Denying interim bail to former AAP councillor and 2020 Northeast Delhi riots accused Tahir Hussain to campaign for the Delhi Assembly polls, in which he is contesting as an AIMIM candidate, Justice Pankaj Mithal of the Supreme Court has underlined that Indian citizens “deserve…clean politics” and to achieve this, “people with tainted image’ should “be restricted in some way or the other from participating in the election”.
On Wednesday, a two-judge SC bench comprising Justices Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had delibered a split verdict on Hussain’s interim bail plea. While Justice Mithal dismissed it, Justice Amanulla was of the view that the interim relief can be granted. In light of the contrasting opinions, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for allocation to a larger three-judge bench.
In his ruling, which was uploaded on the SC website on Thursday, Justice Mithak said, “…citizens of India deserve a clean India, which means clean politics as well and for the said purpose, it is necessary that people with tainted image, especially those who are in custody and had not been granted bail and those who are undertrial, even if out of jail, be restricted in some way or the other from participating in the election. The people of India should be given a choice to elect people with clean image and antecedents.”
Justice Mithal added, “…the reasons and factors where… interim bail may be permitted may include cases where there is death in the family of the accused and the cremation has to take place; to attend the wedding of son/daughter or of any close relative of the accused but such a right has not been recognized on the plea of contesting or canvassing for the election.”
The judge further said, “…in the event interim bail is made permissible on the ground of contesting elections, it will open a pandora’s box… in this country, election in some form takes place throughout the year and the accused persons in jail may take undue benefit of it… even if they are not serious in contesting elections, they would move interim bail application to participate in the election knowing fully well they are likely to lose or are not serious contenders.”
This will open a flood gate of litigation, Justice Mithal said.
Justice Amanullah, while allowing the interim bail, said though the “allegations” against Hussain “are grave and reprehensible, but as of this moment they are exactly that – allegations”. He added, “…it is settled law that magnitude and gravity of the offence alleged are not grounds, in and by themselves, to deny bail.”
He clarified that his order allowing interim relief “is not to be treated as a conclusive opinion on the merits of the underlying bail application or the main case before the trial court, lest it prejudice either side”.
Justice Amanullah said that Justice Mithal “has rightly opined that a pandora’s box cannot be permitted to be opened by letting a horde of convicts and/or undertrial prisoners seek release for the purpose of trying their luck at the electoral hustings.”
He, however, added that “likewise,” the “apprehension” expressed by the additonal solicitor general – who appeared for the Delhi Police – that “others, whether similarly-situated or not, may seek to (mis)use this judgment, is not unjustified”.
He added that he was allowing the relief with “the caveat that this judgment has been passed in facts and circumstances specific to this case”.
Discover the Benefits of Our Subscription!
Stay informed with access to our award-winning journalism.
Avoid misinformation with trusted, accurate reporting.
Make smarter decisions with insights that matter.
Choose your subscription package