The Supreme Court bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria has ordered delhi roits accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and the other accused in the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots to furnish their permanent addresses to the court.
This direction was ordered during the hearing of the bail pleas filed by the accused, who are being prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act . If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to grant them bail, it must impose conditions to ensure they will be present for the trial.
Key Points of the Hearing
- Accused: The ordered was issued to six accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shadab Ahmed, and Mohd Saleem Khan.
- The Address as a guarantee: The Court is asking for a permanent address that is their home address, not the jail address, is a standard way to verify their rootedness in society. It’s a procedural step. The court then clarified that it required their permanent addresses to be furnished before the next hearing.
- Time Constraints: The bench also expressed concern over the nature of the proceedings, directing that arguments on bail petitions should be concluded faster. They set time limits for the next hearing, stating that oral arguments not exceed 15 minutes each for the defense, and the Additional Solicitor-General’s clarification would not exceed 30 minutes, for the final arguments.
- The Status of Pleas: The bail pleas challenge the Delhi High Court’s order that denied them bail. The accused are arguing that they have been in jail for over five years without the main trial starting. This is a violation of their fundamental right to a speedy trial and their Right to Life (Article 21). They were a part of a legal protest, and the specific claim of a “regime change operation” is not mention in the main police charge sheet. The prosecution argued that police claim they have a “prima facie” (at first glance) case that the accused planned the riots conspiracy. Under UAPA, if the case appears true at first glance then the court must deny the bail, without any delay. The accused are the “masterminds” behind the conspiracy that threatened the security of the nation.
- Implication: The matter has been adjourned for further hearing to December 9. That the court is determined to finish hearing on upcoming date. Once arguments get over, the court will reserve its judgment.
The Supreme Court is trying to end the arguments quickly. The direction of permanent address is a procedural step before it can decide whether to set the accused free. The SC’s actions point to two major decision in this highly sensitive case: judicial efficiency and ensuring the court has all the necessary information to make a final decision on liberty which will test the balance between individual liberty and the stringent anti-terror law (UAPA).
ABOUT AUTHOR
Adv. Pallavi Sharma, Delhi based Advocate, who is a legal practitioner and researcher with a growing interest in cyber law, IPR, constitutional law, and women’s and child rights. She recently started to contribute through analytical writing and awareness initiatives on contemporary legal issues.