Bias against bail a battle of egos?

Supreme Court's recent bail orders in the 2020 Delhi riots cases expose a strange double standard. Seven accused were in detention for over 5 yrs. Five were granted bail on Monday. But Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, branded 'masterminds', remain in prison - without trial. In its bail order, the top court clarified that all seven were charged under UAPA. The five released faced material relating mainly to specific, localised involvement, rather than shaping or steering the alleged larger conspiracy. That led the top court to grant them conditional bail, while denying it to Khalid and Imam because the prima facie material against them met the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The difference in outcomes stems from how the court assessed individual roles and prosecution material.

Their supposed 'leadership' role in the 2020 anti-CAA protests has turned prolonged detention into de facto punishment. Police investigation has been, on more than a few occasions, been criticised for lapses. But the court has - again, strangely - not questioned it. For example, claim in the chargesheet that on Jan 8, 2020, Khalid and two co-accused met to plan riots to coincide with Trump's visit turned out to be false.

By letting subjective assessments of 'centrality' override empirical evidence, the court makes it seem that a battle of ego is brewing between the state and those it has identified as its enemy - rather than critic of the government. A trial cannot morph into a contest of prestige and posturing. Justice demands separating evidence from power asymmetry. Legal merit - not perceived prominence - must determine bail. Denying it on this basis risks undermining the principle courts exist to uphold: that law is blind, and justice impartial.