Sibal Assails Judiciary Over Umar Khalid’s Bail Denial, Cites UAPA Precedents and Systemic Delays

NEW DELHI – In a forceful critique of the judicial process following the Delhi High Court's denial of bail to Umar Khalid and others in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has alleged a "violation of Article 21," citing extensive delays, questionable recusals, and a departure from established Supreme Court precedents on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Announcing the intention to approach the Supreme Court, Sibal's press conference has reignited the contentious debate surrounding pre-trial detention under stringent anti-terror laws.

Umar Khalid has been incarcerated for nearly five years in connection with the February 2020 Delhi riots, accused under the UAPA of being a key conspirator. The recent High Court order, which denied bail to him and eight others, reasoned that "conspiratorial violence under the garb of demonstrations or protests by citizens cannot be permitted." However, Sibal argues that the prolonged incarceration without trial commencement amounts to a "travesty of justice" and a failure of the judicial system to protect fundamental rights.

"If a court does not decide for years, are we the ones to be blamed? This is the state of the courts," Sibal stated, challenging the narrative that defence lawyers were responsible for the protracted proceedings. "If you do not want to give bail, dismiss the case. Why do you have to hold 20-30 hearings over years?"

The Anatomy of Delay: A Procedural Quagmire

At the heart of Sibal's argument is the timeline of Khalid's legal battle for bail, which he presented as a case study in systemic judicial delay. He meticulously detailed the procedural history:

• First High Court Appeal (2022): This appeal involved 28 hearings over a span of 180 days before being dismissed.
• Supreme Court SLP (2023-2024): After the High Court's rejection, Khalid's Special Leave Petition (SLP) remained pending in the Supreme Court for 272 days. The matter saw the recusal of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, before Khalid ultimately withdrew the plea to seek bail again from the trial court citing a "change in circumstances."
• Second High Court Appeal (2024): The subsequent criminal appeal was heard for approximately 407 days. An order was reserved by one Division Bench on July 9, 2025, but was never pronounced, leading to the matter being heard afresh by another bench which ultimately rejected the plea.

Sibal directly countered the High Court's observation—and reported remarks attributed to former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud—that the defence sought numerous adjournments. He clarified that in the Supreme Court, his team requested an adjournment only twice: once for a health issue and a second time because Sibal was engaged before a Constitution Bench in the Article 370 case.

This chronicle of delays, Sibal argued, flies in the face of the Supreme Court's repeated assertion that bail matters, which concern personal liberty, must be heard and decided expeditiously.

UAPA Bail Jurisprudence: A Tale of Contradictions?

A significant portion of Sibal's critique focused on what he termed the Supreme Court "violating its own decisions." He invoked a series of precedents where the apex court granted bail to UAPA accused after prolonged incarceration, even when the stringent conditions of Section 43D(5) of the Act were in play. This section creates a high bar for bail, stating it cannot be granted if the court, after perusing the case diary or report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.

Sibal cited several key cases to bolster his point: * Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb : The court granted bail after five years of custody, holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 can outweigh the statutory restrictions of the UAPA. * Shoma Kanti Sen v. State : Bail was granted after six years of incarceration. * Athar Parwez v. Union of India : Bail was granted after two years and four months. * Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan : Bail was granted after eight years in jail.

He emphasized that in some of these cited cases, charges had already been framed, a stage yet to be reached in Khalid's case. By contrast, the Delhi High Court, in its order, leaned on the gravity of the offence and the prima facie truth of the allegations, stating that the ground of trial delay is not "universally applicable." This divergence highlights the ongoing judicial tension between the legislative intent of the UAPA and the constitutional guarantees of liberty.

Allegations, Evidence, and the Role of the Prosecution

Sibal vehemently asserted that the case against Khalid, which primarily hinges on a speech delivered in Amravati, Maharashtra, lacks direct evidence connecting him to the violence in Delhi. "I can confidently say today that if this case goes to trial, all of them will be acquitted. This conspiracy will be exposed," he declared.

He raised critical procedural and evidentiary issues that challenge the prosecution's narrative:

• Withholding Evidence: Sibal claimed that the prosecuting agencies possess video footage of the riots but are refusing to present it in court despite requests from the accused.
• Protected Witnesses: The prosecution's reliance on "protected witnesses," whose statements are not fully available to the accused, makes it impossible for the defence to formulate a robust argument against the chargesheet at the bail stage. "How can they argue?" he asked, pointing out the inherent disadvantage.
• Chargesheet as Opinion: He reminded that a "chargesheet is not proof of anything; it's the agency's opinion." Treating it as conclusive proof at the bail stage would effectively render the remedy of bail meaningless in UAPA cases.

Sibal also drew attention to the broader political context, questioning the lack of action against political leaders who made documented inflammatory speeches before the riots. He lamented the silence of political parties, the legal fraternity, and civil society, asking, "A public wrong is happening. Who will raise voice against it?"

The High Court's Rationale and Counter-Narrative

While Sibal's press conference paints a picture of injustice, the Delhi High Court's comprehensive order presents a starkly different legal reasoning. The bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur found that the accusations were prima facie true, thus triggering the embargo on bail under UAPA's Section 43D(5).

The court held that constitutional rights to protest are not absolute and that "any conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations by the citizens cannot be permitted." On the issue of delay, a separate bench, while rejecting co-accused Tasleem Ahmed's plea, pointedly noted that trial court records indicated that accused who were already out on bail were actively seeking to "delay the arguments on charge." This finding suggests that the delay was, at least in part, a strategic maneuver by the defence camp, a narrative that directly contradicts Sibal's claims.

As the matter now heads to the Supreme Court, it will once again test the delicate balance between national security imperatives enshrined in the UAPA and the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The apex court will likely have to adjudicate not only on the merits of Khalid's bail plea but also on the profound systemic issues of judicial delay and procedural fairness that Sibal has thrust into the spotlight.