JAIPUR: Prolonged incarceration without the start of trial erodes constitutional justice and should ordinarily lead to the grant of bail, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said on Sunday, citing cases such as that of Umar Khalid and cautioning courts to closely examine claims made in the name of national security.
Speaking at the Jaipur Literature Festival, Chandrachud said that when the state invokes national security, “the court is duty-bound to carefully scrutinise whether national security is genuinely involved and whether the detention of the accused is proportionate.”
Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been in custody since 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with an alleged conspiracy behind the communal violence in northeast Delhi that left over 50 people dead. He has consistently denied the allegations. Despite repeated bail pleas, his trial has yet to begin.
“In cases like this, where trials do not commence years after arrest, the right to a speedy trial must necessarily be considered,” Chandrachud said. “If an expeditious trial is not possible in the prevailing circumstances, then bail should be the rule, not the exception.”
He argued that stringent national security laws have skewed India’s bail jurisprudence by effectively reversing the presumption of innocence. “Many of our laws have turned the principle on its head, replacing presumption of innocence with something close to a presumption of guilt,” he said.
Chandrachud traced much of the problem to lower courts, which serve as the first point of contact for most citizens. He observed that trial judges are increasingly reluctant to grant bail, not because the law mandates denial, but because decisions are often shaped by fear. “There is an all-pervading anxiety — if I grant bail, will my motives be questioned?” he said, describing a culture in which lower courts defer upward, resulting in institutional gridlock.
On judicial corruption, the former CJI struck a nuanced note. “Yes, there is corruption in the judiciary, but it is often exaggerated,” he said, adding that those in higher judicial office are held to stricter standards and that allegations must be addressed firmly within the system.
Calling for institutional reform, Chandrachud described Indian democracy as robust but imperfect. “We live with imperfections and try to improve upon them for the future,” he said.
Defending the collegium system of judicial appointments while acknowledging its shortcomings, he remarked: “As a judge, I was a soldier implementing the collegium system. As a citizen, I recognise the need for reform,” cautioning that the “devil lies in the details.”
He also touched on the debate over post-retirement government roles for judges. While the Constitution does not prohibit such appointments, he noted that they often cause discomfort and raise questions in civil society. When appointments follow soon after retirement, past judgments tend to be viewed with suspicion — perceptions he described as largely unfair.
