Prosecution case was built largely on selective statements: Kapil Sibal | Umar Khalid Case Hearing скачать в хорошем качестве

Prosecution case was built largely on selective statements: Kapil Sibal | Umar Khalid Case Hearing

On 21 October, the Supreme Court heard Umar Khalid’s bail plea arising out of the Delhi riots case registered under the UAPA. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, argued that the prosecution case was built largely on selective statements and ideological allegations, without any concrete evidence linking Khalid to acts of violence or conspiracy. He stressed that mere participation in protests, speeches, or association with dissenting views cannot be criminalised, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. Opposing the plea, the prosecution relied on UAPA’s stringent bail provisions, contending that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy. It was argued that at the bail stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of evidence, and that the seriousness of the allegations justified continued custody. The State maintained that the activities went beyond lawful protest and formed part of a larger design leading to the 2020 violence. The Bench closely questioned both sides on the threshold under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, the nature of evidence relied upon, and the balance between national security and personal liberty. While no immediate order was pronounced, the hearing reflected the Court’s engagement with the larger constitutional question of whether stringent anti-terror laws can justify indefinite pre-trial detention, with the matter reserved for further consideration. --Fair Use Policy This content is shared strictly for purposes of news reporting, commentary, criticism, scholarship, and research, in accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 1976. Fair use is a statutory exception that permits limited use of copyrighted material for non-profit, educational, or personal purposes. Court proceedings shown or described here are shared in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) and ANI Media Private Limited vs. Wikimedia Foundation(2025), which recognise the value of transparency, open courts, and public access to judicial hearings.