India’s foreign ministry has sharply criticised New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani after a private letter he sent to jailed Indian student activist Umar Khalid became public, saying foreign officials should respect India’s judiciary and “focus on the responsibilities entrusted to them,” according to Middle East Eye and India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The rebuke followed disclosure of Mamdani’s December note expressing solidarity with Khalid, who has been detained without trial since 2020 under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and whose latest bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court on 5 January 2026.
Diplomatic Pushback After Solidarity Letter
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters that India “expects public representatives to be respectful of the independence of judiciaries in other democracies,” in remarks reported by Middle East Eye and NDTV. He added that “expressing personal prejudices does not behoove those in office” and suggested Mamdani should “focus on the responsibilities entrusted to him rather than commenting on Indian legal proceedings.
The comments came after Khalid’s parents, who met Mamdani during a visit to the United States in December 2025, shared his handwritten message on social media platforms including X and Instagram, Middle East Eye reported. Mamdani wrote: “Dear Umar, I think of your words on bitterness often and the importance of not letting it consume oneself. It was a pleasure to meet your parents. We are all thinking of you,” according to Middle East Eye’s original report.
Umar Khalid’s Case and Supreme Court Ruling
Khalid, a former student leader, has been in pre-trial detention since September 2020 in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots, which left more than 50 people dead, largely Muslims, and were described by Middle East Eye as the most violent episode in the capital since the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. He is charged under UAPA, an anti-terror law that permits prolonged detention and makes bail “exceptionally difficult,” as outlined by Middle East Eye and legal analysts.
On 5 January, India’s Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid while granting bail to five co-accused, holding that delay in trial and long incarceration could not be a “trump card” for bail in UAPA cases, The Times of India and Human Rights Watch reported. The court characterised Khalid as a “central” or “architectural” figure in an alleged conspiracy related to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), and said he could renew his bail plea after one year or after examination of protected witnesses, according to a judgment summary published by The Leaflet.
International Concern Over Pre-Trial Detention
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has cited Khalid’s case as an example of religious minorities and activists spending years in jail without trial, recommending that India be designated a “Country of Particular Concern” over deteriorating religious freedom conditions. USCIRF has argued that the use of laws such as UAPA and the CAA disproportionately affects Muslims and other minorities, with an estimated 70 percent of India’s prisoners being pre-trial detainees and minorities overrepresented, according to its 2024 India update.
Eight Democratic members of the US Congress, including Representative Jim McGovern and Representative Pramila Jayapal, wrote to Indian Ambassador Vinay Mohan Kwatra on 30 December, urging India to grant Khalid bail and ensure a fair trial “in accordance with international law,” McGovern’s office and Middle East Eye reported. Human Rights Watch has also criticised the continued detention of Khalid and fellow activist Sharjeel Imam, saying the Supreme Court’s denial of bail prolongs their incarceration without resolving concerns about due process.
Rights Groups Press for Release
International rights organisations have repeatedly called for Khalid’s release, arguing that the charges are politically motivated and linked to his role in protests against the CAA. Amnesty International welcomed recent bail decisions for some co-accused but said “it is shameful that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam continue to be denied bail,” insisting that “neither of these individuals should be in detention in the first place” and that charges should be dropped, according to a statement cited by Middle East Eye.
USCIRF has urged Washington to press India to release activists detained under UAPA for peaceful dissent, naming Khalid among those “languishing in jail” for advocating for religious minorities, in a 2024 statement on the CAA. The Indian government has rejected USCIRF’s assessments as “biased and politically motivated,” according to the Ministry of External Affairs’ earlier responses reported by The Wire.
Delhi Riots Legacy and What Comes Next
The controversy over Mamdani’s letter highlights continuing international scrutiny of India’s handling of the 2020 Delhi riots cases and the broader use of national security laws against student activists. The riots followed protests against the CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, and drew criticism from rights groups that described the law as discriminatory, USCIRF, and multiple legal commentators have noted.
As Khalid remains in custody more than five years after his arrest, his legal team may renew his bail plea next year, while foreign governments, US lawmakers, and human rights bodies are likely to keep pressing India on fair trial guarantees and the length of pre-trial detention. The MEA’s latest remarks suggest New Delhi will continue to resist external commentary on what it describes as domestic judicial matters, even as global attention to high-profile UAPA cases persists.
The tension between diplomatic protocol and human rights advocacy realy shows in cases like this. What stood out to me was the Supreme Court's logic that delay cant be a trump card for bail under UAPA, which basically means the law creates a circular trap where the system's own slowness becomes justificaton for continued detention. I've seen similar patterns in other contries where national security laws end up being used more for political control than actual security threats.