Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Recent reports on the bail hearings for the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case paint a troubling picture of justice delayed. It’s a story widely portrayed in media as a failure by the judiciary and public prosecutors, with the suggestion that the system itself is holding up the bail pleas for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and other accused. However, a closer look raises questions about the reality of this narrative and whether it tells the whole story.

One pivotal development sheds light on this complexity: Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, presiding over the sessions trial in the case, recently voiced his frustration with the defense counsels of the accused, warning them against seeking constant adjournments. This, he noted, has contributed significantly to delays. In an October 4 order, Judge Bajpai remarked that, despite counsel agreeing to an organized schedule for arguments, no one was prepared to proceed on the fixed date. This indicates a shared responsibility in the adjournments, a point that seems overlooked in media reports.

The tendency to attribute delays solely to the judiciary or prosecution omits the fact that, in many instances, defense counsels themselves have sought extensions. Case in point: Sharjeel Imam’s counsel recently presented a writ petition to the Supreme Court, attributing delays to the Delhi High Court, where his bail appeal has reportedly been listed at least 64 times. However, records reflect that his legal team had requested at least nine adjournments, while the prosecution requested three, and court logistics added some adjournment due to administrative processes. So, can we lay the entire blame for these delays on the judiciary, or are both sides, including defense counsels, equally accountable?

Imam has already been granted bail in the sedition case lodged against him for allegedly delivering incendiary speeches in Delhi's Jamia area and at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in December 2019, yet he remains in custody for the riots-related conspiracy charges.

His bail plea in this conspiracy case has been stalled not only by defense adjournments but also by administrative processes, an unavoidable aspect of the judicial system.

Given these factors, it’s fair to question the prevailing media narrative. The consistent focus on judicial delays risks overlooking the role of defense counsels and the procedural demands of a case as complex as this one.

Judge Bajpai’s insistence on adherence to hearing schedules and the Supreme Court’s direction to expedite Imam’s hearing reflect a judicial commitment to progress.

In a case as politically sensitive and socially significant as the Delhi riots, every party must be held accountable for timely proceedings. A more balanced understanding that both sides share responsibility in moving these cases forward is required. In such a charged case, is it truly fair to direct public frustration solely at the judiciary?