The recent denial of bail to activist Umar Khalid by the Delhi High Court has reignited debate on the functioning of India’s judiciary, with critics pointing to how the process itself is being used as a form of punishment, in violation of the Supreme Court’s own established principles.
Nearly five decades ago, the Supreme Court had laid down a clear principle: “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” Yet, in practice, this principle is now often disregarded. On September 2, the Delhi High Court rejected Khalid’s bail plea, nearly five years after his arrest in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case. For many, this outcome was not surprising, but it has highlighted troubling questions about liberty, justice, and constitutional rights.
Legal experts stress that prolonged pre-trial detention undermines Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial. Khalid’s trial has not even commenced despite the passage of five years, and his bail applications have been dismissed at every level — from the trial court to the Supreme Court and, most recently, the Delhi High Court. Critics argue this effectively converts pre-trial custody into a form of punishment, contradicting the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
The case also revives memories of past instances where prolonged incarceration ended in acquittals. For instance, in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court acquitted 12 individuals after years of imprisonment, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt. The lost years, shattered lives, and unfulfilled dreams, however, could not be restored.
Observers further note the stark contrast between the treatment of undertrials like Khalid and other high-profile individuals who, despite being convicted of serious crimes, have secured bail or parole with relative ease. Such disparities, they argue, erode public faith in the justice system.
The issue goes beyond individual cases. In 2018, even four senior judges of the Supreme Court publicly expressed concerns about judicial functioning, warning that democracy itself was at risk. Though the moment has since faded from headlines, it remains a reminder of internal dissent within the judiciary.
Former judges and legal scholars insist that the judiciary must demonstrate both independence and compassion. “The justice system cannot merely be a machine,” critics argue. “It needs men and women with a heart that beats for the masses, not for the powerful.” The growing practice of judges accepting post-retirement positions from governments has further fueled apprehensions about impartiality.
Traditionally symbolized by a blindfold, justice was meant to be impartial — treating the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, alike. But critics contend that the blindfold has now been lifted, and bias is visible.
The call is growing louder for the judiciary to return to its constitutional mandate, uphold the principle that bail is the rule, and ensure that trials are conducted swiftly. As one former judge observed, “The idol of justice may be carved from clay or stone, but it must have a heart that beats. Justice must not only move, it must act.”
Read More: UAE Deports Indian in Rs. 2,300 Crore Illegal Betting and Money Laundering Case
