New Delhi: Following the Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to student activists Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in a case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, former Union Minister for Law and Justice Ashwani Kumar on Monday said that the apex court has clearly made a distinction among the accused and must have had strong reasons for doing so.
Speaking to IANS, Ashwani Kumar said, “The libertarians in this country today would be unhappy. The Constitution’s conscience is libertarian, and ‘bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence. However, having said that, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided to make a distinction between the accused — granting bail to some and denying it to the two principal accused — I assume there must be strong reasons for that.”
Ashwani Kumar further added that prolonged incarceration without conviction raises serious constitutional concerns.
“On a general basis, such long incarceration without conviction does not comport with the conscience of the Constitution. However, the court has clearly drawn a distinction, and it is evident that it found different grounds in different cases. This can be commented upon in greater detail only after a careful and detailed study of the judgment,” he told IANS.
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing sufficient material presented by the prosecution to indicate their alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy connected to the 2020 north-east Delhi riots. At the same time, the apex court granted bail to five other accused in the case — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed.
All seven individuals had challenged the Delhi High Court’s earlier order denying them bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case relates to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the violence that erupted in parts of Delhi in February 2020.
A bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar delivered a detailed judgment before pronouncing the verdict. While rejecting the bail pleas of Khalid and Imam, the Supreme Court stated that it was satisfied that the prosecution had produced sufficient material indicating their role in the alleged conspiracy.
The court also underlined that bail decisions must be based on the individual role attributed to each accused.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the bench said.
“The hierarchy of participation requires the court to assess each application individually.”
(IANS)
