The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected interim bail for Tahir Hussain, the former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader accused of orchestrating violence during the 2020 Delhi riots. Hussain, now with Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), sought bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.
Split Verdict in Supreme Court
The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Pankaj Mithal, delivered a split verdict on Hussain’s plea. Justice Amanullah supported the interim bail, raising concerns over the delay in the trial, while Justice Mithal opposed it, citing the gravity of the charges and the potential consequences of such a precedent. The case will now be referred to a larger bench for a final decision.
Justice Amanullah criticized the Delhi Police for their handling of the case, questioning the prolonged delay in examining witnesses. “Why has the prosecution failed to examine even five witnesses in five years? What is Article 21 of the Constitution (right to personal liberty) for if trials are delayed this long?” he asked, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Charges and Allegations
Hussain faces multiple charges, including the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the riots, and is accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Despite these serious allegations, Hussain’s counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, highlighted the prolonged pretrial detention and lack of progress in framing charges under UAPA, arguing for temporary release to campaign.
Aggarwal also pointed to precedents of interim bail granted to political figures, including AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in unrelated cases. However, the police, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argued that Hussain’s case was not comparable due to the nature of the allegations and his position as a former municipal councillor.
Justice Mithal’s Dissent
Justice Mithal rejected the plea, stating that election campaigning does not constitute a fundamental right. “The petitioner’s rights as a citizen must be respected, but his involvement in 11 criminal cases dilutes his bona fides,” he noted. Justice Mithal also warned of a “floodgate effect,” where other undertrial prisoners might demand similar relief.
Concerns Over Trial Delays
Justice Amanullah’s remarks underscored concerns about the pace of the trial. He pointed out that despite filing the original chargesheet in June 2020, the Delhi Police had made little progress. “Five years of allegations and no significant trial advancement—it raises serious questions about the commitment to justice,” he said.
A Larger Bench to Decide
With the split verdict, the Supreme Court will refer the matter to a larger bench for final adjudication. Meanwhile, Hussain remains in custody as the trial continues. This decision highlights the ongoing debate over balancing individual rights with the integrity of judicial processes, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.
Sources By Agencies