‘Those acting against nation must be in jail till trial ends': Solicitor General to Delhi HC on bail petitions of accused in Delhi 2020 riots case
'If you are doing something against your nation, then you better be in jail till you are acquitted or convicted. There was a riot in the Capital of the country where 100 police personnel and 41 other persons were injured and one police personnel lost his life,' Mr. Mehta said.
He made the submission before a Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur in response to bail pleas filed in the 'larger conspiracy' case by several accused, including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Athar Khan, Meeran Haider, Abdul Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima. With the counsels on both sides having concluded their arguments, the court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the case.
The SG's statements come a day after another High Court Bench, while hearing the bail plea of another 'larger conspiracy' case accused, Tasleem Ahmed, had remarked, 'Five years have gone by [since the riots]. Even arguments on the charge have not been completed. In matters like this, with 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside [jail]?'
Some of the accused have argued that they have been in custody for the past five years, and the trial is unlikely to be completed anytime soon, amounting to the curtailment of their fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty.
'Finest investigation'
Mr. Mehta contested the grounds on which the accused persons have sought bail — delay in the trial and prolonged incarceration — saying long incarceration could not be used as an argument to seek relief.
He termed the police's probe in the conspiracy case 'one of the finest investigations, where to satisfy the conscience of the court, the prosecution recorded 58 statements before the Magistrate'.
'It is not just a case of bail in any other regular riot case. We are dealing with a well-orchestrated and well-organised criminal conspiracy,' the SG said.
Mr. Imam had argued that he was 'completely disconnected' with the areas where the communal violence broke out and that in his communication with the other co-accused on WhatsApp, he did not call for any kind of unrest.
The accused were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the IPC for being the 'masterminds' of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
J&K Police attaches property of ‘active' terrorist in Anantnag
Srinagar: Police in J&K's Anantnag district said on Tuesday that it has attached the immovable property of an active terrorist. A police statement said that Anantnag Police, in its continued crackdown on the terror ecosystem, has attached immovable property belonging to an active terrorist under relevant provisions of law. The land falling under Khasra No. 165min situated at Guree, Bijbehara, and owned by Adil Hussain Thoker, son of Wali Mohammed Thoke, resident of Guree, Bijbehara, an active terrorist, has been attached under Section 83 of CrPC. The action has been taken in connection with FIR No. 11/2023 registered under Sections 20, 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Sections 2/3 of the EIMCO Act. This attachment is part of lawful measures aimed at dismantling the support structure of terrorism in the district. Such actions will continue against individuals found aiding or involved in unlawful and anti-national activities. Joint forces, including the army, CAPFs and the J&K Police, have been carrying out coordinated target-specific operations against terrorists, their Over Ground Workers (OGWs) and sympathisers. These operations are aimed at dismantling the entire ecosystem of terror in J&K rather than focusing only on the elimination of gun-wielding terrorists. Police have reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining peace, security, and the rule of law in the district. Drug smugglers and drug peddlers are also on the radar of the joint forces, as it is believed that the funds generated by hawala rackets and drug smuggling are used to fund terrorism. While the army guards the over 740 km long line of control (LoC) in J&K, the CAPFs and the local police carry out operations against terrorism in the hinterland. J&K L-G has been personally reviewing the security operations, and in periodic reviews, he has been laying stress on the terror ecosystem and not just terrorist specific operations.
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills
New Delhi, The Centre on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court imposition of fixed timelines on governors and President for taking decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, saying such constraints were "consciously omitted" by the framers of the Constitution. Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills Challenging the April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for grant of assent to bills, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice B R Gavai that the judgement tied the hands of President who was "virtually robbed of her powers". "You bind the hands of the President. The highest consideration of whether to assent or not must remain open," he said. While the attorney general was assisting in his personal capacity, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre before the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar. The top court began hearing the presidential reference, seeking opinion on whether President and governors can be legally bound by specific timeframes while exercising their constitutional role in assenting to, or returning, bills. Mehta urged the bench to examine the larger constitutional question the role of President and governors in India's federal structure. "When we are making or interpreting a Constitution, we do it idealistically," Mehta said. He added, "The forefathers of the Constitution were visionary and foresaw potential abuse of provisions. But every problem does not warrant judicial intervention." Mehta said there was no top court decision on the questions raised in the reference so far. "Presidential reference under Article 143 does not invite this court to 'sit in appeal' over State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481 and rather, it seeks independent questions of constitutional law of considerable public importance arising out of Articles 200, 201, 142, 143, 145 and 361," he said. He referred to the constituent assembly debates and historical background of certain constitutional schemes to highlight the framers of the Constitution debated and decided not to fix any timelines for governors and President. Under the 1915 Act, Mehta said, there was no provision for returning bills and the 1935 Government of India Act, however, introduced a measure of discretion for "Governor-General", including sending back bills on grounds such as repugnancy or violation of fundamental rights. He said the Constituent Assembly explicitly considered and rejected proposals for rigid timelines. "At one stage, the draft suggested that a bill be assented to 'not later than six weeks', later changed to 'as soon as possible'," Mehta said, citing the intervention of B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution. The CJI, however, said some members in the constituent assembly had in fact argued for reasonable timelines, pointing out "even six weeks seemed too long". However, the law officer said the "idea was not to bind the highest constitutional functionaries" by rigid deadlines. "The conscious omission of a timeline was deliberate," he said. Mehta argued a system where the highest functionaries were expected to discharge their duties legally and with constitutional morality was followed in the country. "Binding them down with fixed periods would undermine the vision of the framers," he said. Mehta continued, "President has the right to assent or withhold assent when a bill is first presented. However, if he returns the bill and the house passes it again, President is bound to give assent. There is no ambiguity on this point." President, he said, while described as a "nominal head" during debates, was nonetheless an elected constitutional authority. "Unlike the Governor-General, President functions on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. That distinction must be respected," Mehta said. The attorney general called the April 8 verdict a "judicial overreach into the legislative domain". Venkataramani said the verdict effectively rewrote constitutional provisions and curtailed the discretionary space available to Governor and President. The AG said in the Tamil Nadu judgment, the court "entered into the legislative domain" and suggested President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 if doubts arose on a bill. "Can the court go to the extent where it says, let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution," he asked. He said the judgment virtually bound President and governors to act mechanically on the aid and advice of state governments, stripping them of independent constitutional application of mind. "President is being told not to look at executive policy. Governor and President are virtually robbed of their discretion," he said. He referred to Article 145 and said it stipulated the constitutional questions of substantial importance to be heard by at least a five-judge bench. Article 145 mandates a minimum of five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or for hearing any reference. The AG maintained the Tamil Nadu verdict breached the mandate. "If there are multiple, conflicting judgments of smaller benches, then such matters must necessarily go before a larger bench for conclusive authority," Venkataramani argued. He said routine matters under Articles 14 and 21 might not attract the mandate, but "issues of working of the Constitution and its integrity" certainly did. Venkataramani said the Tamil Nadu judgment altered the original meaning of Article 200, which governs gubernatorial assent to bills. While the AG said President's constitutional role was being constrained by judicial directions, the SG argued the issue was sui generis , requiring the court's guidance. "This has created a constitutional functional problem. Am I bound by the three month deadline? Am I bound by Article 200 directions? Or should all states come to the Supreme Court," he asked. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills
Agency: New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) The Centre on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court imposition of fixed timelines on governors and President for taking decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, saying such constraints were 'consciously omitted" by the framers of the Constitution. Challenging the April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for grant of assent to bills, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice B R Gavai that the judgement tied the hands of President who was 'virtually robbed of her (discretionary) powers". 'You bind the hands of the President. The highest consideration of whether to assent or not must remain open," he said. While the attorney general was assisting in his personal capacity, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre before the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar. The top court began hearing the presidential reference, seeking opinion on whether President and governors can be legally bound by specific timeframes while exercising their constitutional role in assenting to, or returning, bills. Mehta urged the bench to examine the larger constitutional question — the role of President and governors in India's federal structure. 'When we are making or interpreting a Constitution, we do it idealistically," Mehta said. He added, 'The forefathers of the Constitution were visionary and foresaw potential abuse of provisions. But every problem does not warrant judicial intervention." Mehta said there was no top court decision on the questions raised in the reference so far. 'Presidential reference under Article 143(1) does not invite this court to 'sit in appeal' over State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481 and rather, it seeks independent questions of constitutional law of considerable public importance arising out of Articles 200, 201, 142, 143, 145(3) and 361," he said. He referred to the constituent assembly debates and historical background of certain constitutional schemes to highlight the framers of the Constitution debated and decided not to fix any timelines for governors and President. Under the 1915 Act, Mehta said, there was no provision for returning bills and the 1935 Government of India Act, however, introduced a measure of discretion for 'Governor-General", including sending back bills on grounds such as repugnancy or violation of fundamental rights. He said the Constituent Assembly explicitly considered and rejected proposals for rigid timelines. 'At one stage, the draft suggested that a bill be assented to 'not later than six weeks', later changed to 'as soon as possible'," Mehta said, citing the intervention of B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution. The CJI, however, said some members in the constituent assembly had in fact argued for reasonable timelines, pointing out 'even six weeks seemed too long". However, the law officer said the 'idea was not to bind the highest constitutional functionaries" by rigid deadlines. 'The conscious omission of a timeline was deliberate," he said. Mehta argued a system where the highest functionaries were expected to discharge their duties legally and with constitutional morality was followed in the country. 'Binding them down with fixed periods would undermine the vision of the framers," he said. Mehta continued, 'President has the right to assent or withhold assent when a bill is first presented. However, if he returns the bill and the house passes it again, President is bound to give assent. There is no ambiguity on this point." President, he said, while described as a 'nominal head" during debates, was nonetheless an elected constitutional authority. 'Unlike the Governor-General, President functions on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. That distinction must be respected," Mehta said. The attorney general called the April 8 verdict a 'judicial overreach into the legislative domain". Venkataramani said the verdict effectively rewrote constitutional provisions and curtailed the discretionary space available to Governor and President. The AG said in the Tamil Nadu judgment, the court 'entered into the legislative domain" and suggested President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 if doubts arose on a bill. 'Can the court go to the extent where it says, let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution," he asked. He said the judgment virtually bound President and governors to act mechanically on the aid and advice of state governments, stripping them of independent constitutional application of mind. 'President is being told not to look at executive policy. Governor and President are virtually robbed of their discretion," he said. He referred to Article 145 and said it stipulated the constitutional questions of substantial importance to be heard by at least a five-judge bench. Article 145 mandates a minimum of five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or for hearing any reference. The AG maintained the Tamil Nadu verdict breached the mandate. 'If there are multiple, conflicting judgments of smaller benches, then such matters must necessarily go before a larger bench for conclusive authority," Venkataramani argued. He said routine matters under Articles 14 and 21 might not attract the mandate, but 'issues of working of the Constitution and its integrity" certainly did. Venkataramani said the Tamil Nadu judgment altered the original meaning of Article 200, which governs gubernatorial assent to bills. top videos View all While the AG said President's constitutional role was being constrained by judicial directions, the SG argued the issue was sui generis (unique), requiring the court's guidance. 'This has created a constitutional functional problem. Am I bound by the three month deadline? Am I bound by Article 200 directions? Or should all states come to the Supreme Court," he asked. PTI SJK MNL AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 19, 2025, 21:00 IST News agency-feeds Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
