Why Did CM Rekha Gupta Welcome the SC's Denial of Bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
- CM Rekha Gupta supports the ruling, emphasizing accountability.
- BJP views the decision as a reaffirmation of judicial independence.
- The UAPA played a crucial role in the court's decision.
- Different standards applied to other accused individuals.
New Delhi, Jan 5 (NationPress) The Chief Minister of Delhi, Rekha Gupta, expressed her approval on Monday regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling to deny bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the purported ‘larger conspiracy’ surrounding the 2020 Delhi riots.
"We applaud the Court’s decision to dismiss the bail applications of the accused in the Delhi riots, Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. Those responsible for igniting the flames of violence in Delhi deserve the harshest penalties. Political entities that endorsed such rioters must also be held accountable and receive a stern message," CM Gupta stated to reporters within the Delhi Assembly premises.
The BJP characterized the Supreme Court’s stance on the bail request as a significant reaffirmation of judicial autonomy, which was allegedly under threat from urban Naxals and Islamic sympathizers employing coercive tactics.
Amit Malviya, who oversees the BJP’s National Information and Technology Department, remarked on social media, "The Supreme Court’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case signifies a crucial reaffirmation of judicial independence."
The court indicated that there is prima facie evidence pointing towards their participation in a criminal conspiracy under the UAPA, he noted.
“Simultaneously, the court permitted bail for five other defendants, but only under strict conditions, emphasizing that culpability should be evaluated on an individual basis. This decision acknowledged the Delhi Police’s argument that not all accused can be viewed as equal,” Malviya explained.
“This ruling should convey a clear message to the coalition of urban Naxals and Islamist sympathizers who presumed that coercive measures, whether through letters from a rising mayor or foreign legislators, could influence India’s judicial system,” he added.
“For the opposition, the message is even more evident: pursuing foreign interference in India’s domestic affairs is not only futile but gradually undermines any remaining credibility. The usual figures may continue to complain, but their evident distress speaks volumes,” Malviya concluded.
In announcing the judgment, a bench of the Apex Court led by Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale stated that the prosecution's evidence revealed a prima facie case against Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, thereby invoking the statutory prohibition against bail as per Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
During this phase, the Justice Kumar-led Bench noted that the prosecution’s evidence and additional materials "do not warrant their release on bail," asserting that the records indicated their participation in planning, mobilization, and strategic directives.