The Supreme Court of India recently directed the Delhi High Court to expedite its decision on the bail application of Sharjeel Imam, who has been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as UAPA, in connection with the Delhi riots that occurred in February 2020.
The directive came during a hearing where a bench consisting of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered the Imam's request for bail.
Imam's bail plea had initially been filed directly with the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the bench expressed its reluctance to entertain this direct approach and dismissed the plea, emphasising that the matter should be resolved by the Delhi High Court. They urged the High Court to prioritise the hearing of Imam's application, which has been pending for an extended period.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Imam, highlighted the lengthy wait for the bail plea to be heard. He pointed out that the application has been pending since April 2022 and has been scheduled for hearings over 60 times across seven different benches. This prolonged process has raised concerns about the delay in judicial proceedings.
Despite the High Court's previous rejection of Imam's request for an expedited hearing on September 4, the Supreme Court's intervention aims to ensure that his bail plea is addressed in a timely manner.
Sharjeel Imam was arrested by Delhi police in 2020 and is alleged to be a key conspirator in the riots, which erupted following a contentious anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protest.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of resolving such cases promptly, particularly when individuals are detained under stringent laws like the UAPA.
This legislation is often criticised for its potential misuse, and delays in hearings can significantly impact the rights of those accused. As the legal process unfolds, the focus remains on the judicial system's ability to balance national security concerns with the fundamental rights of individuals.
Follow us
