The Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, even as bail has been granted to the other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots cases, raises serious questions about the judiciary’s current approach to liberty, delay, and constitutional responsibility. While the grant of bail to some accused is undoubtedly welcome, the continued incarceration of Khalid and Imam, now extending beyond five years without the conclusion of trial, exposes a deeper failure of India’s criminal justice system.

Central to the Court’s reasoning is its observation that “this stage of proceedings does not justify their enlargement on bail.” This raises a deeper concern. Even if proceedings have formally progressed, they remain nowhere near their conclusion after more than five years. Treating the absence of a concluding stage as a reason to deny bail risks converting prolonged detention into a holding pattern without constitutional endpoints, where the state seems to benefit from delay without bearing the burden of proving guilt within a reasonable time.