The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam does more than decide the fate of two undertrials. It exposes a growing doctrinal uncertainty in how India’s highest court balances national security with personal liberty. For years, the court has asserted that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” even under stringent special laws. Yet, by declining to let prolonged incarceration weigh decisively in their favour, it has introduced a troubling caveat: liberty may be a principle, but not always a priority. The core issue is not whether the allegations are serious.

Few would deny the gravity of charges involving conspiracy, public disorder, or national security. The real question is constitutional: can the state, having failed to conduct a trial within a reasonable time, continue to justify incarceration merely by pointing to the severity of the accusation? Article 21 does........

© The Statesman