New Delhi: The Left parties were among the handful of voices in the Opposition ranks Monday that criticised the Supreme Court’s refusal of bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, saying their continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage undermined the constitutional right to liberty.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation) issued official statements, drawing a contrast between the denial of bail to Khalid and Imam and the latest parole granted to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
There was no official statement from any other opposition party, even as some leaders including from the Congress flayed the top court order in their individual capacities.
Five years ago, when Khalid was arrested, Supriya Shrinate, chairperson of the Congress’s social media and digital platforms department, had extended her support to him through a social media post using the hashtag #SupportUmarKhalid. On Monday, the BJP alleged that Khalid and Imam had been “receiving sympathy” from the Congress.
While the Congress, the principal opposition party, did not formally react to the development Monday, party leader and former Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan told reporters that while authorities can build a case against Khalid and Imam and even prosecute if warranted, keeping the two in jail at the pre-trial stage was wrong.
Ahead of the court verdict, Karnataka IT Minister Priyank Kharge wrote on X, “Welcome to Viksit Bharat where you are jailed for raising your voice and get bail for being a rapist.”
Congress leader Udit Raj too called the court order unfortunate.
Compared to the guarded stance taken by most opposition parties, the CPI(M) and CPI(M-L) (L) used strong language to condemn the Supreme Court order. The CPI(M) said denial of bail to Khalid and Imam was against the principles of natural justice. “Prolonged pre-trial incarceration violates the fundamental principle that bail is the rule, not jail, and undermines the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial. The continued use of the UAPA to target dissenting voices reflects a disturbing pattern of repression and selective justice. We reiterate our demand for the release of all political prisoners,” its statement read.
While the Supreme Court refused bail to Khalid and Imam, five others— Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad—obtained it, with the top court saying that all accused in the case do not stand on the same footing.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria also said that prima facie there was a case against Khalid and Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and that they could file fresh bail applications after the examination of protected witnesses or after one year from the date of the order.
The bench added that the prosecution prima facie disclosed “a central and formative role” of Khalid and Imam and their “involvement in the level of planning, mobilisation and strategic direction extending beyond episodic and localised acts”.
In its statement, the CPI(M-L) (L) termed the SC’s order “shocking”, drawing a parallel with the Emergency-era ADM Jabalpur case, which continues to be criticised as an instance of the apex court’s failure to uphold fundamental rights.
“Indeed, travesty does not begin to describe their ordeal at the hands of the ‘justice system’. Denying them bail, even after more than five years in jail without trial, confirms their specific targeting by the state and reflects an abject failure on the part of the Supreme Court to stand up for those unjustly incarcerated under fabricated charges by the Delhi Police. The Supreme Court was on trial in this matter, and it has indicted itself,” the CPI(M-L) (L) said.
Among the few leaders from other parties who questioned the Supreme Court order Monday were RJD and TMC Rajya Sabha MPs Manoj Jha and Sagarika Ghose. Jha wrote on X that constitutional courts have the power and duty to grant bail when incarceration becomes unduly long, unjustified or disproportionate.
“Yet, in the case of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the prevailing judicial view seems to be that the time already spent in jail is still not long enough, and that the delay in trial is not yet shocking or unconstitutional. This raises troubling questions about how much incarceration must be endured before constitutional protections are activated,” Jha said.
Ghose said the order was “unfortunate, but not unexpected”.
“The Supreme Court’s order in Umar Khalid’s bail plea shows how the apex court is repeatedly diluting the right to life and liberty. Falsely brand someone as ‘anti-national’, ‘tukde tukde gang’, and jail-not-bail becomes the mantra,” she wrote on X.
AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh wrote in a post on X that while the Aam Aadmi Party respects the top court and the rule of law, “but at the same time, we believe that in any democracy, keeping any person in jail for a long time without a trial raises serious constitutional concerns.”
PDP chief and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti also criticised the order, describing it as a “travesty of justice”.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: BJP sees ‘lesson’ for Oppn in SC’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi riots case
