Jaipur, Rajasthan: Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has made a measured yet powerful observation on the prolonged incarceration of activist Umar Khalid, drawing attention to the constitutional importance of bail and the right to a speedy trial. His remarks have once again brought focus to how long undertrials remain behind bars when court proceedings are delayed.
‘Five Years in Jail Without Trial Raises Serious Concerns’
Speaking on the issue, Justice Chandrachud noted that Umar Khalid has spent nearly five years in custody. While making it clear that he was not criticizing the judiciary, he emphasized that courts must remain sensitive to the fundamental rights of individuals awaiting trial. He stated that while conditions can be imposed to ensure that bail is not misused, the larger issue of delayed justice cannot be ignored.
According to the former Chief Justice, if the legal system is unable to conduct a timely trial due to prevailing circumstances, continued incarceration becomes difficult to justify. He underlined that bail should not turn into a form of punishment before guilt is proven. In such situations, he said, bail must operate as the rule rather than the exception.
Justice Chandrachud also offered a broader perspective on the judiciary’s functioning by revealing that during his 24-month tenure as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court disposed of nearly 21,000 bail applications. He pointed out that public criticism often focuses on individual high-profile cases, while overlooking the numerous instances where courts actively protect personal liberty.
He explained that many decisions taken by the Supreme Court do not attract public attention, even though they play a critical role in safeguarding constitutional values. According to him, this wider context is often missing when the judiciary is accused of being reluctant to grant bail.
To illustrate this balance, Justice Chandrachud referred to the case of Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera. He recalled that Khera was about to be arrested while boarding a flight to Guwahati, with paramilitary forces reportedly surrounding the aircraft. His lawyers urgently approached the court, arguing that the remarks made by Khera were offensive but did not amount to a criminal offence.
Pawan Khera Case Cited as Example of Judicial Intervention
Justice Chandrachud said the court intervened after considering the nature of the allegations. He observed that while the statement in question may have been rude and inappropriate, not every offensive remark qualifies as a crime under Indian law. The Supreme Court’s intervention ultimately protected Khera from arrest, reinforcing the principle that criminal law should not be misused to curb speech, especially in political contexts.
Through these examples, the former Chief Justice highlighted the judiciary’s responsibility to strike a careful balance between state authority and individual freedom. His remarks reflect a consistent judicial philosophy that prioritizes liberty while ensuring legal accountability.
Legal experts believe Chandrachud’s comments carry particular weight because they come from a judge who has presided over some of India’s most significant constitutional cases. His observations are seen as a reminder that prolonged pre-trial detention challenges the spirit of democracy and the promise of justice enshrined in the Constitution.
As debates around undertrial prisoners and stringent legal provisions continue, Chandrachud’s remarks add a crucial voice to the ongoing discussion. While they may not directly impact ongoing cases, they reinforce the foundational idea that justice delayed should not result in liberty denied.