Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has made a strong statement about bail rights in India. He spoke at the Jaipur Literature Festival during a session called "Ideas of Justice." Senior journalist Vir Sanghvi asked him questions about the justice system.
Bail Should Be a Right, Says Former CJI
Chandrachud clearly stated his position. He said bail before conviction should be a matter of right for everyone. He explained the legal principle behind this view. "Our law is based on a presumption," Chandrachud remarked. "That presumption is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty."
He highlighted the human cost of denying bail. Many undertrial prisoners spend years in jail before their cases conclude. Chandrachud posed a critical question. "If someone remains an undertrial prisoner for five or seven years and is finally proven innocent, how will you compensate for the time lost?" he asked the audience. This loss of liberty without conviction troubles the former top judge.
The National Security Exception
However, Chandrachud added an important caveat. He stressed that courts have a special duty in cases involving national security. Judges must examine such cases in great depth before granting bail. He believes this careful scrutiny is essential.
"I think that where national security is involved, it is the court's duty to examine the case in depth," Chandrachud emphasized. "Otherwise, what happens is that people remain imprisoned for years."
Recent Context: Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case
Chandrachud's comments come almost two weeks after a significant Supreme Court decision. The court denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. They are accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The Supreme Court described Khalid and Imam as "ideological drivers" and "masterminds" of the alleged conspiracy. The bench said they formulated a strategy to turn protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act into disruptive road blockades. The court aimed to paralyze Delhi, according to the ruling.
However, the same bench granted relief to five other accused. Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed received bail. The court created a framework distinguishing between different roles in the conspiracy.
It separated the "architects" from the "facilitators." In a large alleged conspiracy, the court held that ideological drivers cannot claim parity with those merely executing orders. The accused face charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
When Can Courts Deny Bail?
Chandrachud outlined specific grounds for denying bail. Courts can refuse bail if three conditions exist. First, if the accused might return to society and commit the crime again. Second, if they might tamper with evidence. Third, if they could use bail to evade the law.
"If these three grounds are not present, then bail must be granted," Chandrachud stated firmly. This principle should guide judicial decisions, according to the former Chief Justice.
A Systemic Concern: Bail Cases Reaching Supreme Court
Chandrachud also addressed a broader issue in the judiciary. He expressed concern about bail pleas reaching the Supreme Court after lower courts deny them. Sessions and district courts often refuse bail, forcing appeals to the highest court.
He identified a key reason for this trend. Judges at lower levels often fear their integrity might be questioned if they grant bail. This fear influences their decisions. "This is the reason why bail cases reach the Supreme Court," Chandrachud explained.
He termed this situation a matter of serious concern. It indicates systemic pressures within the judicial process. Judges should feel empowered to apply legal principles without undue fear.
The former Chief Justice's remarks at the Jaipur Literature Festival have sparked important conversations. They touch on fundamental rights, judicial independence, and national security concerns. His insights come from decades of experience at the highest levels of India's judiciary.
