Delhi Court restores two video meetings a week for Umar Khalid to speak with family

A Delhi court has allowed Umar Khalid, who is currently in custody in a larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, to have two e-mulakats (video calls) with his family every week. This decision was made by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who noted that Khalid had been availing this arrangement for the past six years without violating any rules of the Delhi Prisons Rule. The court's order aims to restore a previous facility that was curtailed in May 2026, allowing Khalid to have two e-mulakats per week to speak with his family members.

The recent decision by a Delhi court to allow Umar Khalid to have two video meetings with his family every week has significant implications for the rights of prisoners in India. The case highlights the importance of maintaining family contact and communication for individuals in custody, particularly those who have been incarcerated for extended periods. This article will examine the background and context of this decision, as well as its potential significance for the legal community.

The Delhi Prisons Rule governs the treatment and conditions of prisoners in Delhi's correctional facilities. The rule allows for video calls between prisoners and their families, with a limit of two e-mulakats per week. Umar Khalid has been in custody for six years in relation to the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. In May 2026, his facility was curtailed to one e-mulakat per week, prompting him to move the court seeking restoration of the second weekly e-mulakat.

However, there are also potential limitations to this decision. For example, it is unclear whether other prisoners will be able to benefit from similar arrangements in the future. Additionally, the decision may not address the underlying issues that led to the curtailment of Khalid's facility in May 2026.

As the legal community continues to grapple with the complexities of prisoner rights, this decision serves as a reminder of the importance of prioritizing family contact and communication. It remains to be seen whether other courts will follow suit and adopt similar arrangements in the future.