Speedy trial is Umar-Sharjeel’s right

BOB Dylan might well ask: How many years must a man spend in jail, before he can get bail? The answer, my friend, has been blown away in the wind.

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) held in the lead case of Gulfisha Fatima that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were not entitled to bail effectively for another year. They have already been in jail for more than five years, without charges being framed against them by the court concerned. This is tragic as far as the right to personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial are concerned.

Umar and Sharjeel have been chargesheeted for allegedly masterminding the Delhi riots in February 2020 in what is described as a larger conspiracy. In furtherance of the so-called larger conspiracy, they are accused of having committed a “terrorist act” within the meaning of this expression under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA. Given space constraints, it is not possible to delve into or unravel the conspiracy, but it is possible to try and understand whether their continued detention for more than five years is constitutionally justified.

Riots took place in Delhi in the last week of February 2020; an FIR was lodged on March 6. The Supreme Court records that “the riots were allegedly the outcome of a pre-planned conspiracy orchestrated by Jawaharlal Nehru University student Umar Khalid along with his associates, who were stated to be affiliated with different organisations.” Neither Sharjeel nor Umar were named as accused in that FIR. Perhaps their alleged role in a larger conspiracy came to notice much later. They were accused for the first time in a supplementary chargesheet filed on November 22, 2020.

Interestingly, Sharjeel had been arrested in the last week of January 2020, a month before the riots. It appears that he got bail subsequently and was again arrested on August 25 that year. Umar was arrested on October 1, 2020, about seven months after the riots. They have been in jail ever since, without trial.

An accused person is entitled, as per provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, which was in force at that time), access to all the material and documents relied on by the prosecution in the chargesheet. In all fairness, the chargesheets, with all documents, should have been handed over to all the accused persons simultaneously with their filing. For reasons best known to the prosecution, compliance with the statutory mandate was recorded by the trial judge only on August 5, 2023 — about three years later. Meanwhile, the prosecution kept filing supplementary chargesheets one after another, with the fourth one on June 7, 2023.

All this while, the accused were in jail and without necessary documentary evidence against them. What is the cause of the delay in framing charges? In this regard, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Tasleem Ahmed (2025) decided by the Delhi High Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that Sharjeel sought an adjournment on two occasions to argue on framing charges. Umar wanted arguments on the charges to begin on September 18, 2023, but his arguments were not heard.

In October 2024, he requested an adjournment to argue on framing charges. The Supreme Court noted that it did not want to apportion blame for the delay in framing charges either on the prosecution or the accused persons. I am of the view that this was an incorrect approach to the issue of bail to the accused. The cause of delay ought to have been apportioned, and the initial delay by the prosecution in complying with the mandate of Section 207 of the CrPC ought not to have been ignored or overlooked in a matter of personal liberty.

That personal liberty is a valuable right has been recognised by the Constitution in Article 21 and by the SC in several judgments. The Court has gone a step further and held that the right to a speedy trial is also a valuable right tied up with personal liberty and Article 21.

What does this mean? It simply means that if a trial is delayed without any valid justification, the right to a speedy trial is negated and the accused must be granted bail. The reason is fairly obvious — if the alleged crime is of a very serious nature, such as adversely impacting on the unity or integrity of the country, it must be tried with the greatest urgency and not in a lethargic manner.

Recall the Parliament attack that took place in December 2001: the case was decided by the trial court in about six months and eventually by the Supreme Court in 2005 within five years of the incident. Similarly, the case of Ajmal Kasab was decided by the apex court within four years of the 26/11 terror attack. The prosecution was serious about those cases.

Is the prosecution serious about this case? Umar and Sharjeel have been accused of grave offences, a larger conspiracy including a terrorist act resulting in the death of a large number of people, trying to engineer regime change and internationalise the protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act during the visit of the US President.

Surely, this was a case that should have been decided within six months and not one where documents were supplied to the accused after three years. Should the accused be deprived of their personal liberty due to a somnambulant prosecution and a meandering case? More than 800 witnesses are yet to be examined. Is there any hope of the trial concluding in the near future? Is the answer blowing in the wind?