In a recent interview, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud addressed concerns about judicial delays in bail matters, particularly in the case of Umar Khalid.
In a recent interview with journalist Barkha Dutt on her YouTube channel, MOJO, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud addressed concerns regarding the judiciary’s approach to granting bail, a subject often debated in legal and political circles.
During the discussion, Dutt highlighted a common critique from the Left, particularly regarding the denial of bail to activist Umar Khalid.
She referenced Justice Chandrachud’s previous observations on maintaining parity in bail decisions and noted instances where he had approved bail for individuals across ideological lines, such as Mohammad Zubair and Arnab Goswami. While some perceive his stance on bail as liberal, Dutt pointed out that the outcome frequently depends on which bench hears the application, citing Khalid’s case as a notable example.
When asked whether he had any regrets about cases that were not addressed within a particular timeframe, Justice Chandrachud first discussed the systemic functioning of the judiciary. Regarding Umar Khalid’s bail petition, he refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but clarified that the delays were largely due to Khalid and his legal team, who had sought at least seven adjournments while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
Former CJI Chandrachud on Adjournments and Bail Petitions
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud addressed the issue of repeated adjournments in bail cases, emphasizing a key concern. He pointed out that
“When lawyers representing the accused frequently seek adjournments and later withdraw the case, it raises important questions”
Questioning the Reluctance to Argue Cases
Justice Chandrachud stressed that
“segments of the Bar and civil society should take note of the record, which often shows that defense counsel repeatedly sought time before the court”
He questioned this hesitation to argue cases,
“Stating that lawyers should either present their arguments on the first day or clearly state their intent to reserve the application before the appropriate court, whether the High Court or the district court”
Specific Reference to Umar Khalid’s Case
Speaking specifically about Umar Khalid’s bail plea, he highlighted that
“Court records indicate multiple bail applications were filed, yet the defense consistently sought adjournments”
He remarked that
“Media narratives often create a particular perception, while judges themselves have no platform to respond. He emphasized that a closer examination of the court proceedings reveals a more complex and nuanced reality than what is typically portrayed.”
Withdrawal of Bail Petition
In February 2024, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, informed the Supreme Court that the petition was being withdrawn due to a “change in circumstances.” He stated,
“Bail matter, we wish to withdraw. There has been a change in circumstances, we will try our luck in the trial court.”
The narrative surrounding Umar Khalid’s bail case, as previously reported by OpIndia, has now been validated by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
Withdrawal of Bail Petition in 2023
In 2023, shortly after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal withdrew Umar Khalid’s bail petition, The media interviewed Khalid’s father, SQR Ilyasi—a former SIMI member.
Speaking to media , a Left-leaning media outlet, Ilyasi stated,
“Since May 2023, there have been several adjournments. We were assessing that this is a lengthy procedure and the circumstances have changed. So, we decided to move the trial court again and hope for an early judgment. So we will try our luck there now.”
While Ilyasi did not specify what the “changed circumstances” were, he appeared to frame the situation as one of judicial delay, almost implying that the bail petition was withdrawn due to the prolonged hearing process.
Beyond Ilyasi’s comments, a broader narrative was crafted by Left-leaning circles, suggesting that the Supreme Court had deliberately delayed the bail hearing, ultimately forcing Kapil Sibal to withdraw the application and approach the district court instead.
After the district court rejected Umar Khalid’s bail plea in May, an Al Jazeera journalist attempted to push the same narrative, claiming that Khalid had been awaiting trial for years. The insinuation was that the court itself was responsible for the delay, rather than acknowledging the multiple adjournments sought by Khalid’s legal team.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has now affirmed what OpIndia had previously reported regarding Umar Khalid’s bail proceedings. Contrary to the narrative of judicial delay, it was Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who repeatedly sought adjournments, delaying the bail hearing seven times out of 14 before eventually withdrawing the petition.
No Delay in Trial – A Failed Attempt at Forum Shopping
When Kapil Sibal withdrew the bail petition, OpIndia had already highlighted that there was no delay in Umar Khalid’s trial itself. The legal timeline demonstrates this clearly:
- Sessions Court: Bail application was filed and denied within 8 months.
- High Court: Bail plea was dismissed within 6 months.
- Supreme Court: After a 6-month delay in approaching the SC, Khalid’s legal team sought adjournments 7 out of 14 times.
- Sessions Court (after withdrawal from SC): Bail plea was again rejected in less than 3 months.
These repeated delays and withdrawals suggest a failed attempt at forum shopping—a strategy that was ultimately thwarted by CJI DY Chandrachud himself.
How Adjournments Were Triggered by Kapil Sibal’s Forum Shopping
The adjournments began on October 31, 2023, when a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi tagged Khalid’s bail petition with other cases challenging provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). These included:
- Khalid’s writ petition challenging UAPA provisions.
- The Tripura violence case involving FIRs against lawyers and journalists who conducted a fact-finding mission in October 2021.
Push for De-Tagging and Change in Bench
On November 29, 2023, the petitioners sought de-tagging. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that since the Tripura case had been heard by CJI Chandrachud eight times, the same should apply to Umar Khalid’s case. However, Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed, stating that she and newly appointed Justice S.C. Sharma would hear the matter. Ironically, it was Khalid’s own legal team that had initially requested the tagging of cases.
At this stage, the hearing was postponed due to the unavailability of Kapil Sibal and the ASG, pushing it to January 2024.
Pressure on CJI Over Case Listing
In December 2023, Prashant Bhushan wrote an angry letter to CJI Chandrachud about the Tripura case (which included Khalid’s bail plea) being listed before Justice Bela Trivedi instead of the CJI. Senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Abhishek Manu Singhvi also raised concerns about cases being assigned to Justice Trivedi.
Singhvi specifically brought up this issue during a hearing for Satyendar Jain’s bail petition, alleging “irregularity” in the listing. However, CJI Chandrachud firmly shut down the argument, emphasizing:
- Justice A.S. Bopanna, who originally heard the Jain case, was medically unavailable post-Diwali.
- As a result, all part-heard matters before him, including Satyendar Jain’s bail case, were reassigned to Justice Bela Trivedi.
CJI Chandrachud dismissed the controversy, stating,
“It is very easy to fling allegations and letters.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the CJI’s stance, saying the best way to handle “malicious letters” was to ignore them.
More Delays and Adjournments by Umar Khalid’s Counsel
The hearings then moved to a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal.
- January 17, 2024: Adjourned due to the unavailability of the ASG.
- January 24, 2024: Kapil Sibal requested another delay, which the court granted.
When the case was finally listed before a Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan on January 24, Umar Khalid’s own advocate sought yet another adjournment, which was granted.
The Reality Behind the Delays
Despite media narratives blaming the judiciary for delaying Umar Khalid’s bail hearing, the record shows that it was his own legal team that persistently sought adjournments. The multiple delays, forum shopping attempts, and subsequent withdrawal of the petition ultimately reinforced what CJI Chandrachud has now confirmed:
“There was no deliberate judicial delay—only strategic legal maneuvering by the defense.”
Timeline of Adjournments and Kapil Sibal’s Strategy in the Umar Khalid Case
On January 31, a bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was scheduled to hear the bail plea of Umar Khalid. However, due to Justice Mithal’s unavailability, the newly appointed Justice P.B. Varale joined Justice Trivedi on the bench.
The court initially considered hearing the matter on February 1, but Kapil Sibal requested that it be listed on a different date, citing his involvement in the AMU case. In response, the judges left the scheduling open-ended, stating,
“We will see.”
When the case was taken up on February 1, as per Sibal’s request, the hearing was adjourned to February 7. However, on that date, the bench was occupied with another case, causing further delay. Eventually, on February 14, when the matter was finally heard, Kapil Sibal withdrew both the bail petition and the separate plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain UAPA provisions.
This sequence of events highlights that following Justice Aniruddha Bose’s departure, Umar Khalid’s legal team—particularly Kapil Sibal—sought multiple adjournments until the eventual withdrawal of the petitions. Additionally, the persistent efforts of Prashant Bhushan to have the case listed before Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, which Justice Bela Trivedi ultimately blocked, raise critical questions about whether these maneuvers were an attempt at forum shopping.
The eventual withdrawal of the petition suggests that having failed to secure a preferred bench, the legal team may have opted to abandon the case altogether.
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s Subtle Response to Bench-Fixing Attempts
In an interview with Journalist Barkha dutt , former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud indirectly addressed the repeated adjournments in the Umar Khalid case and the reluctance of Kapil Sibal to argue the matter in court. Although he did not explicitly mention forum shopping, a closer analysis of the interview suggests that he was alluding to it.
Barkha Dutt prefaced her question by acknowledging Chandrachud’s well-known stance that “bail should be the norm, and jail should be the exception.”
She then asked what happens when cases do not come before him—using Umar Khalid’s case as an example. She implied that while Chandrachud might be more liberal on bail matters, other judges may not share the same approach.
Her reference to “other judges” was particularly significant in the context of this case, as it was Justice Bela Trivedi who ultimately presided over the hearings. The series of adjournments requested by Kapil Sibal appeared to be part of a larger effort to prevent her from hearing the matter, with Prashant Bhushan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi making multiple attempts to have the case reassigned—possibly in hopes that CJI Chandrachud himself would hear it. These efforts, however, were unsuccessful, as Chandrachud firmly refused to interfere.
When responding to Barkha Dutt’s question, Chandrachud pointedly questioned ,
“Why Kapil Sibal (without naming him) repeatedly sought adjournments rather than arguing the case”
Given that it was the CJI himself who had blocked attempts to manipulate the bench, his remarks suggest an awareness of the strategic delays. His emphasis on the reluctance to argue the case, the repeated adjournments, and the subsequent media narrative around the issue subtly indicated an attempt to handpick a favorable bench.
Through this statement, former CJI Chandrachud effectively reaffirmed what OpIndia had previously reported—that there was a concerted effort to influence judicial proceedings in the Umar Khalid case. The pattern of delaying hearings, combined with the attempts to have the case reassigned, aligns with a broader strategy to manipulate the judicial process.
Furthermore, OpIndia had earlier highlighted
“How certain accused individuals out on bail in the Delhi riots case were intentionally delaying proceedings, possibly to later argue that those still in custody should also be granted bail due to “delayed hearings.”
In light of these developments, the remarks made by Justice Chandrachud serve as a subtle but clear acknowledgment of the underlying attempts to influence judicial assignments and case outcomes.
READ MORE REPORTS ON FORMER CJI DY CHANDRACHUD
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
CREDITS: DY Chandrachud confirms OpIndia analysis on Umar Khalid’s bail case in SC: Adjournments and forum shopping by Kapil Sibal – breaking down what he said” – Nupur J Sharma (Editor-in-Chief, OpIndia)