India on Friday issued a firm response to a message written by Zohran Mamdani, stating that elected representatives in democracies should respect the independence of judicial institutions in other countries and refrain from commenting on ongoing legal matters. The reaction followed the circulation of a handwritten note addressed to jailed activist Umar Khalid, who is accused in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case.
At a regular press briefing, the Ministry of External Affairs underscored that public office carries responsibilities that require restraint, particularly on sensitive judicial issues. Responding to questions on the matter, Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, said India expects public representatives to be respectful of the independence of the judiciary in other democracies. He added that expressing personal views or prejudices on such matters does not befit those holding public office and that attention should instead remain on the duties entrusted to them by their constituents.
The remarks came after a photograph of the note written by Mamdani was shared publicly by a close associate of Khalid. The message, written on the day Mamdani was ceremonially sworn in as mayor of New York City, conveyed personal sentiments and support for Khalid. According to those familiar with the interaction, the note was handed to Khalid’s parents during their visit to the United States in December 2025.
The development has drawn attention in India amid ongoing legal proceedings related to the violence that erupted in parts of the national capital in February 2020. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of India declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, observing that the two stood on a qualitatively different footing compared with other accused, given the nature of the allegations and the evidence cited by the prosecution.
In the same order, the apex court granted bail to several other accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad, noting that their alleged roles appeared limited in scope. The court, however, made it clear that similar relief could not be extended to Khalid and Imam at this stage.
Officials indicated that India’s response was rooted in principle rather than politics, emphasizing the need for mutual respect among democratic institutions across borders. The government maintained that judicial processes in India are governed by law and evidence, and external commentary by foreign public figures on active cases is neither appropriate nor constructive.
The episode has also highlighted the sensitivities surrounding international commentary on domestic legal matters, particularly in high-profile cases. Indian officials reiterated that while democratic societies value free expression, elected representatives are expected to exercise caution and uphold the norms of diplomatic and institutional respect when addressing issues beyond their jurisdiction.
