Denial Of Bail To Umar Khalid And Others Is Misacarriage of Justice
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-09-05 11:06:04
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The recent refusal of bail to Umar Khalid and others in the Delhi riots conspiracy case should worry anyone who still believes liberty is the bedrock of democracy. Bail orders may not always make headlines, but this one ought to. It suggests something far more dangerous: that in today's India, jail without trial is slowly being normalised, and that dissent itself is turning into a crime.
Remember the old principle - bail is the rule, jail the exception? That isn't just a legal slogan; it is what separates a democracy from an authoritarian state. Yet here we are, five years down the line, with people still behind bars and their trials nowhere near conclusion. This is not justice taking its course; this is punishment by process. And make no mistake, when punishment begins long before conviction, the very purpose of a trial collapses.
Of course, the accused are charged under the UAPA, a law notoriously loaded in favour of the state. But even so, courts are supposed to test the evidence, not just nod along with the prosecution. What is unsettling here is how criticism of the government and speeches at protests are being painted as proof of conspiracy. Let's be clear: if words alone are treated as weapons, then politics itself becomes a crime.
And that's the slippery slope we are staring at. Today it is Umar Khalid. Tomorrow it could be you, me, or anyone else who dares to question those in power. If organising a march or addressing a crowd is branded "terrorism," then dissenters are not just unsafe - they are doomed. A democracy without space for disagreement is not a democracy at all.
What is worse is how easily society shrugs this off. Too many people wave it away as the problem of "a few activists." But that is short-sighted. Once you accept that the state can jail someone indefinitely without proving guilt, youâhave accepted a principle that can be turned against anybody. Rights are rarely taken away overnight. They are chipped away bit by bit, while the rest of us convince ourselves it won't affect us.
The honest path forward is simple. If the state has hard evidence, it should bring it to court and let the trial run its course. If not, the accused should be granted bail. Anything else is just cruelty in the name of process. Five years behind bars without a verdict is not delay - it is denial.
Some argue that releasing them on bail would embolden rioters or disturb the peace. That argument doesn't stand up. Riots are a failure of governance, not of dissent. And targeting critics while real culprits slip away is both unjust and cowardly. Let us not pretend otherwise: it is easier to lock up an unarmed student than to confront those who actually wield weapons on the streets. But that's convenience, not justice.
India's judiciary has always claimed to be the guardian of liberty. Now is the time to prove it. Otherwise, we risk flipping a fundamental principle on its head - treating the accused as guilty until proven innocent. That's not law; that's a travesty.
At the end of the day, this isn't just about Umar Khalid and his co-accused. It's about the kind of country we want to be. Do we remain a nation that values dissent, or do we turn into one where critics are quietly buried under endless prison terms without trial? The answer will decide the future of freedom in India.
