Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Delhi Court passed an order on 13 July 2026 allowing Umar Khalid, who is presently in judicial custody in connection with the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North‑East Delhi riots, to avail two electronic mulakats (video calls) each week for the purpose of speaking with his mother and other family members.
The judge noted that Khalid had been availing the facility of two e‑mulakats per week for the preceding six years without any breach of the Delhi Prisons Rules. The order records that, since May 2026, the jail authorities had unilaterally reduced the number of permitted video calls from two to one per week. Khalid approached the court seeking restoration of the second weekly e‑mulakat, contending that the earlier arrangement had been in place continuously and had not resulted in any disciplinary infraction.
In its reasoning, the court emphasized that the continuation of the two‑call‑per‑week arrangement did not contravene any provision of the Delhi Prisons Rules. The judge observed that the applicant had enjoyed the facility for a prolonged period and had complied with all applicable regulations. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no legal basis for the sudden curtailment of the service.
The operative direction of the order states that Khalid shall be allowed two e‑mulakats every week to communicate with his family members. The jail authorities are required to implement the direction forthwith and to ensure that the video calls are conducted in accordance with the existing security protocols.
The matter arose from Khalid’s ongoing incarceration in the case commonly referred to as the Delhi riots conspiracy case, which stems from the communal violence that occurred in North‑East Delhi in February 2020. Khalid has been in custody for approximately six years in relation to the larger conspiracy proceedings. His application highlighted that the reduction in video call frequency had affected his ability to maintain contact with his mother and other relatives, a factor that the court considered while assessing the request.
The court’s order does not address the merits of the underlying criminal case or any allegations against Khalid. It is confined to the administrative aspect of prison facilities and the right of an undertrial to maintain familial contact under the prison rules. The judgment underscores the principle that any alteration to an existing facilities afforded to an inmate’s communication privileges must be justified by a demonstrable violation of prison regulations or a legitimate security concern, neither of which was found to be present in this instance.
Following the order, the jail administration is expected to restore the bi‑weekly video call schedule for Khalid. The decision adds to the body of judicial pronouncements that scrutinize prison authorities’ discretion to modify inmate facilities, ensuring that such modifications are consistent with statutory mandates and do not infringe upon the procedural safeguards available to persons in judicial custody.