The long shadow of the anti-CAA protests and the subsequent riots in northeast Delhi in 2020 continues to loom large over the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Islam. Charged under the UAPA for violence and rioting in the national capital, the disproportionate and prolonged spell of suspicion on their alleged involvement in the riots—which, according to fact-finding reports by statutory commissions, civil society organisations and independent journalists, were not spontaneous but organised to crush the anti-CAA agitation—and the denial of bail to Umar and Sharjeel by the Supreme Court (SC) last week raise serious questions about liberty, delivery of justice and pre-trial detention.

Presumption of guilt versus presumption of innocence

The duo has been accused of conspiring to destabilise the government through violence and rioting. However, the narrative and allegations of their involvement in a “larger conspiracy” against the Indian state ignore one basic fact: in the criminal justice system, presumption of guilt contrasts with the fundamental human rights principle of the presumption of innocence until the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. The binary view of the Delhi riots—one of the Delhi Police and the other of civil society organisations, legal experts and intellectuals—makes it vital to understand why and how the Delhi riots took place and who was behind the targeting of homes, shops, business establishments and places of worship of a particular community.

Investigation versus prolonged incarceration

This requires an impartial and complete investigation, followed by a charge sheet and judicial trial, conviction and punishment for the guilty. Instead, what we have had in the last six years is the........

© Free Press Journal