New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is set to hear on 25 November the bail pleas of former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in a case filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), connected to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 communal riots in Northeast Delhi.
While a division or two-judge bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was slated to hear the pleas afresh Monday, along with similar petitions filed by other co-accused in the matter, such as United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, the bench did not assemble.
“Hon’ble Division Bench could not assemble today as the Hon’ble judges are on leave. List on 25th November, 2024,” the order said.
However, since Khalid’s case first came up before the Delhi High Court in 2022, it has been fraught with adjournments, rejected appeals and a withdrawn petition from the Supreme Court.
Khalid has been in jail since 14 September, 2020, after he was charged under sections of the UAPA, sections of the Indian Penal Code including that of sedition, and the Arms Act, for his alleged role as a “key conspirator” in the riots.
The UAPA case is one of two cases filed by the Delhi Police against Khalid; in April 2021, a sessions court granted him bail in a separate case of alleged vandalism and arson in the Delhi riots. Despite this, he remains in jail due to his alleged involvement in the case concerning the conspiracy behind the riots.
What was the case before the HC?
Khalid had first approached the Delhi High Court in 2022. On 22 April that year, he filed a plea before the court seeking regular bail and challenging a 24 March, 2022, order of a Delhi sessions court which had said there was a pre-planned conspiracy behind the communal riots in Northeast Delhi and Khalid was part of it.
Nine days later, the court clubbed Khalid’s appeal with that of Imam’s and agreed to hear them together. While hearing the plea, a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar pointed out that a bigger challenge to the constitutionality of the sedition law was pending before a three-judge bench of the top court in SG Vombatkere vs Union of India.
Given this, the court remarked it would hear Khalid and Imam’s appeals only after the apex court pronounced its judgement in the sedition law matter.
However, the challenge to the sedition law is still pending before the Supreme Court. On 12 September last year, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said the case must be referred to a larger bench for consideration and referred the plea to a five-judge constitution bench. Since this referral, the top court is yet to take up the case.
Between 20 and 30 May 2022, the bench of justices Mridul and Bhatnagar heard arguments by senior advocate Trideep Pais on Khalid’s behalf and listed the matter for hearing after the court’s summer vacation ending on 4 July that year.
On 22 August that year, special public prosecutor Amit Prasad made his arguments in the case, following which the HC on 18 October,2022, dismissed his bail plea while concurring with the prosecution’s case.
The division bench said that the chargesheet, coupled with the prosecution’s case, led itto believe that the allegations against Khalid were “prima facie true”.
Subsequently, in April 2023, Khalid moved the Supreme Court, challenging the 18 October ruling denying him bail.
How did the case unfold before the SC?
Khalid approached the top court on 6 April last year, challenging the HC’s order. Since then, the matter has come up before the Supreme Court at least 13 times and was adjourned on at least 12 occasions.
Among the adjournments, one was sought by the prosecution, two by Khalid’s team, and two jointly by both parties to the case, that is, the prosecution and the defence.
However, an overwhelming majority of the adjournments—seven—were given by the court on its own accord, for reasons such as “paucity of time” and recusal of the judge hearing the case, among others.
Only once since April 2023 has Khalid been accorded a proper hearing. It was on 18 May last year, when a bench of justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli issued notice to the Delhi government, seeking its response to Khalid’s plea within six weeks.
What were the adjournments in SC?
The first instance of adjournment in the case before the top court, on 12 July, 2023, was on account of the Delhi Police, which had asked the court for additional time to prepare arguments due to the “voluminous chargesheet” involved.
Twelve days later, an adjournment request was made by Khalid’s lawyer citing “personal reasons”.
Then, on 9 August, 2023, when the case was listed before a bench of justices Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, the latter recused himself.
“The matter cannot be taken up in this combination of the bench,” the court said in its order, listing it for further hearing on 17 August. Saying the matter would come up before another bench, Justice Bopanna said: “There is some difficulty for my brother (Justice Mishra) to take up this matter.”
On Friday, 18 August, 2023, the matter was taken up by a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi. However, the court observed that since it was a “miscellaneous day”, when only fresh pleas are taken up as opposed to regular hearings, the case would have to be heard on a “non-miscellaneous day” and listed it after two weeks.
As of now, the apex court follows a system where Monday and Friday are “miscellaneous days”, meaning only fresh pleas will be taken up instead of carrying out regular hearings. On the other hand, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday are considered “’non-miscellaneous days” and are earmarked for regular hearings.
Later, on 5 September 2023, when the plea was taken up by a separate bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, Khalid’s side sought an adjournment on account of senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s unavailability due to his preoccupation with the Constitution Bench hearing on the abrogation of Article 370.
Although the court cautioned that this was “a last opportunity”, it agreed to shift the matter to 12 September, exactly a week later.
A week later, a bench of justices Bose and Trivedi said the matter required a “detailed hearing” and listed it for further hearing exactly a month later.
On 12 October, when the case came up before a bench of justices Trivedi and Datta, the court adjourned it to 1 November citing “paucity of time.”
However, before the next date of hearing could come, a bench of justices Bose and Trivedi on 31 October tagged Khalid’s bail plea with a larger batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of several UAPA provisions in the wake of the Tripura violence case.
After almost a month-long wait, the plea was listed again on 29 November, this time before justices Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, but due to a “joint request” made by both parties, citing the unavailability of senior advocates on both sides (Sibal and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju), the case was shifted to 10 January this year.
On that day, when the bail plea came up for hearing before a bench of justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, the court was informed that senior advocates from both sides were “busy in other matters”. This was the second instance where both parties to the case had jointly sought an adjournment.
Two weeks later, on 24 January, the case was to be taken up by justices Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan but the bench said it was deferring the matter as it was available only until lunch. “List on 31 January. High on board,” the order read, adding that “no further adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties”.
When the case came up for hearing on 1 February, Justice Trivedi and newly appointed Justice Prasanna B. Varale adjourned the case due to “paucity of time” as the bench was occupied with another hearing in Directorate of Enforcement vs Niraj Tyagi and Others.
Six days later, on 7 February, the case could not be taken up since Justice Trivedi was occupied with hearing the seven-judge bench matter relating to the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes.
On the last date of hearing in the case, 14 February this year, Khalid finally withdrew his bail application from the Bela Trivedi-led bench. During the hearing, Sibal, who appeared on Khalid’s behalf, said there was a change in circumstances, adding that they (the petitioners) would be “trying their luck” in the trial court.
What happened before the trial court?
Khalid’s lawyers filed a fresh plea before the Karkardooma district court for grant of regular bail, citing the delay in framing of charges.
When the new plea came up before a bench of Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, it was rejected on 28 May. The court also said there was no delay in framing of charges or commencing of trial on the part of the prosecution in the case.
In its order, the court said the delay in the case was a result of the accused moving separate applications demanding that the prosecution be asked if investigation in the case was complete before framing the charges.
“Thus, when the delay in proceedings is not on the part of the prosecution and in fact is on the part of the accused persons, the applicant cannot take benefit of the same,” the court said, ThePrint had reported.
The case is now back before the HC for consideration. It now awaits trial by justices Chawla and Kaur on 25 November.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: ‘Not maintainable’ — SC registry refuses to list Kejriwal’s plea for interim bail extension
The Left-liberal media outlets have for long been batting on behalf of the likes of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. These two have certainly become the darling of the Left-liberal cabal.
I clearly remember that when the JNU circus started, Kanhaiya Kumar and Shehla Rashid were the favourites of this cabal. Back then, they just could not get enough of those two. But now, it seems, they no longer enjoy the blessings of this cabal.
Umar Khalid along with Sharjeel Imam are the new favourites. Of late, even reputed journalists like Mr. Shekhar Gupta and Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai are championing their cause.