote, “It’s hilarious to see US politicians talk about ‘detention standards’ while their own history is littered with Guantanamo Bay and the systematic targeting of whistleblowers like Julian Assange. Where is this energy for the human rights of people in your own backyard?”
First off, keep your “respect for our institutions” to yourselves; your unsolicited advice is neither needed nor welcome.
It’s hilarious to see US politicians talk about “detention standards” while their own history is littered with Guantanamo Bay and the systematic targeting… https://t.co/AIWFbqKrTg
— Dr. Ashutosh Singh (@reach_ashutosh) January 1, 2026
Indian authorities have consistently maintained that Umar Khalid’s case is sub judice and that decisions on bail and trial timelines rest solely with the judiciary, free from political or external influence. In fact, bail granted to Umar Khalid by an Indian court for a family wedding just few days back.
The development once again highlights the growing friction over human rights narratives between India and Western democracies, even as New Delhi reiterates that its legal system remains sovereign, independent, and bound only by the Constitution of India—not by foreign opinion or diplomatic pressure.
