Justice on Hold: Ex-CJI Chandrachud Slams Chronic Delays in Umar Khalid's Bail Case

A thunderous critique has been levied against the Indian judicial system by none other than former Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud, who has voiced profound concern over the persistent and seemingly unending adjournments plaguing the bail plea of activist Umar Khalid. With Khalid having languished in jail for over three years under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Chandrachud's remarks cast a stark spotlight on the fundamental right to liberty and the efficiency of justice delivery in India.

Speaking with a clarity that cuts through legal jargon, the esteemed former CJI did not mince words, directly hitting out at “certain segments” – an implicit yet unmistakable reference to parts of the judiciary or legal apparatus – questioning the rationale behind the repeated postponements of such a critical matter.

His core argument echoed the age-old legal maxim: justice delayed is justice denied. Chandrachud emphasized that when a person's liberty is at stake, every single day spent incarcerated without a conclusive decision represents a profound injustice.

Umar Khalid, a prominent student activist, was arrested in September 2020, accused of being a key conspirator in the 2020 Delhi riots.

Charged under the UAPA, a law often criticized for its stringent bail provisions, his legal battle has been an arduous one. After being denied bail by the Delhi High Court, his appeal reached the Supreme Court, where it has remained under consideration for an extended period, punctuated by numerous adjournments – a practice that has clearly irked the former Chief Justice.

Chandrachud drew a powerful parallel with the judicial philosophy of Justice V.R.

Krishna Iyer, a revered figure known for his unwavering commitment to human rights. He recalled Justice Iyer's firm stance that bail applications should be prioritized, asserting that “even a day in jail is too long” if liberty is unjustifiably curtailed. This historical reference served to underline the urgency and gravity that should be accorded to matters concerning personal freedom, contrasting sharply with the protracted delays observed in Khalid's case.

The former CJI's intervention is not merely about one individual's case; it's a profound commentary on the state of India's justice system.

It raises critical questions about the balance between national security laws and fundamental rights, the pace of judicial proceedings, and the ultimate responsibility of the courts to protect individual liberties. His powerful statement serves as a potent reminder that the right to liberty is paramount and that the machinery of justice must operate with both meticulousness and dispatch to uphold the very tenets of democracy and fairness.