Overview
The Supreme Court of India recently refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi Riots cases. Both have now spent close to six years in jail without a trial. The judgment has revived the debate on how long a person can be kept in custody before the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 is violated.
Key Developments
- The Court noted that a long delay triggers the right to liberty under Article 21, but said delay alone does not create an automatic right to bail.
- It emphasized the need to weigh the gravity of the offence and who is responsible for the delay.
- A separate two‑judge bench criticised the bail denial as contrary to established precedent and called for a larger bench to resolve the issue.
- The High Court of Delhi granted bail to activist Khurram Parvez after more than four years of pre‑trial detention, highlighting judicial inconsistency.
- Cases under the UAPA have seen accused remain in jail for over two decades before acquittal.
Important Facts
Both Khalid and Imam have been in custody since 2020, amounting to over five years at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision and approaching six years now. The Court reiterated that the judge, not the parties, controls the pace of a trial. Yet, the same judge who denied bail in the Delhi Riots case had earlier granted bail to Khurram Parvez, showing contradictory judicial approaches. The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice for a larger bench, but no date for that decision is set.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this controversy helps aspirants in Supreme Court of India and its role in safeguarding rule of law. The tension between statutory provisions of the UAPA and the constitutional right under Article 21 is a classic example of the balance between security and civil liberties, a frequent topic in GS‑2 (Polity) papers.
Way Forward
For the judiciary, the priority should be to ensure that no individual is kept behind bars for years without trial, irrespective of the offence’s alleged seriousness. A larger bench could clarify whether prolonged pre‑trial detention itself violates Article 21, and could set uniform guidelines for bail in UAPA cases. Until such clarity emerges, courts must apply consistent standards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty and uphold democratic values.