Two minutes to injustice: Delhi HC bail denial to Khalid, others raises troubling questions

On Tuesday, 2 September, Delhi High Court dismissed in one sweeping stroke the bail pleas of nine activists and community leaders accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The petitioners — Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed — have been imprisoned for nearly five years under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The dismissal reportedly lasted less than two minutes — some accounts say 29 seconds. For many, this brevity captured the essence of what critics call a travesty of justice. As one observer remarked, “If justice is supposed to be blind, yesterday’s courtroom scene suggested it was not merely blindfolded, but indifferent.”

The principle turned upside down

India’s criminal jurisprudence rests on a foundational principle: bail is the rule, jail the exception. This doctrine, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, is meant to protect personal liberty against arbitrary detention. Yet in the case of Khalid and the others, this principle has been inverted.

Despite no trial for over five years, and bail being denied multiple times by lower courts, the high court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla upheld continued incarceration. The judges cited “prima facie grave” roles of the accused and stressed that “the interests and safety of society at large” outweighed the rights of individuals.

Supporters of the accused see this not as legal reasoning but “punishment by process” — where prolonged pre-trial detention itself becomes the penalty.

The blink-and-miss hearing

Eyewitnesses and reports agree on one striking detail: the dismissal was delivered in less time than it takes to read the names of the nine accused. The phrase “all the appeals are dismissed” echoed in the courtroom, sealing the fate of the prisoners without serious engagement with the arguments painstakingly advanced by the defence.

The speed of the order stood in sharp contrast with the years of stalled proceedings in trial courts. As one activist quipped bitterly: “Why the rush to deny bail in two minutes when there is no urgency to begin the trial after five years?”

This discrepancy has fuelled allegations of judicial apathy, or worse, premeditation. For critics, the brevity betrayed not efficiency but abdication.

The 2020 riots and the charges

The case arises from the communal violence that engulfed northeast Delhi in February 2020, leaving 53 people dead — most of them Muslim — and hundreds injured. The riots broke out amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Delhi Police alleged that the protests themselves were a facade for a “larger conspiracy” to instigate violence and discredit India globally. Acting on this premise, 18 individuals, many of them Muslim activists, students, and intellectuals, were booked under UAPA.

Among the accused:

Umar Khalid, a JNU scholar and vocal critic of government policies, arrested on 14 September 2020
Sharjeel Imam, a JNU and IIT-Bombay alumnus, arrested in January 2020 for allegedly 'seditious' speeches
Gulfisha Fatima, a young activist whose repeated bail pleas were rejected despite health concerns
Meeran Haider and Shifa-ur-Rehman, academics and community leaders accused of “conspiratorial planning”

The prosecution’s case relies heavily on WhatsApp chats, witness testimonies, and excerpts from speeches. Defence lawyers argue the evidence is circumstantial at best, and that no direct link to orchestrating violence has been established.

Judicial reasoning and criticism

In their written order, the judges acknowledged that protest is a constitutional right but maintained it “cannot extend to conspiratorial violence”. They deemed Khalid and Imam’s alleged roles as “grave” and rejected comparisons to earlier bail grants in similar cases, such as to student activists Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita.

The court held that bail in UAPA cases cannot be granted solely due to trial delays. It accepted prosecution claims of “sinister motives” and pointed to the complexity of the investigation, with 58 witnesses yet to be examined.

But critics argue that this stance places the accused in an endless limbo: trial delayed indefinitely, bail denied perpetually. “Keeping someone in jail for five years without trial is itself a ground for bail,” Khalid’s partner Banojyotsna Lahiri said after the verdict.

The UAPA conundrum: When process becomes punishment

At the heart of this legal deadlock lies the UAPA. The law reverses the presumption of innocence by requiring courts to deny bail if the prosecution can present evidence deemed “prima facie true”. This effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the accused.

Legal experts argue that the UAPA, combined with judicial reluctance to scrutinise evidence, creates a Kafkaesque situation: accusation equals guilt, and bail becomes near-impossible. The result is a system where prolonged detention without conviction is normalised, especially in politically charged cases.

Allegations of bias and polarisation

The 2 September verdict has reignited claims of selective justice and systemic bias. Critics highlight a stark disparity: while Muslim activists remain behind bars under UAPA, political leaders accused of openly inflammatory speeches ahead of the riots have faced no similar consequences.

Social media amplified the divide. Right-wing accounts hailed the verdict as a blow to “anti-nationals”, while civil liberties groups condemned it as proof of institutional prejudice. Howard Zinn’s observation — that law reinforces inequality rather than dismantling it — circulated widely, with names like Umar, Sharjeel, Gulfisha cited as carrying a heavier burden than the evidence against them.

International human rights groups have long flagged the UAPA’s disproportionate impact on minorities and dissenters. Domestically, the verdict deepens the perception that Indian courts are aligning with the majoritarian state rather than insulating against it.

The human cost

Beyond legal arguments lies a devastating human toll:

• Khalid has spent over 1,800 days in prison, losing years of his academic and personal life.
• Sharjeel Imam remains confined for words spoken in protest, not acts of violence
• Families of the accused face financial strain, stigma, and emotional trauma
• Gulfisha has raised concerns over prison conditions and health issues

Each bail denial is not just a legal ruling but an extension of punishment — keeping lives in suspension and families in despair.

A test for democracy and judicial independence

The 2 September order raises uncomfortable questions:

• Can India still claim to uphold the principle of bail as the rule?
• Are courts exercising independence or echoing the executive’s stance?
• If five years of incarceration without trial is not ground for bail, what remains of the right to liberty?

For many, this case marks a grim moment in India’s judicial history — a reminder that the health of democracy depends not just on laws but on how faithfully they are applied.

The road ahead: Supreme Court and beyond

The battle is now expected to shift to the Supreme Court. Families, supporters, and civil rights groups remain hopeful that the highest court will intervene to restore constitutional balance. Protests and solidarity marches, including one planned by JNU Students’ Union, underscore how deeply this case resonates as a symbol of political dissent under siege.

But the questions linger beyond individual cases. Unless systemic reforms address the misuse of UAPA, delays in trials, and the erosion of bail jurisprudence, India risks normalising pre-trial detention as punishment.

Justice behind bars?

In dismissing nine bail pleas in under two minutes, Delhi High Court may have delivered a legal order — but it also dealt a blow to public faith in justice. The optics of haste, the weight of prolonged detention, and the shadows of political polarisation make this more than a routine decision.

As one critic put it, “It is not only Umar Khalid and others who are behind bars. The Constitution itself is being imprisoned.”

Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai