Speaking at the Jaipur Literature Festival on Sunday, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud stated that bail should be the standard, not the exception, if a speedy trial is not feasible. He emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

Chandrachud addressed concerns regarding the prolonged detention of Umar Khalid, a former JNU student who has been in custody for almost five years without the commencement of his trial. While refraining from directly criticizing the Supreme Court's denial of bail to Khalid, Chandrachud stressed that judges must base their decisions on the presented evidence, free from public sentiment or retrospective judgment.

The former CJI outlined specific exceptions where bail could be denied: if the accused poses a threat to society, is likely to flee, or may tamper with evidence. However, he cautioned against automatically denying bail based on national security concerns, stating that courts have a responsibility to examine the genuineness of such claims and assess whether prolonged detention is proportionate. He argued that extended pre-trial detention, especially when a trial is significantly delayed, effectively becomes a form of punishment, undermining personal liberty and eroding trust in the justice system.

Chandrachud voiced his apprehension about a growing "culture of fear" within district and high courts, where judges are hesitant to grant bail due to potential scrutiny and career repercussions. This reluctance, he noted, leads to an excessive burden on higher courts, with the Supreme Court handling approximately 70,000 cases annually. He also mentioned that over 24,000 bail applications were disposed of during his tenure as CJI.

Drawing from his experiences and referencing his recent book (a compilation of his speeches), Chandrachud highlighted the presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of Indian criminal law, asserting that pre-trial detention should not be used as a punitive measure. He questioned how the state could adequately compensate individuals who are acquitted after years of pre-trial imprisonment. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had disposed of around 21,000 bail applications during his time, including many that did not attract public attention.