Prolonged detention without trial strikes at the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution, says Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Vice President Malik Motasim Khan
NEW DELHI — Reacting to the Supreme Court’s verdict on Monday denying bail to scholars and activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, premier Muslim organisation Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) has expressed deep disappointment.
In a statement, JIH Vice President Malik Motasim Khan said the continued incarceration of Khalid and Imam for over five years without the conclusion of trial raises serious constitutional, legal and moral concerns regarding personal liberty and due process in the country.
“Prolonged detention without trial effectively amounts to punishment through process, striking at the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution. Liberty cannot be made contingent on systemic delays for which the accused bear no responsibility,” Khan said. “When delay itself becomes a ground to deny bail, the burden of an inefficient criminal justice system is unfairly shifted from the State to individuals, hollowing out the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty,” the statement said.
Khan further observed that the application of Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) at the bail stage has increasingly blurred the distinction between bail and trial. He noted that reliance on untested prosecution material to deny bail undermines the presumption of innocence and effectively converts bail hearings into mini-trials, without the safeguards of cross-examination and full adjudication.
“Such an approach risks normalising pre-trial incarceration as the rule rather than the exception,” he cautioned.
The senior Jamaat leader also expressed concern over what he described as disparate outcomes within the same factual matrix, pointing out that while five co-accused have been granted bail, Khalid and Imam continue to remain incarcerated.
Welcoming the relief granted to others, Khan said selective relief raises troubling questions about arbitrariness and equality before the law.
“Liberty cannot hinge on inconsistent applications of principle, especially when all the accused have endured prolonged detention,” he said.
Highlighting the broader democratic implications, Khan warned that cases built substantially around speeches, mobilisation and protest activity have a chilling effect on dissent. Expanding the ambit of anti-terror laws to cover political speech and protest, he said, sets a dangerous precedent that threatens democratic participation and the constitutional right to dissent.
“National security is undoubtedly important, but it cannot be invoked as a catch-all justification to dilute civil liberties or suspend constitutional safeguards,” he added.
Calling for urgent reforms, Khan urged expeditious trials with strict timelines, periodic judicial review of continued detention, and a serious re-examination of UAPA provisions that invert the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence—that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
