The Supreme Court on January 24 rescheduled a bail petition filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader Umar Khalid despite expressly recording that “no further adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties” in its previous order on January 10.
A Bench led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi reached the case a few minutes before lunch break. Senior advocate C.U. Singh, for the petitioner, said the case concerned bail and he was ready to argued the case. However, Justice Trivedi had to be part of another Bench in the post-lunch session.
Mr. Singh suggested the case be listed on another day, but soon. The Bench fixed the next hearing on January 31 and “high on the board”.
Mr. Khalid has been named in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots. Mr. Khalid has been an undertrial for over three years. The trial court has not framed charges in the case yet. The accused in the case are mostly students and PhD scholars.
He had also filed a separate writ petition questioning the legality of certain sections of the UAPA, especially dealing with bail. This petition had been tagged with others who had similarly challenged the draconian nature of the UAPA. Mr. Khalid’s plea for bail was to be jointly heard with these writ petitions.
However, the journey of the former student leader for a hearing in the Supreme Court has been speckled by a series of adjournments. His case has travelled through different combinations of Benches in 2023.
Also Read | Umar Khalid’s bail plea: a timeline of court hearings and adjournments
A Bench led by Justice A.S. Bopanna had first issued notice on May 18 last year. The next date of hearing, July 12, saw the government seek an adjournment. On July 24, the petitioner’s side sought time.
A month later, on August 9, a Bench of Justices Bopanna and P.K. Mishra said the case “cannot be taken up in this combination [of judges]” and adjourned it.
Mr. Khalid’s case came up before a different Bench led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi on September 5. The hearing was adjourned on the request of the parties. The Bench said it would give a “last opportunity” on September 12.
On October 12, the case was not taken up due to “paucity of time”.
Similarly, the case was adjourned in November due to “non-availability of the senior lawyers concerned” and now twice in January this year.
Justice Trivedi had earlier pointed out that the hearing of and decision in the case should not be delayed any further. It was a matter concerning liberty.
Mr. Raju had countered that the accused was very the reason why the framing of charges was delayed all these years. The accusations were serious.
Mr. Khalid is accused of being part of a “larger conspiracy” behind the communal violence.
The Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail to Mr. Khalid, saying he was in constant touch with other co-accused and allegations against him were prima facie true.
The High Court had said the acts of the accused prima facie qualified as “terrorist act” under the UAPA. The High Court had said the anti-CAA protests “metamorphosed into violent riots”, which “prima facie seemed to be orchestrated at the conspiratorial meetings”, and the statements of the witnesses indicate Mr. Khalid’s “active involvement” in the protests.
Published - January 24, 2024 01:56 pm IST
