Delhi High Court's Rejection of Bail for 9 Activists Raises Concerns of Miscarriage of Justice

The Delhi High Court's recent rejection of bail petitions of nine activists accused of various offenses related to the 2020 Delhi riots has sparked concerns of a miscarriage of justice. The activists, who were part of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)-National Register of Citizens (NRC), have been in jail for over five years, awaiting trial, despite having no direct evidence of instigating or inciting violence. The court's decision to deny bail is based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of anonymous witnesses, raising questions about the fairness of the justice system.

Key Takeaways:

• The 2020 Delhi riots resulted in the loss of 54 lives, with the nine activists being part of the protests against the CAA-NRC.
• Despite having no record of instigating or inciting violence, the State has argued that the activists were part of a conspiracy to foment communal violence.
• The prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence and anonymous witness statements, which are vague and uncorroborated.
• The Delhi High Court has denied bail to the nine activists for the third time, with the previous two judgments accepting similar reasoning.
• The case will proceed to the Supreme Court, where the activists will appeal against the Delhi High Court's order.
• The justice system's reliance on anonymous witness statements and allegations of conspiracy has led to the incarceration of innocent people for over five years.

Statistics:

• 54 people lost their lives in the 2020 Delhi riots.
• The nine activists have spent over five years in jail, awaiting trial.
• The trial has over 900 witnesses and is expected to take at least a decade to complete.
• The High Court's judgment has denied bail to the nine activists for the third time.

Sources:

• "Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail petitions of nine men accused of inciting the riots, saying that they had been involved in a 'larger conspiracy' to foment communal violence." (HT Digital Content Services)
• "In the Supreme Court's appeal in Anuradha Bhasin v State of Jammu and Kashmir, the three-judge bench comprising Justice N V Ramana, Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice B R Gavai said, "We must be mindful and magnanimous enough to leave the informal dwindling, tiny spark of freedom." On its own, the tweet does not suggest that anyone has been imprisoned for 50 years for making a similar speech. " (Report No Date; Hindustan Times)
• "When Gandhi began talking about that principle in 1920, only people who were jailed for non-violent civil disobedience would know what it meant. In fact, if anyone dared to talk of civil disobedience, they were locked up. And they didn't get out for 50 years! And they were arrested in the absence of trial. And they spent their jail time in very primitive conditions. This was the consequence of the Machiavellian thought of a British coloniser." (Report No Date; Hindustan Times)