New Delhi: A video clip of a six-month-old interview featuring former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud talking about the delay in Umar Khalid’s Supreme Court bail proceedings went viral a day after the Delhi High Court denied him bail in the 2020 Delhi Riots case.
The Delhi High Court denied Umar Khalid and eight others bail in the case where he is accused of conspiring and orchestrating 2020 Delhi Riots.
Also Read: Why India's Data Protection Act Is Triggering Press Freedom Fears
The Claim: Viral video of ex-CJI DY Chandrachud claiming “Umar Khalid himself sought adjournment & withdrew his bail plea 7 times.”
A tweet by user @MeghUpdates has gone viral saying: “Former CJI EXPOSES the fake liberal agenda on Umar Khalid’s bail 🔥 “Umar Khalid himself sought adjournment & withdrew his bail plea 7 times.” — And yes, his lawyer was Kapil Sibal 🎯” has gone viral.
The tweet also features a 1:48 minute-clip of Barkha Dutt’s interview with the ex-CJI where he said: “I do not want to comment on the merits of the case, but I must tell you one thing which is lost sight by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid’s case, can you imagine that the case was adjourned. There were at least seven, if not more, adjournments which were sought by the council appearing for Umar Khalid, and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn.”
“Now, at the end of it, what happens is that a particular perspective is conveyed in social media and the media. Judges have no place to defend themselves, and if you look at the fine print of what happens in the court, the reality is a little more nuanced…” the ex-judge had added.
The video clip is part of a larger interview—premiered on February 13, 2025—conducted by Barkha Dutt for her podcast Inside Out on her platform Mojo Story.
Also Read: Drone Rumour Is Keeping Uttar Pradesh Villages Awake And Armed
What we found
In May 2023, ex-JNU student activist Umar Khalid moved the Supreme Court appealing against the October 2022 Delhi High Court denying him bail.
BOOM found that the matter came up 13 times before multiple judges between May 18, 2023, and February 14, 2024, when Khalid withdrew all pleas from the Supreme Court.
A study of the case proceedings revealed that Khalid’s lawyer asked for an adjournment twice and not seven times (or more) as stated by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in a podcast interview with Barkha Dutt.
Between May 18, 2023 - February 1, 2024, Khalid’s counsel sought adjournments twice – July 24, 2023, and September 5, 2023.
On July 24, Khalid’s lawyer N Sai Vinod sought an adjournment “due to personal reasons”. BOOM could verify that this deferment was on health grounds.
On September 5, senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought to postpone the matter since he was busy before the five-judge constitution bench matters led by then-CJI DY Chandrachud. The Constitution Bench was hearing a batch of pleas that challenged the Centre’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 and split the state of Jammu and Kashmir in two union territories.
Delhi Police needed time to file counter-affidavit
On July 12, 2023, when the matter came up before a bench of Justices Bopanna and MM Sundresh, the Delhi Police, who were opposing Umar Khalid's plea for bail, wanted more time to file a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court accepted the police request and postponed the case till July 24, 2023.
Also Read: Centre Introduces New Bill That Seeks Removal of Lawmakers Under the Scanner
BOOM further analysed court documents and news reports to understand what happened on the rest of the dates when Khalid’s matter was listed in court. We found that the delay in court proceedings can be divided into four categories – individual, joint pleas, court, and procedural. We have already mentioned the individual times Khalid’s counsel and the Delhi Police sought to postpone the issue.
Court delays
The delay in court hearings can also be attributed to the judges and court procedures. On May 18, 2023, when the matter was listed for the first time, a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli issued notice and pushed the matter for further hearing after six weeks.
On August 9, 2023, Khalid’s bail plea could not be heard because Justice PK Mishra recused himself from the matter. “This will come before some other bench. There is some difficulty on part of my brother (Justice Mishra),” Justice Bopanna said and directed the matter to be listed before a bench without Justice Mishra.
On three occasions (August 18, 2023, September 12, 2023, and October 12, 2023) the court did not hear arguments because it wanted the case to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day (when hearing with lengthy arguments can be heard), or it wanted time to go through the documents submitted in this case or when the court simply ran out of time before it could hear Khalid’s petition.
Nature of the case changes
At this point, it is also pertinent to mention that in October, the nature of the case filed by Umar Khalid changed. Apart from seeking bail, Khalid filed a different and separate petition challenging section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which defined the term “terrorist” and “terrorist act.”
The Supreme Court on October 31, 2023, issued notice to Khalid’s petition challenging the law itself and clubbed his matter with other similar petitions. At the same time, the Supreme Court also decided to hear this petition along with Khalid’s bail plea. This means that what began as an individual case was now part of a larger group of matters that included a constitutional challenge to the law.
From here on, Khalid’s plea was listed in a group along with at least 9-10 other matters on November 29, 2023, January 10, 2024, January 24, 2024, and February 1, 2024. Khalid’s plea for bail was not heard on these days because sometimes a “joint request” was made twice to postpone the hearings, and other times the court ran out of time before the matter came up.
Khalid withdraws his plea
Finally, nine months after he first filed his petition seeking bail and three months after he challenged the UAPA law, Umar Khalid withdrew all his petitions from the Supreme Court on February 14, 2024. The appeal was “dismissed as withdrawn” after Khalid submitted that there was a “change of circumstances” and that he would “try” his “luck” before the trial court.
