New Delhi – The Ministry of External Affairs has issued a sharp response to newly sworn-in New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s handwritten letter to Umar Khalid, stating that “expressing personal prejudices do not behove those in office.” The response comes days after the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two main accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal addressed the controversy during his weekly press conference on Friday, expressing mild disapproval for Mamdani’s correspondence with Umar Khalid. The diplomatic response underscores India’s sensitivity to international commentary on its judicial proceedings and internal security matters.
Content of Mamdani’s Letter To Umar Khalid
In his note addressed to Umar Khalid, Mayor Zohran Mamdani wrote, “I think of your words on bitterness often, and the importance of not letting it consume one’s self. It was a pleasure to meet your parents. We are all thinking of you.” The personal nature of the letter suggests a relationship between Mamdani and Umar Khalid’s family.
The note was shared on social media by Umar Khalid’s partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, on January 1, coinciding with Mamdani’s swearing-in as the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Lahiri captioned the photograph of the note: “Zohran Mamdani writes to Umar Khalid. December 2025.”
MEA’s Official Statement on the Matter
During the weekly press conference, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal emphasized that public representatives are expected to be “respectful of judiciary in other democracies.” His statement regarding Mamdani’s letter to Umar Khalid reflects India’s position that foreign elected officials should not interfere in judicial matters of sovereign nations.
“We expect public representatives to be respectful of the independence of the judiciary in other democracies. Expressing personal prejudices do not behove those in office. Instead of such comments, it would be better to focus on the responsibilities entrusted to them,” Jaiswal stated, directly addressing the controversy surrounding Mamdani’s letter to Umar Khalid.
Supreme Court’s Bail Denial Decision
On Monday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria denied bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The decision came after extensive consideration of the prosecution’s case and the roles allegedly played by both accused.
However, the same bench released five other co-accused, holding that their continued incarceration was not indispensable to the conduct of a fair trial at the present stage. This differential treatment highlights the court’s assessment of varying levels of involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Five Co-Accused Released on Bail
The five co-accused who received bail were Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. Their release contrasts sharply with the continued detention of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, underscoring the Supreme Court’s distinction between different categories of accused.
The court’s decision to grant bail to these five individuals while denying it to Umar Khalid and Imam suggests a hierarchical assessment of alleged involvement in the conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots.
Judicial Reasoning Behind Differential Treatment
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam rests on a key judicial finding that the prosecution material, taken at face value, places the two on a “qualitatively different footing” from other accused. The court attributed to them “central,” “formative,” and “strategic” roles in the alleged conspiracy.
This assessment distinguishes Umar Khalid and Imam’s alleged participation from what the court characterized as “local or episodic participation” by other accused. The judicial reasoning provides the foundation for the differential bail treatment and explains why Umar Khalid remains in custody while others have been released.
International Implications of the Case
The intervention by New York City’s mayor in the case of Umar Khalid creates diplomatic complications for India-US relations at the state level. While federal governments maintain formal diplomatic channels, the involvement of a major American city’s mayor in commenting on Indian judicial proceedings represents an unusual form of international pressure.
India’s response through the MEA indicates its unwillingness to accept external commentary on judicial matters, particularly from foreign elected officials. The case of Umar Khalid has thus become a focal point for discussions about judicial sovereignty and international human rights advocacy.
Background of the 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The charges against Umar Khalid and others stem from allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots. The prosecution alleges that the accused played various roles in planning and executing activities that led to communal violence in the national capital.
The case against Umar Khalid has attracted significant attention from civil liberties activists and international observers who question the basis of the charges and the length of pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court’s recent decision adds another chapter to this ongoing legal saga.
Conclusion
The MEA’s response to Mayor Mamdani’s letter to Khalid reflects India’s firm stance on protecting judicial independence from international commentary. As Umar Khalid remains in custody following the Supreme Court’s bail denial, the case continues to generate domestic and international attention, highlighting tensions between national sovereignty and global human rights advocacy.
