Delhi court allows Umar Khalid’s two weekly video meetings with family

July 15, 2026

New Delhi: A Delhi court has allowed jailed student activist Umar Khalid to have two e-mulakats (video meetings) every week with his mother and other family members, observing that he had been availing the facility for the last six years without violating any prison rules.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts passed the order while disposing of an application moved by Khalid, an accused in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

“The applicant has been using two e-mulakats a week for the last six years and has not violated any rule of the Delhi Prisons Rules. The applicant is allowed to have two e-mulakats per week for the purpose of talking to his mother and other family members,” the court said.

Khalid had approached the court seeking restoration of two weekly e-mulakats, contending that he had been permitted the facility ever since he was lodged in jail but that it had been curtailed to one e-mulakat a week from May 2026.

What does Umar Khalid say?

Appearing for Khalid, counsel submitted that the restriction had been imposed despite there being no violation of any prison rule on his part. The jail authorities opposed the plea, submitting that under the applicable rules, Khalid was entitled to only one e-mulakat every week and that the earlier practice of permitting two had accordingly been discontinued.

After considering the submissions, the court held that Khalid had been availing two e-mulakats every week for the past six years and had not breached any provision of the Delhi Prison Rules. In view of these circumstances, the court directed that Khalid be permitted two e-mulakats every week to speak with his mother and other family members and ordered that a copy of its order be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned Central Jail.

Same court dismissed regular bail pleas of Khalid and Sharjeel 

Earlier this month, the same court had dismissed the regular bail pleas of Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s earlier order declining them bail and that their fresh applications were not maintainable.

The trial court had observed that it had “no option but to follow” the apex court’s ruling, which permitted the accused to renew their prayer for bail only after the examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or on the expiry of one year from the Supreme Court’s January 5 order, whichever occurred earlier.