New Delhi: For the past four years, Umar Khalid has remained behind bars without bail or trial, despite his repeated efforts to secure his release. The 36-year-old activist, who maintains his innocence and claims he only participated in a peaceful protest, has faced a series of setbacks in his quest for bail.Challenges in securing bailKhalids legal journey has been fraught with challenges. Since his arrest, he has approached multiple courts, seeking bail—a process that, according to Supreme Court rulings, should be available even under special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Despite these precedents, Khalids bail requests have been denied multiple times.In March 2022, a Karkardooma court first denied him bail, more than a year and a half after his initial incarceration. This decision was followed by a similar outcome from the Delhi High Court in October 2022. His subsequent bail plea to the Supreme Court has faced repeated adjournments, with 14 delays recorded in 11 months. Reasons for these adjournments range from the absence of legal representatives to procedural issues.Ongoing legal and public discourseThe legal proceedings have continued to face delays, with recent adjournments in August and October 2023 due to scheduling conflicts and availability issues with senior lawyers. In February 2024, Khalid withdrew his Supreme Court bail application citing changed circumstances and has since sought bail again from the trial court, which denied his request in May.Banojyotsna Lahiri, Khalids partner, and a Delhi-based researcher, expressed her distress over the prolonged legal process, highlighting Khalids commitment to advocating love over hate. All I hope is that he gets a hearing soon, Lahiri stated.Legal precedents and advocacyRecent Supreme Court rulings have emphasized that bail is a rule, jail is an exception, even under stringent laws like the UAPA. In August 2023, a Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih reiterated that denying bail in deserving cases could infringe upon fundamental rights. This sentiment was echoed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala in July, who stressed that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde noted the inconsistency in judicial decisions, suggesting that Khalids case has not yet come before a Bench that aligns with recent pro-liberty judgments. People cannot be kept endlessly in prison for actions interpreted differently by different people, Hegde remarked.Justice system criticizedCritics argue that the delays in Khalids bail plea reflect a broader issue within the justice system. Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose criticized the system, stating, It is apparent to all that people accused of heinous crimes get bail much earlier than Mr. Khalid. It is our justice system that is on trial.Advocate Soutik Banerjee described Khalids case as a significant test for constitutional courts to uphold constitutional rights over statutory restrictions imposed by the UAPA. Four years of pre-trial incarceration severely curtails his rights under Article 21, Banerjee emphasized.
