Lengthy Bail Hearings A Waste Of Time; Arguments Should Not Exceed 10 Minutes, Says Justice SK Kaul
But the UAPA forces one to argue on merits to show a prima facie case, replied senior lawyer Siddharth Dave.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice, on Friday disapproved of the practice of filing lengthy bail applications and arguing "as if a final conviction has already taken place". "Speaking for myself, I find it a complete waste of time of this court or any court to deal with bail applications that go on for pages and pages…The whole...
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice, on Friday disapproved of the practice of filing lengthy bail applications and arguing "as if a final conviction has already taken place". "Speaking for myself, I find it a complete waste of time of this court or any court to deal with bail applications that go on for pages and pages…The whole argument is made as if the final conviction has taken place," Justice Kaul remarked.
These observations were made by the Supreme Court judge while hearing an application filed by Delhi riots accused, Sharjeel Imam. The activist and Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar had moved the top court to expunge the comment made by the Delhi High Court while denying bail to co-accused Umar Khalid, suggesting that Imam was the 'main conspirator' in the 2020 communal riot.
When bail applications, which are meant to be granted by the court in the exercise of their discretion, were argued at length in the manner in which appeals are argued, "this is what happens", Justice Kaul exclaimed.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Imam, explained that the condition for the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 necessitated that applications for the same were argued on their merits. Section 43D of the anti-terror statute prevented the court from releasing an accused on bail unless it found no reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations were prima facie true. "To overcome the condition in Section 43D, we are forced to argue on the merits of the matter," Dave told Justice Kaul. However, agreeing in principle, the senior counsel admitted, "I bow down, Your Lordship. The bail application should be not more than five pages." And the oral arguments during the hearing of a bail application should not exceed 10 minutes, the judge supplied. "You are absolutely right. But now, the legislature has placed such an embargo on us that we have no other choice but to argue on the basis of the case diary, the report, everything," Dave said. "You have a point," Justice Kaul said.