In Focus by The Hindu Is denying bail to Khalid and Imam a departure from judicial precedent?
Jan 13, 2026
Renowned Supreme Court advocate Vrinda Grover joins to unpack the recent Supreme Court ruling denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. She highlights the tension between the constitutional right to liberty and stringent bail regimes under UAPA. Grover critiques the judgment for ignoring key precedents, and warns of the implications for dissent and democracy. She passionately argues against treating protests as terrorism, cautioning that vague legal definitions could allow the state to stifle free speech.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Article 21 Subordinated To UAPA Here
- The Supreme Court treated Article 21 as subordinate to UAPA's strict bail regime in this ruling rather than as an overriding safeguard.
- Vrinda Grover argues this departs from established precedents that protect liberty against prolonged pre-trial detention under UAPA.
Complexity Can't Justify Indefinite Detention
- The judgment downplays systemic delays by citing case complexity and number of accused as state-created reasons to detain.
- Grover contends the prosecution cannot create complexity and then make the accused suffer its procedural failures.
Key Precedents Were Overlooked
- Coordinate bench judgments expanding Article 21 protections in UAPA cases were not meaningfully engaged with by the court.
- Grover finds it surprising and legally problematic that recent contrary precedents were not addressed.