Umar Khalid Bail Plea: Multiple Adjournments, Withdrawal, But Certain Segment Omits This Record, Ex CJI Chandrachud

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has questioned the narrative set by a particular segment of the society over the bail plea filed by Umar Khalid, accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Throwing light on the adjournments sought by Khalid's counsel, Justice Chandrachud has said, "I do not want to comment on the merits of the case but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid‘s case, can you imagine that the case was adjourned, they were at least seven if not more adjournments which were sought by the council appearing for Umar Khalid and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn.".

In an interview, the former Chief Justice of India asked what is to be said about such actions of a lawyer appearing for the accused who repeatedly ask for adjournment of cases before a judge and then withdraw a case.

"Can then a segment of the bar or civil society say, or the must be at least told that look at the record. Here was a case where someone appearing for the accused has repeatedly short time before the court. Why this reluctance to argue a case? Either you argue it on the first day, or you say that I don’t want to press my application for bill, I will reserve my application for bail before the High Court or before the district court as the case may be. But in Umar Khalid‘s case itself the record it seems to show that repeated applications for adjournment was made before the court", ex-CJI Chandrachud added.

Justice Chandrachud went on to say that at the end of it a particular perspective is conveyed on the social media wherein judges have no place to defend themselves and if the fine print of what happens in the court is looked at, it would emerge that the reality is a little more nuanced, than what happens.

Karkardooma Court recently had warned the counsels of all accused in the Delhi riots case to "stop seeking constant adjournments and to be ready to argue the cases,". The bench, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, had expressed surprise at the frequent adjournments being sought by the counsels and said, "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."

Before the Supreme Court, Umar Khalid had withdrawn his bail application owing to 'changed circumstances'. Before the withdrawal, on a joint request being made by both the parties, the Supreme Court had adjourned hearing Khalid's plea. There had been earlier occasions also where the Supreme Court had adjourned hearing in the plea.

It is to be noted that today, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Delhi Police’s Special Cell had registered FIR 59 of 2020, naming several individuals including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shifa-ur-Rehman. The accused have been charged under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy, promoting enmity, rioting, and murder.

The case stems from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The clashes between supporters and opponents of the Act led to large-scale incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violence, leaving 53 people dead and injuring thousands.