Ex CJI DY Chandrachud crisps fries opposition, shatters tropes on Umar Khalid bail

On the 13th of February, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud appeared on Barkha Dutt’s YouTube channel, MOJO story, where he punctured the Islamo-Leftist narrative. The leftist propagate a conspiracy theory alleging that the Indian Judiciary engages in discrimination against Umar Khalid, the notorious one accused in the Anti-Hindu Delhi Riots.

For a long time, there has been an ongoing attempt by the ecosystem to create a perception that the Indian judiciary is working in collaboration with the BJP government and is, therefore, deliberately denying bail to Umar Khalid multiple times.

During the interview, Former CJI Chandrachud refuted the allegations that the judiciary was responsible for the delay in Umar Khalid’s bail application. He instead highlighted that it was Umar Khalid’s legal team who repeatedly sought adjournments.

He made these remarks when Barkha Dutt said that some critics argue bail decisions depend on which bench hears the application. For this, she cited Umar Khalid’s case as an example.

In response, DY Chandrachud clarified that he had always maintained parity in granting bail. For this, he cited the cases of Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami and alleged fact checker Mohammad Zubair. When asked if he regretted cases which he couldn’t adjudicate timely, DY Chandrachud categorically mentioned that it was Umar Khalid’s lawyers who had been delaying his bail proceedings.

He busted the leftist propaganda by pointing out that Umar Khalid’s lawyer took at least seven adjournments when his bail petition was pending in the Supreme Court.

DY Chandrachud further stressed that instead of blaming the judiciary, critics should examine court records. According to the Former CJI, even when the fault lies within the legal team of Umar Khalid, a misleading narrative is being peddled on social media and in some sections of the media.

Empathising with the sitting judges, Ex CJI DY Chandrachud said, “Judges have no place to defend themselves”, adding that reality is far more nuanced than what is portrayed. With this statement, the former CJI dismantled the politically motivated claims surrounding Umar Khalid’s bail.

Chronology of Umar Khalid’s bail plea and how it is his legal team which is at fault, not the Indian judiciary

The pattern of adjournments began on October 31, 2023, when the Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi tagged Khalid’s bail plea with other petitions challenging the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

This tagging was requested by Umar Khalid’s lawyers. On November 29, 2023, petitioners sought to have the cases de-tagged. Prashant Bhushan argued that the Tripura violence case had been heard by CJI Chandrachud multiple times and should remain with him. However, Justice Trivedi insisted that it would be heard by her and newly appointed Justice S.C. Sharma.

Due to Kapil Sibal’s unavailability, the case was pushed to January 2024. By December 2023, prominent lawyers, including Prashant Bhushan, Dushyant Dave, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, wrote letters questioning why cases were being assigned to Justice Trivedi instead of the CJI. However, CJI Chandrachud dismissed these concerns, stating that cases would be heard by the assigned judges.

Also Read: Former CJI DY Chandrachud foil BBC anchor’s vested agenda on ‘Independence of Judiciary’

In January 2024, when the case was scheduled before Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, Kapil Sibal requested another adjournment, leading to the hearing being rescheduled for January 24. On January 24, the matter was listed before Justices Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, but Khalid’s counsel once again sought a postponement, which was granted.

By January 31, the bench had been reconstituted with Justices Trivedi and P.B. Varale. The court was set to hear the case on February 1, but Sibal sought yet another adjournment, citing his engagement in the Aligarh Muslim University matter. When the hearing resumed on February 1, it was pushed further to February 7, but the bench was occupied with another case that day. Finally, on February 14, when the case was taken up, Kapil Sibal withdrew both the bail petition and the plea challenging the UAPA provisions, effectively concluding the matter.

However, the Islamo-Leftist ecosystem has relentlessly attempted to blame the Indian Judiciary and fabricate a false narrative of discrimination against Umar Khalid. They continue to wield the minority victim card while deliberately obscuring the reality and suppressing the facts to suit their agenda.