Fri Sep 05 08:12:21 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the text and a rewritten version as a news article:
**Summary:**
Following the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to Umar Khalid, accused in the Delhi riots case under UAPA, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal criticized the decision and announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Sibal argued that Khalid’s Article 21 rights have been violated and questioned the state of democracy and the judiciary’s handling of the case. He cited delays, the nature of the charges against Khalid (based on a speech), and precedents of bail granted to other UAPA accused. He also questioned the lack of action against those who gave inflimmatory speeches. The Delhi High Court rejected the bail pleas, asserting that while peaceful protest is a right, conspiratorial violence under the guise of protest cannot be permitted.
**News Article:**
**Umar Khalid Bail Denial: Sibal to Appeal to Supreme Court, Cites ‘Injustice’**
*New Delhi, September 5, 2025* – Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has announced that he will appeal to the Supreme Court following the Delhi High Court’s recent denial of bail to Umar Khalid, an accused in the Delhi riots case charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Speaking at a press conference today, Sibal argued that Khalid’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution are being violated. “This is an injustice,” he stated, “and we will approach the Supreme Court with hope that we will be heard.”
Sibal strongly criticised what he described as the slow pace of the judicial process in Khalid’s case, noting that Khalid has been in custody for nearly five years. He pointed out the lengthy duration of previous appeals and questioned the justifications for repeated hearings. “If the court does not give a verdict for years, are lawyers to be blamed for it? If you don’t want to give bail, reject the plea. Why do you have to do 20-30 hearings?” he asked.
Sibal argued that the charges against Khalid, stemming from a speech he made in Mumbai, did not constitute direct evidence of violence or threats to national security. He also highlighted what he perceived as a double standard in the application of the law, questioning why action has not been taken against leaders who made inflammatory speeches.
“Where is our democracy going?” Sibal asked, expressing concern over the silence of lawyers, the middle class, and society on such issues. He added that political parties are also silent because they are concerned that raising these issues may harm them politically.
The Delhi High Court, in its ruling denying bail to Khalid and several other accused, stated that while citizens have the right to peaceful protest, “conspiratorial violence under the garb of protests or demonstrations” cannot be permitted and must be regulated by the state. The court further said that these actions do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, expression and association.
The case raises critical questions about the balance between national security concerns, freedom of expression, and the right to a speedy trial, and Sibal’s appeal to the Supreme Court is likely to draw significant attention and debate.
First Piper 