Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · Asia

Kaul says prolonged pretrial proceedings can punish defendants in India

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul said prolonged proceedings before conviction or acquittal can themselves punish defendants. Speaking about Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam’s bail pleas, he said bail should generally be the norm while noting that some laws prohibit it.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 independent reports from 5 outlets · Article text read from 1 of 4 reports · 1 article captured only in partHow it's made

View timeline · 7 entries
5 outlets2 regionsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Mostly RightL 0 · C 1 · R 3 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: India
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the period before conviction or acquittal can itself become a punishment.
  • Kaul said he generally takes a liberal view on bail, while acknowledging that some laws restrict bail in specific cases.
  • Kaul said he and Justice Sundaresh had addressed bail and custody principles in a judgment.
  • Kaul said several judges had raised concerns about prolonged proceedings and bail; he made the comments in an interview with ANI about the Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail pleas.

The brief

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul said prolonged proceedings before a defendant is convicted or acquitted can themselves become a punishment. The Times of India reported that Kaul made the remarks in an interview with ANI while discussing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. ANI’s headline also quotes Kaul saying, “In our system, process becomes punishment.”

Kaul said he generally takes a liberal view on bail and argued that bail should usually be granted. He also acknowledged that some laws prohibit bail in certain cases, describing a limit on the general approach rather than an unconditional rule. The News Mill’s headline similarly characterizes his point as saying the pre-conviction process punishes Khalid and Imam. Kaul said he and Justice Sundaresh had addressed bail and custody principles in a judgment. He also said several judges had raised concerns about lengthy proceedings and bail. His comments therefore addressed both the effect of extended pretrial processes and the standards courts apply when considering whether a defendant should remain in custody. The remarks concerned Khalid and Imam, whom the Times of India described as accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with an alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The Supreme Court denied them bail on January 5 this year in the case concerning the alleged conspiracy. The article does not characterize that denial as a new decision arising from Kaul’s interview. The prosecution said the violence during the riots killed 53 people and injured more than 700. The Times of India said the riots occurred amid protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the proposed National Register of Citizens. Those details provide the case context for the bail discussion; Kaul’s comments focused on the broader question of whether lengthy proceedings and custody can impose punishment before a verdict. The Times of India also said a book was scheduled for release on October 31, but did not connect that release to the bail remarks. The News Mill’s headline focused on Kaul’s comments about the pre-conviction process, while ANI’s headline foregrounded his “process becomes punishment” formulation. Devdiscourse and India Gazette headlines concerned Kaul’s comments about the Article 370 verdict and his personal heritage, rather than the bail issue.

Why it matters

  • Khalid and Imam face the concrete cost Kaul identified: extended proceedings before conviction or acquittal, alongside the possibility of continued custody while their bail pleas are considered.
  • The prosecution’s account of the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots puts the case in context: it said the violence killed 53 people and injured more than 700.
  • Kaul’s position pairs a generally liberal approach to bail with his acknowledgment that some laws prohibit bail in particular cases, highlighting the tension between pretrial custody and statutory limits.

What to watch next

  • Whether courts take up the bail and custody principles Kaul said he and Justice Sundaresh addressed in a judgment.
  • Whether the bail pleas involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam receive further court consideration.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
5 source articles · 5 unique outlets · 4 distinct reports
Outlet political mix: Mostly Right· 1 Center · 3 Right · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Asia 80% · US/Canada 20%
Outlet political mix
Mostly Right
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
1 outlet
3 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
5 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Right-rated outlets (3 of 4 rated sources); comparatively few Left-rated outlets have published on the event.
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (4 of 5 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. India enacted the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. The Court had also stated in *State of Rajasthan v. Balchand* on September 20, 1977, that bail, rather than jail, should ordinarily be the rule.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. In *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* on January 25, 1978, the Supreme Court held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. In *Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar* in 1979, the Court linked speedy trial to Article 21 while considering the plight of undertrial prisoners who had spent long periods in custody.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. The Supreme Court struck down the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act’s twin bail conditions in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. The closest precedent for Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s comments was the Supreme Court’s July 11, 2022 judgment in *Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation*.
    Background · from our historical context
  7. India brought the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita into force, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

The closest precedent for Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s comments was the Supreme Court’s July 11, 2022 judgment in *Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation*. A bench comprising Kaul and Justice M. M. Sundresh set out procedures for arrest and bail, including directions intended to reduce unnecessary arrests and delays in deciding bail applications.

The judgment addressed how the Code of Criminal Procedure applied across different categories of offences. That framework has since changed: the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure from July 1, 2024, while constitutional protections and special statutes continued to shape bail decisions.

Original sources

1 of 5 articles · US/Canada · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.