Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

2020 Delhi RiotsL Ex-JNU scholar Umar Khalid withdraws bail plea from SC

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Advertisement

New Delhi, February 14

Advertisement

Citing “change in circumstances”, former JNU student activist Umar Khalid on Wednesday withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court in a case under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy behind the February 2020 Delhi riots.

“I wish to argue the legal question (challenging UAPA provisions) but want to withdraw the bail plea due to change in circumstances. We will try our luck in trial court,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal on behalf of Khalid. As the Bench accepted Sibal’s request, Khalid’s plea was “dismissed as withdrawn”. He, however, did not elaborate on the “change in circumstances”. Arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, Khalid had sought bail on grounds that he neither had any criminal role in the violence nor any “conspiratorial connect” with any other accused in the case. His bail plea had been pending in the Supreme Court since April 6, 2023, and the proceedings were adjourned 13 times. The SC made it clear that it would not allow “proxy litigation” against validity of UAPA provisions and would hear the challenge to the constitutionality of the anti-terror law by only those personally aggrieved. “The petitioner must be an aggrieved party and there must be a violation of their rights. Only then can the question of challenging the vires of a legislative provision arise,” the Bench told senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing some of the petitioners.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Tags :
SupremeCourt
Show comments
Advertisement