On the 13th of February, former CJI DY Chandachud was interviewed by Barkha Dutt on her YouTube channel – MOJO. During the interview, DY Chandrachud was asked a question about the denial of bail to Umar Khalid. Barkha Dutt asked about one of the main criticisms of the judiciary (by the Left) regarding the denial of bail.
Barkha says that DY Chandracud has in the past said that he has maintained parity in granting bail and has given bail to individuals from the Left and the Right (speaking about Mohammad Zubair and Arnab Goswami). She further says that “people” have claimed that he might be liberal on granting bail, however, whether someone gets bail or not depends on which bench hears the bail application – “the instance often cited is that of Umar Khalid”.
“Do you have regret in cases like that which weren’t actioned in a time frame”, asks Barkha.
After DY Chandrachud answers on the systemic functioning of the judiciary, he addresses Umar Khalid’s case specifically. Chandrachud says that while he is not addressing the merits of the case, it is important to point out that it was Umar Khalid and his counsel who had filed for 7 if not more, adjournments when the bail petition was pending in the Supreme Court.
“On the one hand, lawyers appearing for the accused repeatedly ask for adjournments of cases before a judge and then you withdraw a case. Can then everybody – can a segment of the bar or the civil society say – or they must at least be told – that look – look at the record. Here was a case where someone appearing for the accused had repeatedly sought time before the court. Why? Why this reluctance to argue a case? Either you argue it on the first day or you say I don’t want to press my application and I will reserve my application before the High Court or before the district court, as the case may be. But in the Umar Khalid case itself, if the record is seen, it is clear that repeated applications for bail were made before the court. Now at the end of it, what happens is, a particular perspective is conveyed on social media and media. Judges have no place to defend themselves. And if you look at the fine print of what really happens in the court, reality is a little more nuanced”.
The former CJI, in one fell swoop, punctured the motivated narrative surrounding the Umar Khalid case and that of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.
In February 2024, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, told the Supreme Court bench that the petition was being withdrawn given a “change in circumstances” and to seek bail afresh before the trial court. Sibal said, “Bail matter, we wish to withdraw. There has been a change in circumstances, we will try our luck in the trial court.”
The narrative and what OpIndia had reported – confirmed now by former CJI DY Chandrachud
In 2023, as soon as Kapil Sibal, representing Umar Khalid, withdrew the bail petition, The Wire interviewed Umar Khalid’s father – former SIMI terrorist – SQR Ilyasi.
Speaking to Leftist propaganda outlet The Wire, the father of Umar Khalid said, “Since May 2023, there have been several adjournments. We were assessing that this is a lengthy procedure and the circumstances have changed. So, we decided to move the trial court again, and hope for an early judgment. So we will try our luck there now”.
While the former SIMI terrorist did not clarify what the ‘changed circumstances’ were, he did attempt to play the victim by talking about the delay in the bail hearing, almost making it sound like the bail application was withdrawn due to the delay in the hearing.
Even beyond SQR Ilyasi, the narrative which was woven by the Left ecosystem was that the Supreme Court inordinately delayed the bail hearing, because of which Kapil Sibal had to withdraw the bail application and approach the district court anew.
In May, after the district court rejected bail for Umar Khalid, an Al Jazeera journalist tried to peddle the same propaganda – that Umar Khalid has been awaiting trial for years. The insinuation was that it was the court which was denying a hearing to Umar Khalid.
Umar Khalid is paying the price of being a Muslim in India. Khalid is in jail since September 2020, waiting for a trial or bail since almost 4 years now. His crime? Leading peaceful protests in the national capital, opposing the Modi government's Citizen Amendment Act. https://t.co/nrsTGhC41d
— Somesh Jha (@someshjha7) May 28, 2024
Prashant Bhushan in October 2024 had also alluded to the same “conspiracy” against Umar Khalid.
4 years in Jail w/o trial. The price of dissent in Modi’s India.
— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) October 24, 2024
Fine piece in New York Times#UmarKhalid pic.twitter.com/jYq8v5KCWe
Several mainstream media outlets and the global press wrote articles insinuating a clandestine conspiracy against Umar Khalid to claim he was a victim of the system.
However, that was far from the truth.
When Kapil Sibal had withdrawn the petition from the Supreme Court, OpIndia had written a report explaining exactly what CJI DY Chandrachud said in his interview – that there was no “delay” in trial and Kapil Sibal had himself delayed the bail trial 7 times out of 14. We had written about how, the adjournments and the subsequent withdrawal was the result of a failed attempt at forum shopping by Kapil Sibal – in fact – the attempts at forum shopping by Kapil Sibal in the Umar Khalid case were thwarted by DY Chandrachud himself as CJI.
In fact, we also explained that there was no delay in Umar Khalid’s trial itself.
After the first bail application was filed in the Sessions Court, within 8 months, his bail was denied. In the High Court, it took 6 months for the High Court to dismiss bail. Thereafter, Umar Khalid took a good 6 months to approach the Supreme Court, where he himself delayed heating 7 out of 14 times. In the sessions court round (the bail hearing after the previous one was withdrawn from the Supreme Court), it took less than 3 months for his bail to be rejected.
Change in judge: How adjournments were triggered by Kapil Sibal’s attempt at forum shopping
It was on the 31st of October 2023 when a Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi tagged Khalid’s bail petition with other matters challenging the constitutionality of provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The petitions include Khalid’s writ petition challenging the UAPA provisions, and the UAPA Charges Related to Tripura Violence where FIRs were filed against lawyers and journalists who undertook a fact-finding mission in the Tripura violence of October 2021.
It is also on the 31st of October that the saga of adjournments by Kapil Sibal was triggered.
On the 29th of November 2023, the petitioners wanted the petitions de-tagged. Prashant Bhushan said that the Tripura violence case had been heard by CJI Chandrachud 8 times and therefore, this case should be heard by him as well. Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed and said that the petitions would be heard by her and the newly appointed Justice S.C. Sharma. This exchange was even though the petitions had been tagged due to Umar Khalid’s lawyers’ request to begin with.
In this instance, it was due to the unavailability of Kapil Sibal and the ASG that the hearing was pushed to January 2024.
Interestingly, in December, Prashant Bhushan had shot off an angry letter to CJI Chandrachud over the Tripura matter, with which Umar Khalid’s plea was tagged, being listed in front of Justice Bela Trivedi instead of the CJI himself. There were other letters too complaining of irregularities in cases being listed in front of Justice Trivedi – by Dushyant Dave and Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi at the time, in a hearing related to Satyendra Jain’s bail petition mentioned the ‘irregularity’ in the case being listed in front of Justice Trivedi, which was promptly shut down by the CJI.
The CJI responded to an urgent oral mention made by former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain’s lawyer, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi about the listing of his bail petition in the Delhi liquor policy case before a Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi on December 14. Singhvi said a Special Bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Trivedi was already hearing the case. “We have been arguing before the Special Bench. The case is already partially heard… Now, today, it has been listed before a Bench headed by Justice Trivedi. Let it continue to be heard by the earlier Special Bench,” Mr. Singhvi urged.
Post-lunch, when the court re-convened, the Chief Justice informed Singhvi that there had been a communication from the office of Justice Bopanna that he could not resume his judicial duties after the Diwali vacations due to medical reasons. The judge’s office had asked all the part-heard matters before him to be released. Consequently, the case of Jain was shifted to the judge, Justice Trivedi, on the Bench.
“It is very easy to fling allegations and letters,” the Chief Justice said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, said the “only way to deal with malicious letters is by ignoring them”.
Putting his foot down, the CJI had said, “If the case is listed before a judge, the judge will take a call. I will not say anything,” the Chief Justice said emphatically. This was in response to not just the issue raised by Singhvi, but also Prashant Bhushan (In the Tripura case to which Umar Khalid’s bail plea was tagged) and Dushyant Dave.
Thereafter, the hearings came up in front of the bench comprising of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal. This time, while the unavailability of ASG promoted the bench to postpone to hearing to 17th January, Kapil Sibal asked the court to delay it further – the hearing was set for 24th January 2024 instead.
On the 24th, the case was listed before a Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan. It was again the advocate of Umar Khalid who asked for an adjournment, which was granted.
On the 31st of January, a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal were to hear the plea. However, due to Justice Mithal’s unavailability, the newly appointed Justice P.B. Varale joined Justice Trivedi instead. While the court wanted to hear the case on the 1st of February, it was against Kapil Sibal who sought the case to be listed on another day since he would be busy with the AMU matter. To this, the judges had kept it open-ended, saying “We will see”.
When the case came up for hearing on the 1st of February, as requested by Kapil Sibal – the bench adjourned the hearing to the 7th of February, however, on the 7th, the bench was occupied in another case.
When the hearing came up on the 14th of February, Kapil Sibal withdrew the bail petition and the separate petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the UAPA.
From the timeline, it is evident that after the exit of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Umar Khalid and his lawyers – Kapil Sibal to be precise – demanded adjournments ad neuseum till the petitions were withdrawn. Further, it is evident that Prashant Bhushan also attempted to ensure that the case was listed before the CJI, a proposal struck down by Justice Bela Trivedi. This poses an important question of whether Kapil Sibal was “trying his luck” at forum shopping and having failed at that, withdrew his petition from the Supreme Court.
How CJI DY Chandrachud addressed bench fixing attempts subtly in his interview
In his interview with Barkha Dutt, former CJI DY Chandrachud was forthcoming in his response about the repeated adjournments taken by Kapil Sibal in the Umar Khalid case – and how – Sibal avoided arguing the case at all.
On the face of it, Chandrachud did not address the forum shopping attempts in the case, however, if one listens to what Barkha Dutt had said right before he spoke about the Umar Khalid case, it becomes evident that the former CJI indeed did hint at the bench fixing attempts.
Barkha Dutt says that Chandrachud himself might be a liberal on bail who believes in jail being the exception and bail being the norm, however, “when a case does not go to you, then what happens. And an instance that is cited again and again is that of Umar Khalid. You did the A to Z – but what about the U”. Having said this, Barkha says that she is not particularly making it about Umar Khalid, but only using him as an example to demonstrate how there are cases like that which contradict the beliefs held by DY Chandrachud about bail being the norm.
Before we get into the response of Chandrachud, it becomes important to briefly analyse what Barkha Dutt said. The question about Umar was specifically about “cases going to other judges” and how, despite Chandrachud being liberal when granting bail, “other judges” contradict his belief.
Barkha Dutt was very specific when she asked this question. She specifically mentioned “other judges” and it was them who were reluctant to give bail to Umar Khalid, while perhaps if it were the CJI, he might have got bail.
The “other judge” in the Umar Khalid case was Justice Bela Trivedi and the entire saga of adjournment triggered by Kapil Sibal was because the ecosystem wanted to avoid her hearing Umar Khalid’s bail appeal. As evidenced above, Prashant Bhushan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi tried their best to affect a change in the bench, hoping that CJI Chandrachud would hear the case, however, their attempts failed because Justice Chandrachud himself put his foot down.
After this insinuation by Barkha Dutt, former CJI Chandrachud also addressed the question and alluded to the bench-fixing attempts by Kapil Sibal subtly. Chandrachud in his answers specifically asks why Kapil Sibal (without naming him) was reluctant in arguing the case before the court and instead, sought repeated adjournments. Given that it was CJI Chandrachud himself who had thwarted the attempts at bench fixing and the concerted campaign to ensure Justice Bela Trivedi does not hear the bail application, one has to assume that he knows exactly why Kapil Sibal was “reluctant to argue the case in front of the judge”.
Being the former CJI, Justice Chandrachud knows that every word of his about a high-profile case like that of Umar Khalid will be weighed and analysed. His specific question as to why Kapil Sibal was reluctant to argue the case, sought repeated adjournments instead and how an entire narrative was created on social media and the media makes it evident that his subtle insinuation was an attempt to pick and choose judges who may deliver a favourable verdict – the adjournments – were merely a means to reach that desired outcome.
With these statements of former CJI Justice DY Chandrachud, the entire conspiracy to manipulate the judiciary in the case of Umar Khalid, laid bare by OpIndia, gets confirmation. OpIndia had also reported about how there was a conspiracy afoot by those accused out on bail in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots case to delay hearings, in the hope that those still in jail can cite “delay in hearing” as one of the reasons to seek and get bail from the courts.
To understand the conspiracy to manipulate the judiciary, the following articles can be read here, here and here.
