The Supreme Court said this week that the right to a speedy trial applies no matter how serious the offence is. It also said keeping someone in jail for years without real progress in the trial is a punishment, and that if the State cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail merely because of the gravity of the crime.

And yet, just a few days earlier, another bench of the same Supreme Court did the exact opposite. It denied bail to Umar Khalid, who has now spent over five years in jail. No conviction, no conclusion of trial, and no finding of guilt.

So what exactly is happening here? How can the Supreme Court say prolonged incarceration violates liberty, and still keep someone in prison for five years without trial? Is bail really about principle, or about who the accused is and which law applies?

Umar Khalid’s case forces us to confront how bail actually works under laws like the UAPA, how liberty becomes the exception, how delay becomes the punishment, and how someone can remain in prison for years without ever being found guilty.

Let me explain.

Produced by Megha Mukundan, Script by Lakshmi Priya, Camera by Ajay R, Edit by Nikhil Sekhar ET

For suggestions and feedbacks, write to lme@thenewsminute.com

Like Pooja’s LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme

If you are watching from abroad, click this link: https://buy.stripe.com/28o01q9md0OPdtm8wR

This report was republished from The News Minute as part of The News Minute-Newslaundry alliance. Read about our partnership here and become a subscriber here.