In Umar Khalid’s case, Ex-CJI Chandrachud highlighted that there were multiple adjournments sought by his counsel, at least seven or more, and finally the bail application was withdrawn, a fact often overlooked in debates.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud raised concerns about the narrative shaped by certain segments of society regarding Umar Khalid’s bail plea, who is implicated in the larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots.
He highlighted the numerous adjournments requested by Khalid’s counsel, stating,
“I do not want to comment on the merits of the case but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid‘s case, can you imagine that the case was adjourned, they were at least seven if not more adjournments which were sought by the council appearing for Umar Khalid and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn.”
In an interview, the former Chief Justice questioned the implications of a lawyer’s repeated requests for adjournments followed by the withdrawal of the case. He emphasized that segments of the legal community and civil society should take note of this pattern.
He added,
“Can then a segment of the bar or civil society say, or the must be at least told that look at the record. Here was a case where someone appearing for the accused has repeatedly short time before the court. Why this reluctance to argue a case? Either you argue it on the first day, or you say that I don’t want to press my application for bail, I will reserve my application for bail before the High Court or before the district court as the case may be. But in Umar Khalid‘s case itself the record it seems to show that repeated applications for adjournment was made before the court,”
Justice Chandrachud further pointed out that social media often presents a skewed perspective, leaving judges vulnerable without means to defend themselves. He noted that a closer examination of court proceedings reveals a more complex reality than what is commonly portrayed.
Recently, the Karkardooma Court cautioned all counsels involved in the Delhi riots case to refrain from continually seeking adjournments and to be prepared to present their arguments. The bench, led by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, expressed astonishment at the frequency of adjournment requests and emphasized the need for day-to-day hearings.
Prior to the Supreme Court, Khalid had withdrawn his bail application due to “changed circumstances.” This followed a joint request for adjournment by both parties, and there had been previous instances where hearings had been postponed.
Most recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail applications of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and seven others linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Reacting to the order, Prashant Bhushan said,
“This is Umar Khalid: he used to worry about the poor and backward people of the country. If you listen to any of his speeches, in every speech he talked about non-violence. Because he is a Muslim, Modi’s police have kept him arrested. Even after five years, his trial has not even started, yet the High Court did not grant him bail! What kind of justice is this?”
The nine individuals seeking bail included Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa Ur Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima.
The Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59 of 2020, naming several individuals, including Khalid and Imam, who face serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to criminal conspiracy, inciting enmity, rioting, and murder.
This case arose from the violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2020, resulting in 53 fatalities and thousands of injuries.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Riots case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
