Bail’s a given, until proven otherwise

It's not every day the Supreme Court goes into self-reflection and self-reproach. Last week, a 2-judge bench did just that when it expressed 'serious reservations' about various aspects of the apex court's January judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case. In doing so, the court reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal justice: bail must be the rule, not exception. As the bench rightly observed, the burden must rest squarely on the state to demonstrate why an accused should be deprived of liberty pending trial.

Nearly 70% of India's prison population comprises undertrials, many unaware of their right to seek bail, others unable to afford it. Supreme Court's intervention is significant as it comes in the context of UAPA, where the threshold for denying bail is notoriously low. While the top court has not questioned the constitutional validity of the 'anti-terror law', it has cast doubt on a framework that allows incarceration to precede adjudication. When trials drag on for years, detention risks becoming punishment by process, with accusation effectively standing in for conviction.

Allegations of terrorism are grave, and there will be cases where denying bail is justified. But such decisions must follow judicial scrutiny. A legal system derives its legitimacy not from how it can imprison people, but from how it protects liberty while administering justice. Bail is not a concession but a right. If the justice system is to be taken seriously as an instrument of law, rather than a vehicle for vigilantism, bail must be default unless the state can demonstrate compelling grounds to deny it. Much like the principle that every person is innocent until proven guilty.