On Wednesday (January 22), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on Tahir Hussain’s petition seeking interim bail to contest the Delhi assembly elections.
Hussain, a former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor and accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, had approached the court after the Delhi High Court denied his plea for interim bail.
Justice Pankaj Mithal rejected the petition, cautioning that granting bail for such purposes could set a precedent and lead to misuse, Live Law reported.
“In the event interim bails are to be allowed for purposes of contesting elections, it will open a Pandora’s box. Since elections are all year round, every undertrial would come with the plea that he wants to participate in elections and therefore be granted interim bail. This would open floodgates, which in our opinion can’t be permitted. Secondly, once such right is recognised, as a sequel, the petitioner would ask for right to vote, which is circumscribed by Section 62 of the Representation of Peoples Act,” Live Law quoted Justice Mithal as saying.
On the other hand, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah granted interim bail until February 4, citing Hussain’s prolonged detention of five years and the lack of significant progress in his trial. Justice Amanullah emphasized that the allegations against Hussain, while serious, remain unproven.
He noted that the chargesheet was filed in June 2020, but only five witnesses have been examined so far.
“All this has to be looked at. You can’t castigate somebody like this! He has not been out of jail even for a day in 5 years. I will have to write on this also [in my order]. We can’t shut our eyes. What is Article 21 of the Constitution for? For five years, you have not even examined your star witness, and he is out of Delhi! We don’t want to comment further,” Justice Amanullah was quoted as saying by Live Law.
The divergence in opinions has resulted in the matter being referred to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for further consideration, as per Live Law.
Hussain, currently in custody, has been fielded by the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party from the Mustafabad constituency. Earlier, the Delhi High Court denied him interim bail but allowed custody parole for filing his nomination.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the plea, arguing that granting bail could enable Hussain to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. He also highlighted Hussain’s bleak electoral prospects, noting that his original party, AAP, had distanced itself from him.
Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Hussain, countered that eight co-accused in similar cases, including two alleged main assailants, had already been granted bail.
He further argued that the trial had faced significant delays, with no charges framed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) despite stricter bail provisions. Agarwal cited past Supreme Court judgments granting bail in cases involving prolonged trials, including the Manish Sisodia case.
Hussain faces serious charges, including the kidnapping and murder of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma during the riots in North East Delhi in February 2020. He is also accused of rioting and arson, with visuals allegedly showing his building in Khajuri Khas being used to hurl stones and petrol bombs.
The case has raised questions about balancing legal principles, electoral rights, and the need for timely judicial processes. A final decision now awaits the Chief Justice’s review.
Hussain, a former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor and accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, had approached the court after the Delhi High Court denied his plea for interim bail.
Justice Pankaj Mithal rejected the petition, cautioning that granting bail for such purposes could set a precedent and lead to misuse, Live Law reported.
“In the event interim bails are to be allowed for purposes of contesting elections, it will open a Pandora’s box. Since elections are all year round, every undertrial would come with the plea that he wants to participate in elections and therefore be granted interim bail. This would open floodgates, which in our opinion can’t be permitted. Secondly, once such right is recognised, as a sequel, the petitioner would ask for right to vote, which is circumscribed by Section 62 of the Representation of Peoples Act,” Live Law quoted Justice Mithal as saying.
On the other hand, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah granted interim bail until February 4, citing Hussain’s prolonged detention of five years and the lack of significant progress in his trial. Justice Amanullah emphasized that the allegations against Hussain, while serious, remain unproven.
He noted that the chargesheet was filed in June 2020, but only five witnesses have been examined so far.
“All this has to be looked at. You can’t castigate somebody like this! He has not been out of jail even for a day in 5 years. I will have to write on this also [in my order]. We can’t shut our eyes. What is Article 21 of the Constitution for? For five years, you have not even examined your star witness, and he is out of Delhi! We don’t want to comment further,” Justice Amanullah was quoted as saying by Live Law.
The divergence in opinions has resulted in the matter being referred to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for further consideration, as per Live Law.
Hussain, currently in custody, has been fielded by the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party from the Mustafabad constituency. Earlier, the Delhi High Court denied him interim bail but allowed custody parole for filing his nomination.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju opposed the plea, arguing that granting bail could enable Hussain to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. He also highlighted Hussain’s bleak electoral prospects, noting that his original party, AAP, had distanced itself from him.
Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Hussain, countered that eight co-accused in similar cases, including two alleged main assailants, had already been granted bail.
He further argued that the trial had faced significant delays, with no charges framed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) despite stricter bail provisions. Agarwal cited past Supreme Court judgments granting bail in cases involving prolonged trials, including the Manish Sisodia case.
Hussain faces serious charges, including the kidnapping and murder of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma during the riots in North East Delhi in February 2020. He is also accused of rioting and arson, with visuals allegedly showing his building in Khajuri Khas being used to hurl stones and petrol bombs.
The case has raised questions about balancing legal principles, electoral rights, and the need for timely judicial processes. A final decision now awaits the Chief Justice’s review.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment