The ongoing bail hearings in the Delhi riots conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020) highlight critical issues concerning the right to a speedy trial and bail. The case involves numerous students and activists charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Despite legal precedents emphasizing the importance of swift judicial processes, these accused individuals have faced prolonged detention and delays in their bail hearings.
Supreme Court's Stance The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly underscored the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and the accused have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, this principle remains unfulfilled for many undertrials, as seen in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Case Background The Delhi riots conspiracy case saw the arrests of several student activists under the UAPA. Among the few who have been granted bail are Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal. The Delhi High Court ruled in their favor, stating that organizing protests does not equate to terrorist activities. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in May 2023, allowing co-accused to seek bail on similar grounds.
Ongoing Bail Hearings Despite these precedents, bail pleas for eight other accused individuals have been pending for nearly two years. These accused, who have been in custody since 2020, were active in organizing anti-CAA protests. Their bail hearings have faced multiple adjournments and changes in the composition of judicial benches, further delaying the process.
Detailed Case Delays The table provided in the article details the frequency and delays in the bail hearings for each accused. Sharjeel Imam's plea, for instance, was first listed in April 2022 and has been heard 60 times with six changes in the bench. Similar patterns are observed for other accused like Meeran Haider and Gulfisha Fatima, highlighting systemic inefficiencies.
Protracted Legal Procedures The trial for FIR 59/2020 has not commenced, even though the FIR was registered in March 2020. It took over three years just to conclude the preliminary stage of supplying documents to the accused, with the trial court expected to progress only in mid-2024.
Impact of Judicial Transfers Judicial transfers have exacerbated delays. For instance, Justice Siddharth Mridul, who headed a special bench hearing the bail pleas, was transferred in October 2023, necessitating re-arguments before a new bench. This constant reshuffling has stalled the progress of bail hearings significantly.
Individual Cases Overview Each accused person's case has seen unique yet similarly frustrating delays. For example, Sharjeel Imam's bail plea was adjourned numerous times, both for procedural reasons and requests from either side. Meeran Haider and Mohd Saleem Khan had their judgments reserved but faced new rounds of hearings due to bench changes.
Recent Developments As of July 2024, the bail pleas have been listed for hearing multiple times but have faced further delays, including recusal by judges. The cases of Khalid Saifi and Gulfisha Fatima, for instance, are still pending despite previous reservations of judgment.
Section 43D(5) of UAPA The stringent provisions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which require courts to deny bail if the case against the accused appears prima facie true, have contributed to prolonged detentions. The Supreme Court has noted the need to balance these provisions with the accused's right to personal liberty and speedy trial.
Conclusion The Delhi riots conspiracy case underscores significant challenges within the Indian judicial system, particularly concerning the rights of undertrials and the delays in bail hearings. The protracted legal battles faced by the accused raise critical questions about judicial efficiency and the protection of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's recent observations call for a more balanced approach to ensure justice is not delayed indefinitely.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.