Modi-Era Judiciary Sets Law Aside, Blocks Bail Unlawfully for Journalists: Media under Pressure

The Delhi High Court’s denial of bail to nine journalists has raised strong doubts about free speech and fair process in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The accused have spent more than five years in jail, yet the case is still at the stage of framing charges, which means a final verdict remains far away. The case now stands as a test for rights and law.

• Core Facts: Nine journalists arrested in 2020 under UAPA were denied bail on 2 September.
• Key Concern: Five years in custody without verdict shows a system slow to protect liberty.

The Case And The Court

The order names Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Athar Khan, Abdul Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed, all linked by the same case frame. The state says they planned a plot against the government and spread unrest through protests and leaflets; the defence calls the case false and harsh. The order keeps them tied to a harsh charge with wide reach.

• Named Accused: The nine were held between January and August 2020 and remain in jail.
• Case Frame: The state reads protest and leaflets as signs of a wider plot.

Five Years Without Verdict

Detention of this length without a verdict turns the process into a form of punishment, even while the accused are still assumed innocent. A system that cannot finish a trial in time should, at least, set the bar for bail lower than it has chosen to do here. Such delay hits at the heart of fairness promised by the Constitution.

• Delay Record: Five years without judgment damages trust in fair trial rights.
• Human Impact: Years in jail before verdict break careers and homes.

UAPA And Free Speech

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is the law the state uses to argue need for strict control, yet its bail bar often keeps people locked up while proof is still being sought. In case after case, speech, protest, and leaflets are read as intent, and acts of public life are pressed into a security frame. This drift chills public life and lowers trust in state claims.

• Legal Context: UAPA’s strict bail rule flips the balance against the citizen.
• Rights Impact: Normal public acts risk being treated as crimes of intent.

Dissent And IIOJK

Those who spoke for the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir have been cast as troublemakers rather than citizens raising rights-based claims. Umar Khalid’s arrest in September five years ago is a clear sign in this line of action. The pattern shows how security talk is used to push out rights talk.

• Timeline Marker: Five years since Umar Khalid’s arrest for strong speech on IIOJK.
• Civic Cost: Rights talk is pushed out of the public space by fear.

Pressure On Media

The climate for journalists is tense, as tools like raids, tax files, and bans are used to push back on hard interviews and fact work. Karan Thapar has faced claims of false news, even as his shows have exposed failings in security and policy during hard times. The wider result is a weak press and a less informed public.

• Press Signal: Reporters who dig deep face cases, raids, and travel blocks.
• Public Loss: Fear in newsrooms leaves citizens with noise instead of facts.

Bail Principle And Legal Sense

Law experts remind us that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, more so when trials move slowly or the record is weak. Long custody before verdict breaks that rule and makes it seem that punishment comes first and proof later. That is not what a fair order should look like.

• Legal Norm: Bail first, jail later, is the basic rule in fair systems.
• Risk Noted: Delays turn process into punishment and weaken faith.

Courts And Public Trust

A steady bias in protest cases toward the state’s view of security has fed the sense that courts are too quick to accept broad claims of threat. Critics warn that judges risk looking like silent players rather than strong protectors of rights when bail is repeatedly denied. Public faith depends on judges who act as a real check.

• Image Issue: Repeated denial of bail weakens faith in court balance.
• Protection Test: Judges must be seen to stand between citizen and state.

Human Cost And Civic Life

Behind the case files stand homes, offices, and classes that miss the people now inside jail. Savings dry up, health suffers, and young workers and students lose time they cannot get back. The fear spreads, and the next protest or meeting is smaller.

• Family Burden: Income, health, and bonds are strained by long custody.
• Civic Chill: Fear drains unions, campuses, and community groups.

What A Fair Path Requires

A fair path can punish real crime while keeping the door open for speech and protest that do not cross into violence. Clear rules and fast trials can protect both liberty and order. Parliament can review UAPA’s bail bar so that the law targets real danger, not words or lawful protest.

• Clear Steps: Set timelines, test proof in open court, and use bail when delay grows.
• Law Reform: Review UAPA rules to better protect both safety and liberty.

The Message For Democracy

These nine names form a test case for India’s claim to be a large, confident democracy where liberty comes first. If liberty shrinks, politics turns into a stage without honest voices. A strong state needs critics free to speak unless and until guilt is proved in a fair court.

• Core Measure: Keep critics free while the state proves its case.
• Public Standard: Liberty first is how democracies show strength.

Conclusion

The latest denial of bail is a measure of how far practice has moved from constitutional promise. If harsh laws are used to hold critics for years without verdict, the state may gain short control while losing trust. A state that fears words cannot claim strength before its own people. Justice must be visible in time, in law, and in the simple act of setting free those who the state has not proved guilty.