New Delhi: The vice president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH), Malik Motasim Khan, has expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, even as bail has been granted to five other co-accused. He said that the continued incarceration of the two scholars and activists for over five years without the conclusion of a trial raises serious constitutional, legal, and moral questions about the state of personal liberty and due process in the country, a press release by JIH said.
In a statement to the media, the JIH vice president said, "Prolonged detention without trial effectively amounts to punishment through process, which strikes at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution. Liberty cannot be made dependent on systemic delays for which the accused bear no responsibility. When delay itself becomes a ground to deny bail, the burden of an inefficient criminal justice system is unfairly shifted from the State to individuals, hollowing out the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty."
Khan further observed that the application of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act at the bail stage has increasingly blurred the distinction between bail and trial. He noted that reliance on untested prosecution material to deny bail undermines the presumption of innocence and transforms bail hearings into mini-trials without the safeguards of cross-examination and full adjudication. Such an approach, he cautioned, risks normalizing pre-trial incarceration as the default rather than the exception. The JIH Vice President also expressed disquiet over the disparate outcomes in the same factual matrix, where five co-accused have been granted bail while Khalid and Imam continue to remain incarcerated. While acknowledging the relief granted to others, he said that selective relief raises concerns about arbitrariness and equality before the law. Liberty, he stressed, cannot depend on inconsistent applications of principle, especially when all accused have endured prolonged detention.
Highlighting the broader democratic implications, he warned that cases built substantially around speeches, mobilization, and protest activity carry a chilling effect on dissent. Expanding the ambit of terrorism laws to cover political speech and protest, he said, sets a dangerous precedent that threatens democratic engagement and the constitutional right to dissent. National security is undeniably important, but it cannot be invoked as a catch-all justification to dilute civil liberties or suspend constitutional safeguards. He called for expeditious trials with strict timelines, periodic judicial review of continued detention, and a serious re-examination of UAPA provisions that invert the basic principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.