Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India expressed “serious reservations” about aspects of its earlier judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Key Observations by the Court
- The Court reaffirmed that:
- “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that prolonged incarceration without timely trial violates:
- Right to life
- Personal liberty
- Speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Section 43-D(5) of UAPA
- Restricts grant of bail if accusations appear “prima facie true”.
- Creates a very low threshold for the prosecution to oppose bail.
Court’s Observation
- Courts cannot keep an accused indefinitely jailed merely because charges appear prima facie true.
- Delayed trials can convert pre-trial detention into punishment itself.
Reference to K.A. Najeeb Judgment
- The Court referred to the K.A. Najeeb Judgment, which held that constitutional courts can grant bail despite UAPA restrictions when incarceration becomes excessively prolonged.
Constitutional Principle
- Presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal justice.
- Section 43-D(5) remains subordinate to Article 21.
Background of the Case
- Delhi Police booked Umar Khalid and others under UAPA in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case linked to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
- Umar Khalid had spent over five years in prison as an undertrial.
| [2020] Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy. 2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? a) 1 only b) 2 only c) Both 1 and 2 d) Neither 1 nor 2 |
