Two separate benches of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday backed the prosecution against the argument that the conspiracy trial in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots case had been mired in delay, leading to prolonged incarceration of the accused and entitling them to bail.

The prosecution has, so far, maintained that it cannot be blamed for delays in the trial since adjournments have often been sought by the accused themselves. The Delhi Police Special Cell also argued that no case for bail was made in the absence of any malafide intent on the part of the prosecution to delay the trial.

The observations made by the High Court in its orders dismissing the bail pleas of ten accused, including activist and former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, lend weight to the prosecution’s stand.

The High Court observed that the proceedings in the case were moving at a natural pace and that much of the delay was attributable to the accused themselves rather than to any inaction by the courts or the Delhi Police.

A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Narula, while refusing bail to Khalid and eight others, underlined that the case involved complex issues and could not be rushed through. “A hurried trial would be detrimental to the rights of both the accused and the state,” the court remarked, stressing that “the pace of trial will progress naturally”.

In another order, Justice Subramonium Prasad, while rejecting bail for accused Tasleem Ahmed, went further in holding that “the majority of the delay was attributable to the accused and not to the inability of the prosecution to speed up the proceedings”.

The court noted that order sheets revealed how defence counsel had repeatedly sought adjournments during arguments on charge, and observed that the accused, who were already out on bail, had sought to delay matters on the grounds that parts of the investigation were pending at the expense of the co-accused who remain in custody.

The observations are significant because the pace of the riots conspiracy trial had been a recurring point of criticism. As several accused have now spent years in jail even as arguments on the charge continue, the criticism has stemmed from repeated changes in trial court benches that forced hearings to restart, and from bail applications being heard by multiple benches of the High Court. These developments have long fuelled claims that the trial has been unduly delayed.

The controversy was also visible in the Supreme Court, where the concern raised was the adjournments in Khalid’s bail case, which was first listed in May 2023.

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also commented on the same in an interview after his retirement, remarks that have resurfaced in the wake of Tuesday’s rulings. He had said that Khalid’s lawyers had sought “seven, if not more” adjournments before withdrawing the plea altogether.

“So, what do you have to say to this – that, on the one hand, you repeatedly asked for adjournments before a judge, then you withdrew a case? Why this reluctance to argue a case? At the end of it, a particular perspective is conveyed on social media and media. Judges have no place to defend themselves. If you look at the fine print of what really happens in the court, reality is a little more nuanced,” he said.

Between May and September that year, the case was adjourned five times – twice at Khalid’s request, twice by the court itself (once owing to a judge’s recusal and once because the matter was listed on a miscellaneous day), and once at the request of the Delhi Police. Thereafter, further adjournments followed, some on joint requests and others due to lack of time or bench availability.

In all, at least five adjournments were sought on behalf of Khalid before the petition was withdrawn in February 2024, after having moved across three different benches of the Supreme Court.

By backing the prosecution’s stand, the two High Court benches have sought to push back against the argument that prolonged delays in the trial have rendered the incarceration of the accused unjustifiable.

If the orders are challenged before the Supreme Court, as they are likely to be, it will be crucial to see whether the top court endorses these observations or takes a different view on the issue of delay in the conspiracy trial.

– Ends

Tune In