Umar Khalid’s bail plea: Ex-CJI Chandrachud hits out at 'certain segments', questions repeated adjournments

The ex-CJI's observations came even as a Karkardooma court recently warned defence counsels in the Delhi riots conspiracy case to stop “constant adjournments” and be ready to argue.

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, on Tuesday, questioned the narrative surrounding Umar Khalid’s bail plea in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, stressing that repeated adjournments sought by the defence have been overlooked in public debates.

“I do not want to comment on the merits of the case, but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight of by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid’s case," says the former CJI.

"Can you imagine that there were at least seven, if not more, adjournments sought by his counsel, and eventually the bail application was withdrawn?” Justice Chandrachud remarked during an interview.

He further asks, “Can then a segment of the bar or civil society say, or must they not be told to look at the record? Here was a case where someone appearing for the accused has repeatedly sought time before the court."

"Why this reluctance to argue a case? Either you argue it on the first day, or you say you don’t want to press the application and reserve it for the High Court or the district court. But in Umar Khalid’s case, the record shows repeated adjournments," he questions.

The former CJI further points out that such omissions create a distorted perception of judges.

“At the end of it, a particular perspective is conveyed on social media wherein judges have no place to defend themselves. If the fine print of what happens in the court is looked at, the reality is a little more nuanced,” he remarked.

His observations came even as a Karkardooma court recently warned defence counsels in the Delhi riots conspiracy case to stop “constant adjournments” and be ready to argue.

“It was informed that on the last date of the hearing, the matter should be heard on charge on a day-to-day basis, and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused persons, they would reach a consensus among themselves for addressing arguments in a particular sequence with their consent,” the bench, led by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, noted.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, dismissed the bail pleas of Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others, holding that their alleged role in the conspiracy was “prima facie grave.”

“In view of the allegations levelled, the role of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the conspiracy is prima facie grave, having delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilisation of members of the Muslim community,” the bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed.

The court noted that the duo were “the first ones to act after the CAB was passed in December 2019, creating WhatsApp groups and distributing pamphlets in Muslim-populated areas calling for protests and Chakka-Jaams, including the disruption of essential supplies.”

The bench also dismissed the argument that Khalid and Imam’s absence from Delhi during parts of the riots absolved them of responsibility.

“The mere absence of Sharjeel Imam a few weeks prior, and Umar Khalid’s absence a day or two before, at this stage, may not be sufficient to mitigate their role, as they have been alleged to be the key conspirators in planning and designing the scheme of events,” the judgment said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the accused “masterminds” had orchestrated the conspiracy through speeches, WhatsApp groups and pamphlets, with their “instructions carried out by the foot soldiers.”

Defence counsel, however, maintained that the charges were weak, witness testimonies appeared “concocted,” and that prolonged incarceration without trial, over five years, violated the accused’s rights.

The Delhi Police’s FIR 59/2020 names Khalid, Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, and others under provisions of the UAPA and IPC, alleging criminal conspiracy, rioting, and promoting enmity. The case stems from the 2020 Northeast Delhi violence during anti-CAA protests, which left 53 dead and thousands injured.