Umar Khalid moves SC against Delhi HC order rejecting his bail plea

The Delhi High Court, while denying the bail, stated that while the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest, "the right is not absolute" and is "subject to reasonable restrictions"

Activist and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid has approached the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the Delhi High Court’s order denying him bail in a case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 riots in north-east Delhi, Bar and Bench reported on Wednesday.

 

The development comes after the High Court rejected the bail plea of Khalid and eight other accused.

 

The accused include:

 

• Umar Khalid
• Sharjeel Imam
• Mohd Saleem Khan
• Shifa Ur Rehman
• Athar Khan
• Meeran Haider
• Abdul Khalid Saifi
• Gulfisha Fatima
• Shadab Ahmed

 

Last week, Sharjeel Imam and Gulfisha Fatima also moved the top court challenging the high court's order.

 

 

Right to protest not absolute: HC

The High Court, while denying the bail, stated that while the Constitution grants citizens the right to protest, “the right is not absolute” and is “subject to reasonable restrictions”, according to PTI. It added, “If the exercise of an unfettered right to protest were permitted, it would damage the constitutional framework and impinge upon the law-and-order situation in the country.”

 

The accused were booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to orchestrate the violence. The riots, which broke out during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), left 53 people dead and hundreds injured, according to PTI.

 

The order also noted Khalid’s speeches in Amravati coinciding with the visit of then US President Donald Trump, and said these “cannot be lightly brushed aside”.

 

It also recorded that Imam “delivered inflammatory speeches on communal lines to instigate a mass mobilisation of members of the Muslim community," reported Bar and Bench.

Five years in prison, repeated rejections

Khalid, arrested in September 2020, has been in custody since then. His first bail plea was rejected by a trial court in March 2022, and the High Court dismissed his appeal in October the same year. He withdrew a fresh bail plea from the Supreme Court in February 2024, citing a change in circumstances.

 

Then he again approached the trial court, which denied his application for the second time on May 28. The High Court upheld this rejection on September 2, prompting his latest appeal.

 

Addressing the delay in the trial, Khalid had argued that he had remained in custody for nearly five years without conviction. The court responded that the Delhi Police chargesheet spans 3,000 pages along with 30,000 pages of electronic evidence, and “the pace of the trial will progress naturally”. It said a hurried trial would be “detrimental to both the accused and the State," reported Bar and Bench.

 

Article 21 violated: Kapil Sibal

 

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal termed the High Court rejection as "injustice", saying Article 21 had been violated by the court while rejecting the bail plea. He further called out the number of hearings these bail pleas have taken to be rejected.

 

"The first appeal that came before the high court had 28 hearings in 180 days. In 2024, an appeal was filed and it took 407 days to be rejected," Sibal said. "If you don't want to give bail, reject the plea. Why do you have to do 20-30 hearings," Sibal said on September 5.

 

Further citing several cases in which the UAPA accused has been granted bail, Sibal said, "I want to say with confidence that when they are put under trial, almost all of them will be discharged".