Supreme Court Rejects Bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam |UAPA Section 15 & 43D(5), Article 21 скачать в хорошем качестве

Supreme Court Rejects Bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam |UAPA Section 15 & 43D(5), Article 21

In this video, I analyse the recent Supreme Court decision rejecting bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while granting bail to five other accused in the Delhi riots / CAA-related case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The discussion begins with the historical background of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Delhi riots, including the rationale behind granting Indian citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, while excluding Muslims, and how this became a flashpoint for nationwide protests. I then explain the key provisions of the UAPA, 1967, with special focus on: 🔹 Section 15 – What constitutes a “terrorist act” 🔹 The importance of intention (mens rea) under Section 15 🔹 Use of vague and open-ended phrases like “any other means” 🔹 How such ambiguity can blur the line between legitimate dissent and terrorism The video also covers Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which places severe restrictions on the grant of bail if prima facie evidence exists. I explain how this provision effectively reverses the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence — from “innocent until proven guilty” to a presumption against the accused at the bail stage. Further, I analyse key Supreme Court precedents, including: 📌 NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali – strict interpretation of bail under UAPA 📌 K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India – recognition of right to speedy trial as part of Article 21, allowing bail despite statutory prohibitions Finally, I break down the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the present order, where: ✔ Bail was granted to five accused ✔ Bail was denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam ✔ The Court introduced the concept of “hierarchy of participation”, categorising some as masterminds and others as ground handlers ✔ The Court held that evidentiary strength varies for different accused ✔ The Court clarified that Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) is not absolute This video is useful for law students, UPSC aspirants, judiciary exam candidates, and anyone interested in constitutional law, criminal law, civil liberties, and national security laws. #UmarKhalid #sharjeelimam #DelhiRiots #CAAProtests #Article21 #indianconstitution #BailUnderUAPA #CriminalLawIndia #constitutionallaw #UPSC #JudiciaryExam #CLAT #LawStudents #LLB #Explained #DeepAnalysis