The rejection of bail to Umar Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Delhi anti-Hindu riots case, has once again unsettled the so-called left-liberal ecosystem. Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court dismissed Khalid’s bail plea, noting in its judgment that the accusations against him and his co-accused were prima facie true. Despite this clear judicial reasoning, ‘journalist’ Rajdeep Sardesai appeared visibly disturbed by the court’s rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail plea.

Sardesai attempted to shape a sympathetic picture of Khalid’s continued incarceration. According to him, a ‘narrative’ is being spread across social media that Khalid has been languishing in jail for years, not because of the judicial delay but because his advocates have been seeking repeated adjournments during the hearing of his bail plea.

In his comments, Sardesai did not dispute that Khalid’s lawyers frequently asked for adjournments. Instead, he rationalized their strategy, portraying it as a justified response to the circumstances. He further defended the controversial practice of forum shopping—an attempt to maneuver cases before favorable judges. Sardesai insisted that Khalid’s legal team was right to adopt these tactics. He argued that the lawyers were correct in seeking adjournments and in withdrawing his Special Leave Petition (SLP) from the Supreme Court, since the case had been listed before a judge who had a track record of not granting bail in such matters.

Through this defense, Sardesai indirectly acknowledged what the High Court had already pointed out—that Khalid’s counsels were deliberately delaying proceedings while attempting to select the Bench most suitable for their client. The court, however, saw through these tactics and refused to let procedural maneuvering overshadow the seriousness of the charges.

How Khalid planned to turn prolonged incarceration into a plea for bail

During the bail hearings, the prosecution made it clear that the delays were not the fault of the courts but rather the result of Khalid’s legal team’s deliberate strategy. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad presented specific figures: between 2023 and 2024, seven out of fourteen adjournments were sought by Khalid’s lawyers. This revealed that the narrative of judicial lethargy was misleading. In reality, the defense was working to extend Khalid’s jail time so it could later be cited as a reason to grant bail.

Another important point raised by the prosecution was Khalid’s inexplicable inaction after his 2022 bail rejection. Despite the urgency of his case, he waited nearly six months before filing an SLP in the Supreme Court in April 2023. Later, that petition too was withdrawn, with his lawyers citing “change in circumstances.”

Interestingly, these so-called “circumstances” coincided with judicial reshuffling. First, Justice Aniruddha Bose stepped down, and cases were then assigned to Justice Bela Trivedi. Khalid’s lawyers resisted the allocation and repeatedly sought re-tagging and re-listing of the case.

In court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal—representing Khalid—attempted to turn the tables by blaming the delays on the Supreme Court itself. He claimed that repeated adjournments and the withdrawal of the petition in February 2023 were due to the slow pace of proceedings and changes in the judicial lineup. In doing so, he painted Khalid as a victim of the judicial process. But in reality, as the prosecution highlighted, these actions were carefully designed to manipulate the system.

This misrepresentation clashed directly with the legal principle clarified by the Supreme Court in 2024: in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), “jail is the norm and bail is the exception.” This ruling stripped away the defense’s argument that Khalid’s prolonged imprisonment alone justified his release.

Former Chief Justice Chandrachud exposed Khalid’s delaying strategies

Even the judiciary’s top authority did not remain silent on Khalid’s tactics. Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, had earlier pointed out the same delaying strategies now highlighted by the prosecution in the Delhi High Court. He observed that Khalid’s lawyers had repeatedly sought adjournments before the court and withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court, while making it seem like the entire judicial system was acting against him.

The remark from the former CJI underscored what many legal observers have noted: Khalid’s defense was not simply fighting his case but also attempting to manipulate judicial processes to his advantage. While his lawyers publicly projected him as a victim of systemic bias, their private legal maneuvers told a different story—one of deliberate delay, strategic withdrawals, and selective appeals aimed at finding the most sympathetic Bench.

By exposing these tactics, the judiciary has reinforced the principle that the law cannot be bent by procedural maneuvering or public narrative-building. Khalid’s prolonged incarceration, therefore, stands as much a result of his counsels’ strategy as of the serious nature of the charges he faces.