
Adv. Sharfuddin Ahmed, the National Vice President of SDPI has deplored the dirty tricks played by the Sangh Parivar government at the centre to deny natural justice to the political detenus. Scores of accused in cases related to the Delhi Riot 2020 and anti-CAA protests have been in prison for several years without getting bail due to the orchestrated acts of the Union government to ensure that the benches that hear the bail applications of these accused are frequently reconstituted. The Supreme Court has reiterated on several occasions that ‘Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception.’ As the Courts are bound to follow this ruling of the apex court, those accused in the cases cited above will definitely get bail if the same bench hears their cases. In order to circumvent this possibility, the Union government ensures frequent reconstitution of the benches by changing or transferring the judge or judges of the benches, forcing a new bench that will have to hear the case and its arguments from scratch. On August 29, the Delhi High Court bench of Justices SK Kait and Girish Kathpalia fixed the bail applications of seven Muslims accused of conspiring for the 2020 Delhi riots on October 7 for final hearing. On September 21, Kait was appointed the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the Union government. This resulted in the bail applications of these seven accused to be heard all over again by a new bench of the High Court. This is the third time that this has happened in two and a half years.The bail applications of eight Muslims accused in the conspiracy case have been listed at the High Court several times since 2022, with the number of listings ranging between 45 for one case and 72 for another. Despite being heard by two different benches no decision was taken as the judges leading the benches were transferred before finishing the hearing. In 2022, the Supreme Court had directed all courts to adjudicate bail applications within two weeks of filing. This timeline is rarely adhered to, especially in cases involving the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, under which it is notoriously difficult to secure bail.However, the Supreme Court held in July that the prosecution agencies must not oppose bail applications in cases in which trial is not likely to begin soon, so as to uphold the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and liberty.In the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, not only has trial not begun but charges are yet to be framed even as the accused have spent over four years in custody.These long delays for bail are against the law. The Supreme Court, while granting bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in August, pointed out that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial and timely judicial proceedings, irrespective of the nature of the crime. However, implementation of this order has been erratic, as the Delhi riots cases show.It is the duty of the Supreme Court to ensure that its verdicts and directions are followed and implemented to its spirit and that no citizen in the country is denied his constitutional rights and human rights due to the politically and communally motivated circumventing exercises of the parties with vested interests.
No Comments