Liberty on deferred trial

The Supreme Court's decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, while granting relief to five other co-accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case, has once again brought into focus the uneasy balance between national security laws and personal liberty.

- 

The court has, no doubt, articulated its reasons at length, emphasising that each accused must be assessed independently and that delay in trial cannot automatically justify bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is equally true that the court has not shut the door entirely. Khalid and Imam have been given the liberty to apply for bail again after one year or after the examination of protected witnesses. In imposing strict conditions even on those granted bail, the court has signalled its concern that liberty, in such cases, must be carefully calibrated. These are not routine bail orders, and the apex court has clearly chosen caution over immediacy.