“The case of Umar Khalid: how public debate has got it wrong”, TheDossier, 15 Sep 2026.
“Personal liberty, in any democracy, is not a favour the government hands out to its citizens. It is a basic right that the state is charged to protect. The basic adage that a person is innocent until proven guilty is not a cliché but the very foundation of liberal constitutional values unless the threats are of an “extraordinary nature.” Similarly, the right to a fast and fair trial is not a mere technicality – it is a value which distinguishes a free liberal democracy from an authoritarian state. Precisely why Umar Khalid, a person incarcerated for six continuous years without a trial, must necessarily worry any individual in the country. This, however, is only one part of the story.
Liberty does not exist in a vacuum. It has to be actively protected from threats – from within and outside. A state also has a duty to protect liberty from organised violence and conspiracies that use the language of protest to spread chaos or instigate riots – a brutal reality underscored by the loss of civilian lives and officers like Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma.
And so, harsh legislation like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) exists precisely to address such a phenomenon. The existence of such a law in itself is not conclusive evidence of a police state, but an assurance that no one capable of instigating mobs would roam free.
That every democracy, based on its realities and necessities, has some version of it primarily because ordinary criminal law is at times too weak to deal with planned, large-scale conspiracies. Of course, a tough law like UAPA can only be trusted if it is used carefully, only in demonstrably serious cases, under strict judicial scrutiny and with trials that move at a reasonable pace. This is precisely where a robust public discussion should matter, as that is what keeps government power in check……….”
Read the full article at TheDossier.
