SC justifies verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam; grants interim bail to two accused

The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to two Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad while justifying denial of bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam earlier this year, saying it was done not because Article 21 was considered subordinate but because, upon an accused-specific evaluation, the material did not justify overriding the statutory embargo.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale granted interim bail of six months to Saifi and Ahmad, and imposed certain conditions on them, including that they will not speak to media or make social media posts about the case.

''Bail was declined to two appellants not because Article 21 was treated as subordinate to Section 43D(5), but because, upon an accused-specific evaluation, the court found that their role, the prima facie material attributed to them, and the attendant concerns of trial integrity did not, at that stage, justify overriding the statutory embargo.

''Even in respect of those two appellants, liberty was reserved to renew the prayer for bail upon completion of examination of protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year, whichever was earlier. That course itself shows that the judgment treated Article 21 as a continuing constitutional check and not as a spent or excluded consideration,'' the top court said about the January 5 verdict, denying bail to Khalid and Imam.

Justifying the verdict, it said the decision in Gulfisha Fatima case requires to be understood as it proceeded on the very premise that the KA Najeeb case of the 2021 verdict binds all benches of lesser strength as it is an authoritative pronouncement of a three-judge bench of this court.

''It expressly recognised that Article 21 occupies a central place in the constitutional scheme; that the right to speedy trial is a facet of personal liberty; and that pre-trial incarceration cannot, by mere passage of time, assume the character of punishment. It further recognised the KA Najeeb case as a constitutional safeguard against unconscionable detention and recorded that there can be no second opinion on the proposition that statutory restrictions must yield in an appropriate case,'' it said.

The bench said the ratio of the KA Najeeb case, therefore, is neither a charter for indefinite incarceration under the cover of Section 43D(5) nor a mathematical command that the mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, must automatically result in bail.

The bench headed by Justice Kumar, whose January 5 judgment denying bail to Khalid and Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case came under severe criticism by another bench earlier this week, said that the question of law on whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail needs an authoritative pronouncement.

''The controversy raises a broader question concerning the manner in which constitutional courts are to approach bail where prolonged incarceration is asserted in prosecutions governed by special statutes imposing restrictive bail conditions.

''In this background, it would be imperative or, in other words, necessary for the appropriate bench that may be constituted by the Chief Justice of India to clarify or expound the position of law laid down in the KA Najeeb's case, particularly in the backdrop of the rigour of 43D(5) which imposes restriction consciously and has received the assent of Parliament, which obviously was brought in keeping in mind the valuable right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,'' the bench ordered.

On the criticism of the January 5 verdict by another bench of the same strength on May 18, the bench said, ''We do not propose to enter into any adjudication on the correctness of observations made by a coordinate bench. Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another Bench of equal strength. The discipline of precedent demands a higher institutional method.''.

It said that where a coordinate bench entertains reservations about the reasoning of an earlier coordinate bench, particularly on the application of a binding three-judge bench decision, the proper course is well settled.

''The matter must ordinarily be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench. A coordinate bench cannot, by strong observations, effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while continuing to sit in equal strength,'' it said.

Justice Kumar, who dictated the order in open court, said the disagreement between coordinate benches, by itself, is neither unusual nor undesirable and the law has often grown through reasoned difference.

''What the discipline of precedent does not countenance, however, is a course by which an earlier coordinate Bench is subjected to reservations of a fundamental character, particularly on the alleged misapplication of a larger bench decision, without the matter being placed before a bench competent in strength to resolve the perceived conflict,'' the order underscored.

On May 18, underlining that ''bail is the rule and jail is the exception'' is not merely an empty statutory slogan, the top court questioned its January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Khalid and Imam.

On January 5, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria refused bail to Khalid and Imam, and said they can file fresh bail applications following the examination of protected witnesses after one year.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)