- 9 months ago
The Supreme Court has denied bail to the 2020 Delhi riot accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stating prolonged incarceration alone is not enough under UAPA as not every accused stands on the same footing while considering bail.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching News Today at 9pm. I'm Preeti Chaudhary. Let me quickly take you through our big talking points this evening.
00:08Well, the top one came in from the top court of the country. No bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeeel Imam.
00:16Flaws in criminal justice system exposed. We have with us former AG Mukul Ruhadki exclusive.
00:23And on the other side, which is at 9.30pm, we're going to get you, what is Trump's plan for Venezuela?
00:30All of that coming up. First up, allow me to take you through the headlines.
00:36Top court denies bail to 2020 Delhi riot accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeeel Imam saying prolonged incarceration alone, not enough under UAPA.
00:47Ads, not every accused stands on the same footing while considering bail.
00:51Bera Sacha Sauda chief, Gurmeet Singh, out again on bail on 40-day parole.
01:01Left draws parallel with Umar Khalid, 15th release since he was convicted of rape.
01:06He was out for 405 days in the last eight years alone.
01:10A chilling show of hooliganism in Delhi.
01:16Father-son duo brutally assaulted.
01:18The miscreants even stripped the son naked as bystanders looked on without intervention.
01:28Another Hindu man killed in Bangladesh, Rana Pratap, publicly shot dead by unknown assailants in Jashore districts.
01:35Cops currently investigating cause of attack.
01:42After park cricket ties deteriorate with Bangladesh, UNIS government bans telecast of IPL in the country.
01:50The move after BCCI asks KKR to drop Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rehman from the squad.
01:57Security scare at U.S. Vice President J.D. Wance's Cincinnati residence intruder spotted near the house.
02:07Shots fired.
02:08Wance says crazy man tried to break in.
02:11Suspect currently in secret services custody.
02:13Once again, you have President Donald Trump warning India over Russian oil purchase, says good man Modi must make me happy.
02:23Claims Modi knows I'm not happy and can raise tariffs on India over Russian oil.
02:31Amidst U.S.-Venezuela tensions, Nicolas Maduro and his wife brought to New York court.
02:37Trump says U.S. is in charge.
02:40Acting President Telsi Rodriguez calls for cooperation with the U.S.
02:48Prime Minister Modi marks thousand years of Somnath Temple, says temple survival reflects India's indomitable spirit.
02:56Prime Minister to visit Somnath Temple on January 11th.
03:10Justice and liberty viewers are in stark contrast this evening.
03:14As under trials remain behind bars, a convicted god man, self-styled god man at that, walks out yet again.
03:21The top court of the country has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeele Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case,
03:26ruling that this is not the stage to grant them relief.
03:29The court, in its verdict, said the remedy for delay in trial in UAPA cases is not automatic bail, but expedition of trial.
03:38But as Khalid and Imam continue in jail, the contrast sharpens elsewhere.
03:42You have the self-styled god man, Dera Satcha Sauda chief, Gurmeet Singh, convicted in a double rape case for 20 years
03:49and facing murder charges, has been granted parole for the 15th time since 2017,
03:55walking out of prison once again, this time, for accumulated 40 days.
03:59Very different cases, very, very different laws.
04:02Many are saying you're comparing apples to oranges.
04:04But are we really comparing apples to oranges?
04:06Because at one end, you have under-trials.
04:09The trial has not even begun in the case of Sharjeele Imam and Umar Khalid.
04:15The charges haven't been framed.
04:16They've been in jail for five years and they've been denied bail.
04:19On the other hand, you have a self-styled god man convicted for two rape cases,
04:24serving 20 years in jail, facing murder charges,
04:28walk out 15 times in the last four years, this time around for 40 days.
04:35The last parole was another 40 days, which he was out in August 2025.
04:41Different cases, really, right?
04:43Different laws, but quite the same.
04:46Tonight, one question dominates the debate.
04:48How equal does justice really look?
04:51We first take a sharp look at the Supreme Court's verdict denying Umar Khalid and Sharjeele Imam bail
04:57and the reasons cited by the learned court.
05:00Here's a report.
05:00My colleague Shushti Oja filed this.
05:02Big setback for 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeele Imam.
05:17The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to the two accused,
05:21who have already spent more than five years in jail, even as the trial is yet to start.
05:26The court granted conditional bail to Gulfiza Fatima, Meer and Heather,
05:34Shifa or Rehman, Mohammed Salim Khan and Shadda Ahmed.
05:39The two judge bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice N.B. Anjaria ruled the Umar Khalid and
05:46Sarjeele Imam stand on qualitatively different footing when compared to the other accused.
05:51The court said prosecution material discloses prime FSI allegations against Khalid and Imam
05:57to the extent of planning and organization.
05:59The judges ruled that they cannot ignore prosecution material merely because incarceration is prolonged.
06:07The court said that at this stage of proceedings, bail for them is not justified.
06:13Khalid and Imam can seek bail after one year or after examination of protected witnesses is over,
06:19whichever comes earlier.
06:20The court in its ruling laid down conditions for bail under the Anti-Terror Law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or the UAPA.
06:30The judges said in cases involving national security, delay can't operate as a trump card but triggers judicial scrutiny.
06:38The court ruled that assessment of liberty of a person is different when cases are about threatening foundation of the state.
06:45In deciding bail, the court needs to examine if prosecution material prime FSI discloses offences alleged.
06:53If material shows unlawful activity as defined under the UAPA, where statutory threshold is crossed by the accused.
07:01This is a landmark judgment.
07:04This judgment has paved way and given clarity in how the UAPA Act has to be applied
07:10in various matters where they are accused who are languishing in jail for a considerable period of time.
07:18The Supreme Court verdict has sparked political storm.
07:23Sharjil, Imam and Umar Khalid have set up the burden of the citizenship of the UAPA Act.
07:30We welcome the support of Mania Court.
07:33It has been more than five years since the Delhi
08:03but the trial in the case is yet to begin.
08:06The Supreme Court verdict means Umar Khalid and Sharjil, Imam could be looking at one more year in jail
08:11before a bail plea can be filed if the trial is not expedited.
08:17The court's opinion is very clear.
08:19Personal liberty matters but not at the cost of national security.
08:24So basically, five of the accused will walk free on bail with conditions
08:28but these two will continue to remain behind bars.
08:31In India's legal theatre though, the story isn't over yet.
08:36It's only entering its next act.
08:38The focus now shifts back to the trial courts
08:42and the public opinion, as usual, remains sharply divided.
08:46With Camera Person Kunj Bihari from New Delhi, this is Srishti Ojha for India Today.
08:50All right, joining me now is Mr. Mukul Rohatki, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
08:55former Attorney General of India.
08:57Appreciate you taking the time out and joining us, Mr. Rohatki.
09:00You've called the judgment today a balanced one.
09:03Why do you say that?
09:06So, madam, let's first understand
09:09that a judgment on bail is not a final verdict on the accusation.
09:19That final verdict will render conviction or acquittal.
09:24So, this is a judgment which only looks at a prima facie view of the nature of allegations,
09:36the nature of the defense, the nature of time taken, the nature of the material
09:43and the complicity on a prima facie basis
09:48and then take a call whether somebody should be on bail pending trial or not.
09:54That's the first thing.
09:56So, please don't read the judgment as if it's a final Bible of the case.
10:00That is not so.
10:02Why I called it balanced was
10:04after having the benefit of reading this judgment an hour ago,
10:09I find that five out of seven, I think, have already got bailed.
10:17Correct.
10:18The two who haven't got bailed,
10:22their role has been found to be more central
10:26and more complicit, prima facie,
10:33on the materials available
10:35as per instigating these riots in which 50 or more people
10:39lost their lives,
10:41that it was a deliberate scheming, etc., etc.
10:45Now, I have no reason to doubt what the court has said.
10:50The court has discussed the issue of delay
10:54which has happened till today
10:56and come to a conclusion
10:58that delay by itself will not automatically be a trump card for bail.
11:03But I have one issue with the judgment which I want to raise.
11:08All in all, you can say it is balanced,
11:11but one issue I want to raise, and that is this,
11:15that the court has not considered
11:17what is the prognosis for the future.
11:21Assume that five years have gone by
11:24and the trial has not started.
11:25that itself is a big blot
11:28on the judicial system and the prosecution,
11:32the benefit of which should go to the accused.
11:34That's the first thing,
11:36which I think there is some flaw in the judgment.
11:39But the judgment does not notice
11:41as to what is,
11:44when will there be light at the end of the tunnel.
11:46I find that several charge sheets have been filed.
11:50Charges are yet to be framed or are being framed.
11:54The trial is yet to commence
11:55and there are about 800 odd witnesses.
11:58So, if the prognosis is
12:00that the trial is not likely to finish
12:03in the near future,
12:06that is also an entitlement to bail
12:08and that the judgment has not considered.
12:12Lastly...
12:13Right, make your point, sir.
12:14Lastly, I would say that it leans
12:18in favor of reasonableness
12:20because the last portion of the judgment
12:23gives another chance to these two persons
12:27that if there is no proper progress,
12:30they can apply for bail afresh after one year.
12:34So, it's not absolutely a dead end for them.
12:38There is one more chance after one year.
12:41I wish it was six months instead of one year,
12:44but that is still another chance.
12:47And I well nigh think
12:49that this trial is no way
12:52going to be any early completion.
12:56Exactly.
12:57And these chaps will therefore get bail
12:59in the next round after one year.
13:01they'll have to suffer one more year.
13:03But, but...
13:04Yes, yes.
13:05But, Mr. Rohatki,
13:06that's where the criticism comes in
13:07on why many are calling this judgment flawed,
13:10which is why, you know,
13:11what will this one year bring,
13:13which five years of incarceration
13:15hasn't been investigated yet,
13:17you know,
13:17and the sheer fact
13:19that five years,
13:20which you also yourself admitted,
13:22in jail,
13:23the trial is yet to begin,
13:25the charges haven't been framed yet,
13:27that somewhere down the line erodes
13:29and undermines the presumption of innocence,
13:32which is the founding principle
13:34of criminal justice in this country.
13:36Except that, you are right,
13:38except that two things.
13:39One,
13:40when you are dealing with cases of sedition
13:43and cases of unlawful activities,
13:47which are crimes against the nation,
13:50against the fabric of the nation,
13:51the absolutely pure principle
13:56of bail and not jail
14:00will, to some extent,
14:03get diluted.
14:05On the other channel,
14:07I gave an example.
14:10Look at PMLA.
14:12The maximum sentence
14:13for money laundering is seven years.
14:16But there, under the law,
14:19parliament has put fetters
14:21on the court granting bail
14:24even in a seven-year sentence
14:26unless the court finds
14:29at least prima facie
14:30that the person is innocent.
14:35I don't know how a court can find...
14:36Mr. Rohanthi,
14:37you give the example of the PMLA.
14:39Now, let me come back
14:40with the example of PMLA only, sir.
14:42You have the top court of the country
14:44which granted bail
14:45where PMLA was concerned
14:47and you can draw a parallel here
14:48with the UAPA
14:49under which these two boys
14:50have been charged under.
14:51And you had
14:52Arvind Kejriwal
14:53and Mani Sisodia
14:54who were granted bail.
14:55A precedence of sort
14:56was set by the Supreme Court
14:58which today,
14:58many cases are argued in court
15:00on the basis of that precedence.
15:02And here...
15:03You're right.
15:03Every day,
15:04I'm arguing for individuals
15:05in favor of bail.
15:08But I would only say,
15:09I was giving that example
15:10to say
15:11that even in a seven-year sentence case,
15:15the maximum sentence,
15:16the legislature has put some fetters
15:19on the court granting bail.
15:21I'm contrasting this
15:22with the case of UAPA
15:24and sedition under 124A
15:26where the punishment
15:27can even be death.
15:29Therefore,
15:30the same yardstick
15:32may or may not apply.
15:33But as I said,
15:36I would have been happier
15:38if the court had said
15:40we give six more months
15:42to the prosecution
15:44to complete the trial,
15:46remove the number of 800 witnesses
15:48and bring it down to say 50
15:49and finish with this case.
15:51Six more months
15:52could have been...
15:53But the argument is
15:55what will those six months
15:56or what the court,
15:58you know,
15:58the learned bench
15:59has decided a year
16:00actually prove?
16:02What will one gain from that?
16:04I will tell you.
16:06See,
16:06one lives on hope.
16:07Now,
16:08with a stricture like this
16:09that you are getting
16:10one more year,
16:12if the prosecution
16:13pulls up its socks
16:14and examines
16:15all the relevant
16:16prime witnesses,
16:18if not 800,
16:19in every case,
16:20prime witnesses
16:21are 10 or 15 or 20.
16:22If they examine
16:24all 10, 15 and 20,
16:26they can suddenly
16:27examine in six months.
16:28Now,
16:28if those witnesses
16:29and their evidence
16:31points towards
16:33no complicity,
16:36then straight away
16:37after six months
16:37based on that material,
16:39they will be entitled to bail.
16:41But...
16:41But, sir,
16:42it's been five years.
16:43If the investigation
16:43hasn't been completed yet,
16:45it's again something
16:46which the defense
16:47had argued in court.
16:49So, madam,
16:49as I said,
16:50it's not always
16:54an inflexible rule
16:56of delay in trial.
16:58Generally,
16:59this rule will work
17:01in favor of bail.
17:02But in this case,
17:04I also found
17:05that some amount
17:06of blame
17:07was put on the accused
17:08for the delay
17:10in the last couple of years.
17:11So,
17:11the delay
17:12was apportioned
17:13between the accused
17:14and the prosecution.
17:15and it was not
17:17a case of
17:18innocent man
17:19sitting in jail
17:20and the delay
17:21just being
17:23occasioned
17:24by the prosecution.
17:25There are some passages
17:26to that effect also.
17:28So, now look.
17:30Now, look.
17:31Five of them
17:31out of seven
17:32have got bail.
17:34Two remain.
17:36For them,
17:36there is another window
17:37after one year.
17:39According to me,
17:39it should have been
17:40six months if at all.
17:42And then,
17:42you know,
17:43they have another chance
17:44to show that
17:45if no other material
17:46comes forward
17:47in the form of
17:48independent witnesses,
17:49then they will get it.
17:50I mean,
17:51look at it
17:51in a very broad fashion.
17:54But, Mr. Rohath,
17:55let me ask you
17:55one final question.
17:56Because, you know,
17:57we are speaking about
17:58five years of incarceration.
18:00We are speaking about
18:00no trial.
18:01We are speaking about
18:02no charges fixed.
18:03Yet,
18:04jail and denial of bail.
18:06Now,
18:06I'll take you back, sir,
18:07to August 13th
18:08where,
18:09you know,
18:09the bench of Justice Okha
18:11and Justice George Massey
18:12of the Supreme Court
18:13said
18:14the legal principle
18:15bail is rule,
18:16jail is exception
18:17is applicable
18:18to offenses
18:19under special
18:21statutes
18:22like even
18:23UAPA.
18:24And they gave
18:25somebody bail
18:26who was under
18:27the anti-terror,
18:28you know,
18:28charged under
18:29the anti-terror law
18:30stating
18:31that denial of bail
18:32is the denial
18:35and a violation
18:36of fundamental rights.
18:39Madam,
18:39I agree with you
18:40but every statement
18:42of the law
18:42is not to be read
18:43in abstract.
18:45The law is applied
18:46to facts.
18:48Now,
18:48I don't know
18:49what the facts are
18:50of the case
18:51that you are talking about.
18:52That's an abstract statement
18:53that even in UAPA,
18:55this is the rule.
18:56But, I mean,
18:57if you look at the facts,
18:58if they are correct,
18:59I don't know
18:59if they are correct or not,
19:01but if you look at the facts,
19:02if people have instigated
19:03a riot
19:03in which 54 people
19:05have died,
19:06that can't be,
19:07you see,
19:08just applied
19:08on an abstract principle
19:10that bail must be granted
19:11in UAPA,
19:12you have to,
19:13the flesh and blood
19:14of a case is facts.
19:16It is to those facts
19:18that you apply
19:19a legal principle.
19:20There is no legal principle
19:21in vacuum.
19:24That's very important,
19:25Madam.
19:25So,
19:25reading one line from here
19:27or one line from there,
19:28not going to help.
19:29Okay,
19:29let me,
19:29because the PMLA,
19:31the UAPA
19:32is a draconian
19:33archaic law
19:34is something
19:34that is being debated
19:35far and wide,
19:36sir,
19:36which is in the court
19:38as well.
19:38Now,
19:39where the UAPA
19:40is concerned
19:40and with what you speak of,
19:42will this now
19:43set a precedent
19:44in other cases like,
19:45and we'll draw parallels here
19:46which you yourself
19:47drew of the PMLA
19:48because once you had
19:49an Arvind Kejriwal
19:50and Manish Tasodia
19:51who got bail
19:52from the Supreme Court
19:53under PMLA,
19:54it made it very simple
19:55for others as well,
19:57charged under PMLA
19:58to get bail
19:59because precedence
20:00was sought.
20:01Do you think
20:01this will now
20:02also set precedence
20:03where people
20:04who have been charged
20:04under UAPA
20:05will find it
20:06that much more difficult?
20:07I don't think so
20:08that at all,
20:09madam.
20:10As far as
20:11bails are concerned,
20:12there is no
20:13great precedential value.
20:15As I told you,
20:16they are not
20:17final judgments.
20:18They are judgments
20:19on the facts
20:20of a case
20:20whether to
20:21grant liberty
20:22or not.
20:22so there is no
20:23great presidential
20:24value of these
20:25bails.
20:26You have to
20:27apply general
20:28principles to
20:29the facts of
20:29every case.
20:30So it's not as
20:31if that every
20:32thing tomorrow
20:33will become
20:34difficult or
20:35everything tomorrow
20:35will become easy
20:36because of
20:37Sisodia.
20:38I can give you
20:39any number of
20:40examples that
20:41even with
20:42Sisodia's law
20:43being there
20:44or judgments
20:45being there,
20:45people have been
20:46denied bail by
20:47the Supreme Court
20:47even after one
20:48year or one and
20:49half years.
20:50In case of
20:51PMLA,
20:51where seven
20:52years is the
20:52maximum sentence,
20:54I have done
20:54cases where the
20:55allegation is
20:56that somebody
20:57has cheated
20:57banks of
20:585,000 crores
20:58or 10,000 crores.
21:00That also
21:01affects the
21:02mind of a judge
21:02and they are
21:04not getting
21:04bailing.
21:04All right,
21:05so net-net,
21:06Mr. Rohadgi,
21:07you say this
21:08was a balanced
21:08judgment but
21:09two things where
21:10you say that
21:11it's been five
21:12years, it's a
21:13blot in the
21:13judiciary, that
21:14trial hasn't
21:15begun.
21:15That's one point
21:16that you make
21:16and the second
21:17point that you
21:17make is that
21:18you wish that
21:19the one-year
21:20window was
21:21brought down
21:21to at least
21:22a six-month
21:22window.
21:23Yes, yes.
21:24Those are the
21:24two points?
21:25That would have
21:26made it, you
21:27know, passable.
21:28It would have
21:29made it...
21:31More balanced?
21:33Yes, absolutely.
21:35All right, sir.
21:36Thank you,
21:37thank you, Mr. Rohadgi
21:38for joining us.
21:39All right, so
21:42before our face
21:42off at 9pm,
21:43the big questions
21:44that we pose.
21:45Jail or not
21:46bail the principle
21:46for a draconian
21:47law like UAPA?
21:50Prolonged trial
21:50means prolonged
21:52jail.
21:52That is what an
21:54understanding came
21:55of the reading
21:56of the order
21:57today by the
21:58top court of
21:58the country and
21:59the bench.
22:00The other
22:00question that we
22:01pose, UAPA
22:02prone to misuse
22:03by the state,
22:04criminal justice
22:05system flawed.
22:06Let's take all
22:08these questions
22:08to our panelists
22:09this evening.
22:10Joining me,
22:10Satyapal Jain,
22:11Additional Solicitor
22:12General of India,
22:13Colin Gonsalves,
22:14Senior Advocator.
22:15I'd like to begin
22:15with Mr. Satyapal Jain.
22:17Mr. Satyapal Jain,
22:18how do you,
22:19somewhere down the
22:19line, reconcile
22:20the principle of
22:21Article 21 that
22:22stands for
22:22freedom and liberty
22:23with what the
22:24court said today?
22:26And to court
22:27the order,
22:28over five years
22:29without incarceration,
22:31prolonged
22:32pretrial distension
22:33should not equate
22:34to punishment.
22:35How do you
22:36reconcile
22:36both, especially
22:37at a time
22:38where trials
22:39move at
22:39glacial space,
22:41you know,
22:41delayed systematically,
22:43where charges
22:44haven't been
22:48framed yet?
22:48How do you
22:49reconcile that?
22:51To my mind,
22:52it's a very
22:52balanced judgment.
22:53It has taken
22:54into consideration
22:55all the facts
22:56and evidence
22:57of the case
22:57on file,
22:58as well as
22:59the law
22:59which is prevalent
23:00at the moment.
23:01You see,
23:02understand the
23:02principle of
23:03criminal law.
23:04Any person
23:05who is arrested
23:06by any
23:07prosecuting agency,
23:09the moment
23:09it is produced
23:10before the
23:10court,
23:11then it is
23:11for the
23:12court to
23:12decide whether
23:13to grant him
23:14bail or not
23:14to grant him
23:14bail.
23:15I'm sorry to
23:16interrupt and I'll
23:17allow you to
23:17continue because
23:18at least with what
23:19we've learned and
23:19you're way more
23:20learned than most
23:21of us because we
23:21have not a deeper
23:23understanding of the
23:24law.
23:24the principle
23:24and the tenet
23:25of criminal
23:26justice lies on
23:26the fact of
23:27presumption of
23:28innocence.
23:29I'm replying
23:30to your question.
23:31I'm replying
23:31to your question.
23:32Basically,
23:33this issue,
23:34whether he's
23:35entitled for
23:35bail or not,
23:37is not decided
23:37by the government,
23:38not decided
23:39by the
23:39prosecuting agency.
23:40After the rest
23:41within 24 hours,
23:43the accused
23:43is in the
23:44custody of the
23:45courts.
23:46So if you
23:46have to apply
23:46for bail,
23:47maybe a normal
23:48law,
23:48maybe a special
23:49law,
23:50maybe UPPA,
23:51maybe PMLA,
23:51whatever it is,
23:52in the present
23:53case,
23:54both these
23:55people,
23:55all the people
23:56applied for
23:57bail.
23:57The trial court
23:58dismissed their
23:59bail application.
24:00High court also
24:00dismissed their
24:01bail application.
24:02And today,
24:03the Supreme
24:03Court,
24:04out of seven,
24:05has granted
24:05bail to five
24:06and has declined
24:08bail only to two.
24:09Why are we
24:10forgetting that
24:11the same bench,
24:12which according
24:13to some people,
24:13did not apply
24:14the principle of
24:15no bail,
24:16no jail,
24:17etc.,
24:17they have already
24:18granted bail to five.
24:19And when they
24:20have granted bail to
24:21five,
24:21declined bail to
24:22these two persons,
24:23the judgment,
24:24which is 142
24:25pages judgment,
24:26has dealt with
24:27the whole issue
24:28in detail.
24:29The court has
24:29found that
24:30these are the
24:31persons who
24:32indicate a
24:33central and
24:34directive role.
24:35Mr. Jain,
24:36allow me to come
24:36in again,
24:37allow me to come
24:38in again,
24:38because you talk
24:39of granting
24:40bail to five
24:41and not granting
24:42bail to two.
24:43But the fact
24:44is, sir,
24:45that today one
24:45might say,
24:46and the court
24:47said that these
24:47two are of
24:48different footing
24:49and their
24:49nature of
24:50participation in
24:51the crime
24:51was different.
24:52But for the
24:52last five years,
24:53they were pulled
24:54in with the
24:55seven,
24:55where they were
24:56denied bail
24:57together,
24:57they were put
24:58together as a
24:59part of a
24:59larger criminal
25:00conspiracy.
25:01And suddenly,
25:02you define their
25:02role differently
25:03this time.
25:04Madam,
25:05please,
25:05I will not like
25:06to comment on
25:07your comments
25:07as a lawyer,
25:08otherwise I
25:09can say many
25:09things.
25:10See,
25:10when the
25:10charge sheet is
25:11filed,
25:12there are
25:12hundreds accused
25:13in certain
25:14cases,
25:1450,
25:1520,
25:1510.
25:16Now,
25:16the role of
25:17each and every
25:17is different.
25:18Ultimately,
25:19it is the
25:19court which
25:20examines what
25:20is the role
25:21of each and
25:21every person.
25:22For example,
25:23you murder a
25:23man,
25:24somebody fired
25:25at it,
25:25another helped
25:26him,
25:26another got
25:27something.
25:27The role of
25:28each and every
25:29person in any
25:30criminal case is
25:30different.
25:31And ultimately,
25:32when the
25:32screening takes
25:33place,
25:34it is the
25:34highest court
25:35of the country
25:35which has
25:36examined the
25:37entire evidence
25:37and has come
25:38to the conclusion
25:39that other
25:40five may be
25:40given the
25:41benefit of
25:42the hierarchy
25:43of participation,
25:44something which
25:45the court also
25:45used,
25:46you don't find
25:46it in conflict
25:47with article
25:4714,
25:49equality before
25:50law?
25:50Article 21
25:51doesn't mean
25:51that everybody
25:52has to
25:52have been
25:53violated.
25:53It's not good.
25:54If there be
25:55applied that
25:56principle,
25:57if article 21
25:58is applied in
25:59that,
25:59then everybody
26:00will be released
26:00on where,
26:01whatever the
26:01offence.
26:02No,
26:03article 21
26:04is subject
26:04to the
26:05regulation
26:05by the
26:05laws of
26:06the land.
26:06Sir,
26:07I'm talking
26:07about article
26:0814,
26:08like I said,
26:09you're way
26:09more learned,
26:09I'm talking
26:10about article
26:1014,
26:11equality before
26:12law.
26:12Article 14
26:13is not
26:14available in
26:14criminal law.
26:15Let's be
26:15clear.
26:16Article 14
26:17is not
26:17available in
26:18criminal law.
26:19It's a civil
26:19matter in
26:20the matter of
26:21services and
26:22all that.
26:22Criminal law
26:23doesn't
26:23recognize article
26:2414.
26:25Your role
26:25can be
26:26different.
26:26Two
26:26person
26:27committing
26:27events,
26:28one may be
26:28the major
26:28role,
26:29another may
26:29be the
26:30side
26:30role.
26:30The court
26:31decide
26:31accordingly.
26:32Let's
26:32be very
26:32clear about
26:33it.
26:33So far as
26:36the delay
26:36party is
26:37concerned,
26:39Supreme
26:39Court has
26:40found that
26:41delay is
26:41attributable
26:42only to
26:43the
26:43prosecuting
26:44agency.
26:44Delay is
26:45attributable to
26:46them also.
26:46They have
26:47also been
26:47getting dates
26:48after dates.
26:49Fair point.
26:51But Mr.
26:51Satyapal Jain,
26:52the fact is
26:53that the key
26:54witnesses haven't
26:55even been
26:55questioned yet,
26:57that charges
26:58haven't been
26:58fixed yet.
26:59Do you not
27:00think that this
27:00is a blot on
27:01the judiciary,
27:01which will come
27:02back to allow
27:02me to bring in
27:03Colin
27:03Gonsalves,
27:04senior advocate
27:04Supreme
27:05Court.
27:06Mr.
27:06Gonsalves,
27:07the court
27:07also said,
27:08and so did
27:09the prosecution
27:10reiterate the
27:11fact that a
27:12large part of
27:13how slow
27:14things have
27:15processed is
27:16because the
27:17accused constantly
27:19kept cancelling
27:20dates and the
27:21onus lies on the
27:22accused, why the
27:23trial is so
27:23slow.
27:26Sir, you're
27:27on mute.
27:27Sir, you're
27:33still on
27:38mute, sir.
27:39No, not
27:39true at all.
27:42And let's not
27:43take that, let's
27:44not allow such
27:45an excuse to
27:46come on air
27:46again and
27:47again.
27:49The conduct of
27:50a trial lies in
27:50the hands of
27:51the judge.
27:53It lies in the
27:53hands of the
27:54public prosecutor.
27:57The accused
27:57here did not
27:58delay the trial,
27:59but even an
27:59accused who
28:00delays the
28:00trial can be
28:02treated very
28:04tough by the
28:06court and the
28:07public prosecutor
28:08and not a
28:09single day's
28:10delay can be
28:10allowed.
28:12You have
28:12control of the
28:13trial, therefore
28:14do your trial
28:15and look at the
28:17travesty of
28:18justice here.
28:20800 witnesses,
28:22five years
28:23pass, not
28:24one witness
28:26examined.
28:27Is it not
28:28deliberate in
28:29action on
28:29behalf of the
28:31state?
28:31passing time,
28:33passing time,
28:34wasting time,
28:35wasting time to
28:37see that
28:37ultimately, you
28:39know, he
28:40will pay, stay
28:4110 years in
28:42jail and still
28:42his trial will
28:43be at some
28:44initial level.
28:46It reminds me
28:47of the
28:47emergency.
28:48Madam, it
28:49reminds me of
28:49the emergency
28:50and it reminds
28:52me of the
28:53terror of the
28:54emergency,
28:55Indira Gandhi's
28:55emergency, where
28:57people were
28:58locked up and
28:58lost sight of.
29:01It reminds me of
29:02the emergency
29:03because no one
29:04had the courage,
29:05no court in the
29:07country had the
29:08courage to stand
29:09up to Indira Gandhi.
29:11God knows why, but
29:12they could not
29:12stand.
29:13These are shades
29:15of an emergency
29:16and the people
29:17who are in jail
29:18today are like
29:19all those
29:22who were in
29:23jail in Indira
29:24Gandhi's time.
29:25They suffered
29:26in jail.
29:28Many of them
29:28in the opposition
29:30in government
29:31today.
29:32They suffered
29:32in jail.
29:33And when they
29:34came out, they
29:35were treated as
29:36if they were
29:36heroes by the
29:38Indian public.
29:39I know, Khalid.
29:41I know these
29:42people.
29:43I've seen their
29:43work.
29:45Never thrown a
29:46bomb.
29:47Never done
29:47violent actions.
29:49Never fired a
29:50gun.
29:51Never, ever
29:53a single act of
29:54violence.
29:54not alleged
29:55against them
29:56in the
29:56country.
29:58No violence
29:58alleged.
29:59Some speech
30:00that he gave
30:00and he started
30:02the riots.
30:03I handled
30:04today the
30:06Delhi riots
30:07case in the
30:07high court.
30:09The case that
30:09I filed is
30:11for an FIR
30:12to be registered
30:13against those
30:14who started
30:14the Delhi
30:15riots.
30:16And you
30:16know who
30:17did it?
30:18Anurag Thakur,
30:19Parvish Farma,
30:20Kapil Mishra,
30:21who stood on
30:22a stage and
30:23said, and I
30:24gave the
30:24videos to
30:25the court,
30:26Deshke
30:27Gadharo
30:27ko,
30:28Goli
30:28Maro
30:28Salu
30:29ko.
30:30And after
30:31giving those
30:32very, you
30:33know, insightful
30:34slogans, walk
30:35through the
30:36streets of
30:37Delhi, repeating
30:38the slogan.
30:39That is how
30:40the Delhi
30:40riots began.
30:41I've got it
30:42on video.
30:43I've filed it
30:43in the court.
30:45Supreme Court
30:45directed the
30:46high court to
30:47expedite this
30:48matter three
30:50times.
30:52Five years
30:53have passed.
30:53The high
30:54court has not
30:54even begun
30:55the matter.
30:56Reluctance to
30:57start a matter
30:58because their
30:59own leaders
31:00would be found
31:01out to be
31:01the persons
31:02who started
31:03the riot.
31:04Mr. Gunzal,
31:05the question
31:07I'd like to
31:08ask you is,
31:08do you fault
31:09the draconian
31:10archaic law
31:12like the UAPA
31:13or do you think
31:13the reading of
31:14the law was
31:15flawed in this
31:16judgment today,
31:17which denied bail
31:18to both Omar
31:19and Sharjee?
31:20See, the law
31:21is archaic.
31:22Not archaic.
31:23The law is
31:23draconian,
31:24but I don't
31:24want to make
31:25that point.
31:26I don't want
31:26to make that
31:27point.
31:28The implementation
31:29of the law
31:30by the government
31:31and the courts,
31:34particularly in
31:35this case,
31:37passing such
31:38an awful
31:39order against
31:40judgment after
31:41judgment of
31:42the Supreme
31:42Court in
31:43UAPA
31:44matters.
31:45Three years,
31:46your trial
31:47has not
31:47begun,
31:48bail.
31:48Four years,
31:49your trial
31:50has not
31:50begun,
31:50bail.
31:51The historic
31:52judgment of
31:52the present
31:53Chief Justice
31:53of India,
31:54historic judgment
31:55in Najeeb's
31:56case,
31:57all UAPA
31:58cases,
31:59four years
32:00have passed
32:00and there's
32:01no chance
32:02that your trial
32:02will finish
32:03in the near
32:04future,
32:05bail.
32:06Ten judgments
32:07of the Supreme
32:07Court,
32:08Vernon's case,
32:10other cases,
32:11ten judgments
32:11at least.
32:13I want to
32:13bring in
32:13a judge.
32:15Stay with
32:16us.
32:16I want to
32:19bring in
32:19Satyapal Jain
32:19back into
32:20this conversation
32:21because
32:21Satyapal Jain,
32:22it's been
32:22five years.
32:23Five years
32:24where charges
32:25haven't been
32:26framed,
32:27bail hasn't
32:27been given,
32:28key witnesses
32:29haven't been
32:30examined where
32:32the Delhi
32:32police is
32:32concerned.
32:33now on that
32:34account,
32:35because of
32:35the various
32:36judgments and
32:36precedents that
32:37Mr. Colin
32:38Gonzalez gave,
32:39I'll give you
32:40two.
32:40You have
32:41the bench
32:43of Justices
32:43Abhay S.
32:45Okha and
32:45Augustine George
32:47Massey who
32:47clearly stated
32:49and ruled,
32:50bail is ruled,
32:51jail is an
32:52exception even
32:53if it involves
32:55a UAPA case.
32:56Then you have
32:56I.B.
32:57Pardewala and
32:58Ujwal Bhuyan
32:59observe that the
32:59right to bail
33:00of an accused
33:02cannot be
33:03withheld as
33:04a punishment
33:05irrespective of
33:06the nature of
33:06the crime even
33:07if it is
33:08under UAPA
33:09sir.
33:12Madam,
33:12please understand
33:13the working of
33:14the criminal law,
33:15the principles of
33:16the criminal law.
33:17As I said
33:17earlier also,
33:19there is no
33:19question of any
33:20article 14 or
33:21similarity in
33:22criminal law.
33:23Each case has
33:24to be decided on
33:25the facts and
33:26merits of each
33:27and every case.
33:28You cannot apply
33:29any
33:29hard formula
33:30to each and
33:31every bail
33:31application.
33:33The Supreme
33:33Court is the
33:34final authority
33:35as per the
33:35powers given
33:36by the
33:36Constitution of
33:37India.
33:37The two
33:38judgments that
33:38you are citing,
33:39they are also
33:40by the Supreme
33:40Court.
33:41You can't
33:41expect that
33:42every judgment
33:43will be as
33:43I want it
33:44to be.
33:45You don't
33:45want that
33:46the way you
33:47want the
33:47judgment should
33:48come.
33:48If it is
33:48not that way,
33:49then I say
33:50no, no, no,
33:50law is not
33:51being followed,
33:51it is being
33:52flawed.
33:52The Supreme
33:53Court,
33:53I have got
33:54this 142
33:55judgment with
33:56me,
33:56which has given
33:57all the reasons
33:58of giving
33:59bail to
33:59five and
34:01also reason
34:01of not
34:02giving to
34:02only two
34:03people and
34:04Supreme
34:04Court has
34:05given them
34:05one year
34:06that in
34:06case the
34:07trial doesn't
34:08take some
34:08What will
34:09happen in
34:09that one
34:09year?
34:10hasn't
34:13happened in
34:14the last
34:14five years?
34:15I am
34:15telling you,
34:16within one
34:17year, if
34:17the prosecution
34:18doesn't proceed
34:19with the
34:19trial,
34:20material
34:20witness,
34:21the court
34:21has said,
34:22you can
34:23move for
34:23bail after
34:24the protected
34:24witnesses have
34:25been examined.
34:26Because if the
34:27accused come out,
34:28sometimes there
34:28are many cases
34:29where they
34:29threaten those
34:31witnesses also.
34:32Therefore,
34:33the people are
34:33kept in jail in
34:34certain cases so
34:35that they
34:35cannot
34:35infudge the
34:36court has
34:37said that
34:39until the
34:40witnesses have
34:41been examined
34:42or one year,
34:44whichever comes
34:44in first.
34:45By the speed of
34:47the investigation,
34:48it doesn't seem
34:48that the witnesses
34:49will be cross
34:50examined.
34:51I am just
34:53taking the
34:53example of
34:54what has
34:54happened in
34:54the last
34:55five years,
34:55sir.
34:56So what
34:56will change
34:57in the next
34:58one year?
35:00Or will
35:00suddenly article
35:0121 kick in
35:02which doesn't
35:03kick in right
35:04now?
35:04The Supreme
35:05Court has
35:05laid down
35:06the time
35:06limit that
35:06within one
35:07year,
35:08no substantial
35:08progress takes
35:09place.
35:10They can
35:10apply again
35:11for bail.
35:12Supreme
35:12Court will
35:12examine that.
35:13Let's have
35:14faith in
35:14Supreme
35:14Court.
35:15We can't
35:15dictate Supreme
35:16Court that
35:16you decide
35:17in this way
35:17because in
35:18that case you
35:19have said
35:19so you say
35:19same thing
35:20in this case
35:20also.
35:21Supreme
35:21Court has
35:22to examine
35:22the merits
35:23of each
35:24and every
35:24case.
35:25Let's not
35:25forget Arvind
35:26Kajriwal was
35:27also granted
35:27bail.
35:28A few days
35:28back,
35:29some man
35:29was granted
35:30bail by
35:30Delhi High
35:31Court.
35:31Supreme
35:31Court
35:32state that.
35:33Unfortunately,
35:33when the
35:34judgment is
35:35as we are
35:36expecting it
35:36to be,
35:37we say it's
35:37very fair.
35:38And sometimes
35:38when it is
35:39not as we
35:39are expecting
35:40so we come
35:41on so many
35:42people,
35:42emergency and
35:43all that.
35:43That is not
35:44the law.
35:45We should
35:46have faith in
35:46this.
35:46Okay,
35:47sir,
35:47you know,
35:47like I said,
35:48I am no
35:48lawyer,
35:49I am a
35:49journalist,
35:50but at least
35:50one thing I
35:51have learned,
35:52and you can
35:52correct me if
35:53I am wrong,
35:53the sheer
35:53foundation of
35:54criminal justice
35:55is the
35:56presumption of
35:57innocence.
35:57And that is
35:58the tenets
35:59which criminal
36:00justice stands
36:00on,
36:01which is the
36:02presumption of
36:03innocence,
36:03sir.
36:04Yes,
36:05but that
36:05doesn't mean
36:05that every
36:06person who
36:06is accused
36:07of any
36:07crime will
36:08be released
36:08on bail.
36:09If you
36:09apply that
36:10principle,
36:10lots of
36:11people who
36:11are in
36:11jail,
36:12murder case,
36:13rape case,
36:14and all those
36:15cases,
36:15everybody will
36:15be released
36:16on bail.
36:16No,
36:17the court
36:18will examine
36:18where there
36:19is a
36:19prime of
36:19shai case
36:20against you.
36:20If there
36:21is a
36:21prime of
36:21shai case,
36:22as the
36:22Supreme Court
36:23says...
36:23Five years
36:25without trial,
36:26without framing
36:26of charges,
36:27to defend that,
36:29I would think
36:29is a blot on
36:30judiciary,
36:30but then I'm
36:31just a
36:31journalist.
36:32I am no
36:33lawyer.
36:33I want to
36:33bring in
36:34Mr.
36:34Gonzalves
36:34into this
36:35conversation.
36:36Mr.
36:36Gonzalves,
36:37this is the
36:38UAPA.
36:39This concerns
36:40anti-terror
36:40activities.
36:41It concerns
36:42sedition.
36:43These are
36:44very, very
36:44strong laws.
36:46Might be
36:46draconian,
36:47but it is
36:48the reading
36:48of the law.
36:55You're on
36:55mute again,
36:56sir.
36:59Law has
36:59been read.
37:00many times
37:01in many
37:02judgments
37:02of the
37:02Supreme
37:03Court,
37:04even in
37:042025,
37:062024,
37:07recently,
37:08so many
37:09persons have
37:10been released
37:10with three
37:11years in
37:11jail.
37:12So many.
37:14And the
37:15principle has
37:15been reiterated
37:17a hundred
37:17times.
37:19If you
37:19can't do a
37:20speedy trial
37:21which is in
37:21the hands
37:22of the
37:22state,
37:23you cannot
37:24keep a
37:24person in
37:25jail.
37:26And what
37:27has the
37:27court done?
37:28it has
37:29kept our
37:30finest human
37:31rights
37:31activists.
37:33I must
37:33tell you,
37:34the two who
37:35have been
37:35denied bail
37:36are one of
37:37the finest
37:38human rights
37:39activists of
37:40India,
37:41who used
37:41no violence,
37:43who only
37:44criticized the
37:45government in
37:46the strongest
37:46possible way.
37:48They are in
37:49jail for no
37:50crime,
37:51except please
37:51speak.
37:52Mr.
37:52I'm really
37:53surprised.
37:53Have you
37:54read the
37:54judgment?
37:55Supreme Court
37:55has mentioned
37:56their role.
37:57Please please,
37:57you are such a
37:58senior lawyer.
37:59I need the
38:00judgment.
38:00Supreme Court
38:01has declared
38:02their role in
38:03the judgment
38:04all over the
38:05jail.
38:05Okay, I'm
38:06going to end
38:08it here.
38:09I appreciate
38:09both of you
38:10for joining
38:10us.
38:11Well, for
38:12now, both
38:13Sharjeeel and
38:14Umar Khalid
38:15have been denied
38:16bail.
38:17They've been
38:17given one
38:17year to
38:18reapply until
38:20the witnesses
38:21are cross
38:21examined or
38:22it's a year,
38:23whichever comes
38:23in first.
38:23We're going
38:24to leave
38:24it at that.
38:25I want to
38:25quickly cut
38:26across to
38:26the other
38:26development
38:27that we've
38:27been tracking
38:27very closely
38:28and that
38:29comes in
38:29from the
38:29United States
38:30of America
38:30in Venezuela.
38:32From the
38:32presidential
38:32palace to
38:33a prison
38:33transport,
38:35Maduro now
38:36finds himself
38:37in a New
38:38York court.
38:38The visuals
38:39on your
38:39screen show
38:40Maduro being
38:41escorted in
38:42cups to a
38:42Manhattan
38:42federal court.
38:44Venezuela's
38:45deposed
38:45leader along
38:46with his
38:46wife were
38:47flown from
38:47a Brooklyn
38:48jail to face
38:49U.S.
38:50drug trafficking
38:51charges following
38:52what Washington
38:53described as a
38:54dramatic operation
38:55leading to his
38:56capture.
38:56Meanwhile,
38:57President Trump
38:57has issued a
38:58fresh warning to
38:59interim president
39:00of Venezuela,
39:02Mr. Rodriguez,
39:03saying the
39:03United States
39:04will strike
39:04again if
39:05Venezuela does
39:07not fall in
39:07line.
39:10The next
39:10question is who's
39:11in charge of
39:12Venezuela right
39:13now.
39:13Have you spoken
39:14to the
39:15newly sworn
39:15president
39:16there,
39:16Rodriguez,
39:17and what
39:18are your
39:18thoughts on
39:19the entire
39:19situation?
39:20You said
39:20the U.S.
39:20could run
39:21Venezuela.
39:22We're dealing
39:22with the
39:22people,
39:23we're dealing
39:23with the
39:24people that
39:24just got
39:24sworn in,
39:26and don't
39:28ask me who's
39:29in charge
39:29because I'll
39:30give you an
39:30answer and
39:30it'll be
39:31very controversial.
39:32What does
39:32that mean?
39:33We're in
39:34charge.
39:34This isn't a
39:35country that's
39:35on the other
39:36side of the
39:36world.
39:37This isn't a
39:38country like
39:39where you have
39:39to travel 24
39:40hours in an
39:41airplane.
39:42This is
39:42Venezuela,
39:43it's in
39:43our area.
39:44The Don
39:45Road
39:45Doctrine.
39:46So is that
39:47what you would
39:47say,
39:47that we're in
39:48the business
39:49of nation
39:49building?
39:49No, we're
39:50in the business
39:50of having
39:51countries around
39:52us that are
39:52viable and
39:54successful,
39:55and where the
39:56oil is allowed
39:57to freely come
39:58out because
39:59that's good
39:59against the
40:00prices.
40:00That's good
40:01for our
40:01country.
40:02If you had
40:03to sum up
40:04Operation
40:04Axel,
40:05would you say
40:06that it was
40:07about oil
40:08or it was
40:08about regime
40:09change?
40:10It's about
40:11peace on
40:12earth.
40:13How is
40:13peace on
40:14earth?
40:14Peace on
40:15earth.
40:15We've got
40:15to have
40:16peace.
40:16It's our
40:16hemisphere.
40:18The
40:18Monroe
40:18Doctrine
40:19was very
40:19important when
40:20it was
40:20done.
40:21Other
40:21presidents,
40:22a lot of
40:23them,
40:24they lost
40:24sight of
40:24it.
40:25I didn't.
40:26I didn't lose
40:26that.
40:27But it
40:27really is
40:27it's
40:28peace on
40:28earth.
40:29All right,
40:30the big
40:30questions that
40:31we ask at
40:31the back of
40:32that development
40:32which we saw
40:33take place
40:34over the
40:35course of
40:35the weekend,
40:36what is
40:36President
40:37Trump's
40:37plan for
40:38Venezuela?
40:38Is
40:38Trump
40:39planning more
40:39invasions?
40:40Is
40:40Venezuela
40:40read all
40:42about oil
40:43and how
40:43will China
40:44respond?
40:44Let's take
40:44these questions
40:45to Casey
40:46Singh,
40:46former
40:47Indian
40:47Ambassador,
40:48Dr.
40:48Taimur
40:48Baig,
40:49Managing
40:49Director and
40:49Chief Economist,
40:50DBS Bank
40:51Limited,
40:51Daniel Freed,
40:52former
40:53diplomat and
40:54Wiser Family
40:55Distinguished Fellow
40:56at the Atlantic
40:57Council.
40:58Let's cut
40:58across to
40:59Mr.
40:59Freed first.
40:59Mr.
41:00Freed,
41:00what is your
41:00reading of
41:02what transpired
41:03in the last
41:0348 hours?
41:04We are
41:07dealing with
41:08a legally
41:10and
41:10constitutionally
41:11questionable
41:12U.S.
41:13move.
41:15Deposing
41:15Maduro,
41:16however,
41:17could find
41:17some measure
41:18of vindication
41:19if what
41:20replaces it
41:21is democracy,
41:23stability,
41:23and renewed
41:24prosperity for
41:25the Venezuelan
41:26people.
41:28That was
41:29more or less
41:30the result
41:30of the U.S.
41:31invasion of
41:32Panama in
41:321989.
41:33But whether
41:35U.S.
41:35policy is
41:36headed in
41:37that direction,
41:38I can't
41:38say.
41:40President
41:41Trump has
41:41spoken of
41:43running,
41:44the U.S.
41:45running
41:45Venezuela.
41:47Secretary
41:48Rubio has
41:49backed away
41:49from that.
41:51The United
41:52States seems
41:53to have
41:54little interest
41:55in a
41:57democratic
41:57transition
41:58to the
41:59Venezuelan
42:01opposition,
42:02which
42:03won the
42:03last election
42:04by all
42:04accounts.
42:06Instead,
42:07the U.S.
42:07seems to
42:08be counting
42:08on some
42:09sort of
42:09arrangement
42:10with the
42:11rest of
42:12the Maduro
42:12regime,
42:13which is
42:13still in
42:13power.
42:14So a
42:15great deal
42:16of uncertainty
42:16and the
42:19U.S.
42:19is staring
42:20into a
42:21dark room
42:22and it is
42:23not clear to
42:24me what's
42:25at the
42:25other side.
42:26I want to
42:28bring in
42:29Casey
42:29Singh as
42:29well.
42:30Ambassador
42:30Singh,
42:31when you
42:32look at
42:32the
42:32developments
42:33and
42:33India's
42:33response,
42:34to say
42:35it's
42:35very,
42:36very
42:36measured
42:37concern
42:38but not
42:39condemnation
42:40in a
42:40fast-evolving
42:41geopolitical
42:42situation,
42:43do you think
42:43it's the
42:44prudent line
42:44to take?
42:48Look,
42:49I think
42:49there are
42:50many legal
42:51elements to
42:51it but I
42:52think there
42:52are three
42:52basic ways,
42:54three basic
42:55reasons how
42:56you can,
42:56or justification,
42:58you can
42:58intervene and
42:59go and grab
42:59somebody from
43:00another country.
43:01One is you
43:01have the
43:02U.N.
43:02Security Council
43:03approval,
43:04which they
43:04don't have
43:04in this case.
43:06Second is
43:06the other
43:06country approves,
43:07which they
43:08didn't because
43:08you grabbed
43:09the president.
43:10And the
43:10third is that
43:11you say
43:12self-defense.
43:13Now U.S.
43:14is not
43:14talking of
43:15they're
43:15using
43:16self-defense
43:17saying drugs
43:18were coming
43:18to us and
43:19drugs are
43:19killing people
43:20in America
43:20and hence
43:21it is
43:21self-defense
43:22to go and
43:22get him.
43:23Now that
43:24itself is
43:24questionable
43:25because fentanyl
43:26is really
43:26not coming
43:27from Venezuela.
43:29And then
43:29the reasons
43:30given by
43:30U.S.
43:31they go on
43:31wearing.
43:32The southern
43:33command chief
43:34general lady,
43:36she said,
43:36no, it's
43:37got nothing
43:37to do with
43:37democracy.
43:38It's got to
43:39do with oil,
43:39it's got to
43:40do with minerals.
43:41So you're
43:41getting different
43:42arguments from
43:43different people.
43:43You've got
43:44the European
43:45Commission,
43:4526 countries
43:46have signed
43:47a statement
43:47and they've
43:48said we
43:48are not
43:49for Maduro.
43:50We think
43:50there should
43:50be an
43:51orderly
43:51transition
43:51to a
43:52popularly
43:53elected
43:53government.
43:54You can't
43:55use illegal
43:56means to
43:56do it.
43:57So there
43:58is a
43:58debate.
43:59In fact,
43:59UN Security
44:00Council is
44:00probably
44:01meeting as
44:01we discussed
44:03this.
44:03They're
44:03meeting today
44:04and this
44:05will be
44:05brought up
44:05by China
44:06and by
44:06other
44:07countries
44:07and by
44:08Russia,
44:09the permanent
44:09members and
44:10probably even
44:10England and
44:11France.
44:11the French
44:12have taken
44:12a position
44:12on this.
44:13And then
44:14what has
44:14happened is
44:15I think
44:15the danger
44:15is that
44:16President
44:16Trump is
44:17feeling so
44:17emboldened
44:18by this
44:18that he's
44:19threatening
44:20Colombia,
44:20then he's
44:21threatening
44:21Greenland,
44:22then he's
44:23back to
44:23again many
44:24of Cuba.
44:25So he's
44:26threatening all
44:27those.
44:27So he's
44:27saying there's
44:28the Monroe
44:28Doctrine of
44:29the 19th
44:29century and
44:30we can
44:31intervene
44:31wherever we
44:32want.
44:32Now what
44:32nobody has
44:33told him
44:34is the
44:34Monroe
44:34Doctrine
44:35was because
44:36the countries
44:37in Latin
44:37America had
44:38attained
44:38independence from
44:39Portugal and
44:40Spain.
44:41So the
44:41American
44:42president was
44:43saying don't
44:44intervene in
44:44their independence.
44:46They were not
44:46saying don't
44:47come to Latin
44:47America to
44:48trade.
44:49Now that
44:50argument has
44:50been taken
44:51by President
44:51Trump.
44:52He's calling
44:52it the
44:52Doctrine and
44:57that means that
44:57he can intervene
44:58wherever he
44:58wants.
44:59And anything
45:00which is there
45:01in Latin
45:01America,
45:02South America,
45:02Central America,
45:03they will
45:04intervene and
45:05they will grab
45:05it.
45:05and this
45:06is really
45:07something going
45:08back to
45:08colonial times,
45:0919th century.
45:10I think it's
45:11going to lead
45:11to international
45:12debate and
45:13particularly if
45:14he steps in
45:15on Greenland.
45:16I think it
45:17causes a
45:17serious problem
45:18between NATO
45:18and US.
45:20There would be
45:21a very wide
45:22split which can
45:23have implications.
45:24We don't know
45:25where this is
45:25headed.
45:27Also we don't
45:27know wherever
45:28Americans have
45:29intervened in the
45:29past.
45:30The result has
45:31not been very
45:31good with
45:32Afghanistan.
45:32No, it was
45:33Iraq.
45:34They were
45:34not able to
45:35bring democracy
45:35and in this
45:36case, the
45:36final point
45:37that the
45:38ones who
45:39won the
45:39election,
45:40which is
45:40Gonsalves
45:40and the
45:41Nobel Prize
45:42winner,
45:42Machado,
45:43they've been
45:44dumped by
45:45America.
45:46If you want
45:46to take
45:47the dictator
45:49out, then
45:50call those
45:50people in
45:51and have a
45:51transition to
45:52an actually
45:53elected
45:53government
45:54which won
45:55the last
45:56election.
45:57So all
45:57that has
45:58been sidelined.
45:59They've cut
45:59a deal with
46:00the current
46:01president,
46:02Rodriguez,
46:03and I
46:04think they
46:04are trying
46:05to see if
46:06they can
46:06get control
46:07of oil,
46:07control of
46:08the minerals
46:08and that
46:09is what
46:10this whole
46:10game is
46:10about.
46:11I don't
46:11think there's
46:12a stable
46:12path available.
46:13Fair point.
46:14So Dr.
46:15Berg, less
46:16about taking
46:16a dictator
46:17out, more
46:18about the
46:18fact that
46:18Venezuela
46:19accounts for
46:2020% of
46:21the world's
46:22oil produce
46:22and the
46:23U.S.
46:24military
46:24intervention
46:25was more
46:25about oil
46:25than anything
46:26else.
46:27Well, the
46:28U.S.
46:29oil refineries,
46:30particularly in the
46:30South, are
46:31equipped to
46:32deal with
46:32what is
46:33known as
46:33extra-heavy
46:34crude that
46:34Venezuela
46:35produces.
46:36Very few
46:36countries in
46:37the world
46:37have that
46:38crude and
46:39their
46:39refineries
46:39are not
46:40equipped to
46:40deal with
46:41that.
46:41So in a
46:42way, you
46:42could argue
46:43that this
46:43is tailor-made
46:44for all
46:46refineries in
46:47Southern
46:47United States.
46:48But mind
46:48you, none
46:49of this
46:50oil that
46:51Donald Trump
46:51covets are
46:52going to be in
46:53the pipeline
46:53anytime soon.
46:55Venezuela has
46:55a fairly
46:55dilapidated
46:56oil production
46:58infrastructure,
46:59ruined by
47:00decades of
47:00sanctions.
47:01It produces
47:02about a
47:02million barrels
47:03a day,
47:03which really
47:04does not
47:04make any
47:05difference in
47:05the global
47:06oil output
47:07picture, less
47:08than 1% of
47:08global output.
47:10There are
47:10countries in
47:10the world
47:11that really
47:12depends heavily
47:13on Venezuelan
47:13oil, including
47:14China.
47:15And therefore,
47:16it doesn't have
47:17major systemic
47:18implications for
47:19the oil market,
47:20for oil production,
47:21or oil price for
47:22that matter.
47:24Unless the
47:25U.S.
47:26Congress comes
47:27up with a
47:27legal framework,
47:28it'll be
47:29actually very
47:29hard for U.S.
47:30oil companies
47:30also to start
47:32devoting billions
47:33of dollars of
47:34investments in
47:35Venezuela, because
47:36what happens
47:37when we're
47:38around and
47:39there are
47:40people that
47:41this entire
47:42adventure was
47:44done on the
47:45premises?
47:46So I think
47:47that there's
47:48very well
47:50economic
47:52reasoning behind
47:53this, although
47:54it is the
47:54easy sell.
47:55oil, it's
47:56about oil, and
47:57we're going
47:57to seize it.
47:58But when we
47:58look at the
47:59fundamentals of
48:00Venezuela, it
48:02does not look
48:03like a very
48:03persuasive case.
48:05All right.
48:06Well, the
48:06sheer fact that
48:07India also has
48:07investments in
48:08Venezuela's oil
48:09sector, do we
48:10look at this as
48:10an opportunity?
48:11We're going to
48:11come back on
48:12that question.
48:13But, Daniel,
48:14Mr. Freed, I
48:14want to bring
48:14you back into
48:15this conversation.
48:16What's next
48:17now?
48:17Because there's
48:17talk of
48:18Greenland, there's
48:18talk of Iran,
48:19you know, as
48:20a former
48:21diplomat.
48:23How do you
48:23look at it?
48:24What would be
48:24the next
48:25target?
48:30President
48:30Trump likes
48:32to keep other
48:34Americans and
48:35other countries
48:35off balance.
48:37He likes to
48:38threaten, he
48:39likes to
48:40brag.
48:41It is not
48:42clear to me
48:43that Trump
48:45is going to
48:45act quickly
48:47against any
48:48of these
48:49countries.
48:51His political
48:52base is
48:54voted for
48:55him because
48:55he promised
48:56to extract
48:57the United
48:58States from
48:58foreign
48:59entanglements.
49:00Now he seems
49:01to be getting
49:02back into
49:02it.
49:04The operation
49:05to seize
49:05Maduro was
49:06frankly
49:06brilliant.
49:08It was
49:08just a
49:10textbook
49:10perfect
49:11operation,
49:12very
49:12impressive.
49:13But the
49:15outcome in
49:15Venezuela is
49:16far from
49:17clear.
49:18And it
49:19may not
49:20be as
49:21easy as
49:22Trump
49:22imagines.
49:25It's
49:25easier to
49:26conduct a
49:27quick military
49:28operation than
49:29it is to
49:30help set up
49:30a country or
49:31as Trump
49:32says to
49:33run a
49:33country or
49:34as Marco
49:35Rubio says
49:36to basically
49:37intimidate the
49:38remnants of
49:39the Maduro
49:39regime to
49:40cooperating with
49:41us.
49:42It's not
49:43clear that the
49:43U.S. has a
49:44viable or any
49:45plan for
49:47Venezuela.
49:47to get you
49:53back into
49:54this
49:54conversation.
49:55The fact
49:55is that
49:55India has
49:58communicated to
50:00the U.S.
50:00that if it is
50:01expected to
50:02curtail its
50:02oil purchases
50:03from Russia,
50:04it must
50:04permit other
50:05markets like
50:05Venezuela.
50:06Do you see
50:07this as an
50:07opportunity?
50:08India also has
50:08investments where
50:09Venezuela's oil
50:10sector is
50:10concerned.
50:11I don't
50:13think Venezuela
50:13is the only
50:14source because
50:15as has just
50:16been put for
50:16them to go
50:17up from
50:17just under
50:18a million
50:18barrels a
50:19day to
50:20a higher
50:21production
50:21level.
50:22The highest
50:22was 3 or
50:224 million
50:23a couple
50:24of decades
50:24ago.
50:25It's going
50:25to take a
50:26long time
50:26because they
50:27don't have
50:27the pipelines.
50:28It's a
50:29very heavy
50:29crude.
50:30It's very
50:30difficult to
50:31pull it out
50:32and then to
50:32transport it
50:33and to
50:34really develop
50:34that infrastructure
50:35and that's
50:36assuming things
50:37remain stable
50:38within Venezuela
50:39because don't
50:40forget the
50:40armies,
50:41sulking.
50:42This was
50:42not a
50:43proper military
50:44operation.
50:45I think this
50:45was a
50:46connivance on
50:47the part of
50:48domestic forces
50:48which allowed
50:49the president
50:49to be removed.
50:51Only most
50:51of the people
50:52killed his
50:54personal Cuban
50:54guard.
50:55So it's a
50:56very long
50:56journey and
50:57there are
50:58much safer
50:58places to
50:59buy oil
51:00from.
51:00Than
51:00Venezuela.
51:02Yeah,
51:02Venezuela is
51:03not about to
51:03sell the oil
51:04on a discount
51:04and the
51:05transportation
51:06costs.
51:08Fair point.
51:08Dr.
51:08I'm running
51:10out of time
51:10so I just
51:10want to
51:10quickly get
51:11in Dr.
51:11Beg for
51:12an intervention.
51:13How do
51:14you think
51:14China is
51:14going to
51:15react?
51:15Because not
51:15just a
51:16customer,
51:16it's also
51:16a big
51:17investor where
51:17Venezuela's
51:18oil industry
51:19is concerned.
51:21So China
51:22is quite
51:23deeply entangled
51:24in the
51:25Venezuelan
51:25economy.
51:26You have
51:26perhaps more
51:27than 100,000
51:28Chinese nationals
51:29who work in
51:30Venezuela and of
51:31course Chinese
51:32oil companies
51:32have substantial
51:33investments in
51:34Venezuela.
51:35If this is a
51:37way to push
51:39China out,
51:39it's going to
51:40be very
51:40problematic.
51:41I don't think
51:42that is part of
51:43President Trump's
51:44design because I
51:45haven't really
51:46heard the word
51:46China mentioned
51:47in any of these
51:48discussions.
51:49It would actually
51:50be a very
51:50dangerous
51:51geopolitical
51:51escalation if
51:52that were to
51:53happen.
51:54Mind you,
51:54even in Iraq
51:55after the U.S.
51:56went ahead with
51:57this intervention,
51:58there were fears
51:59that the Chinese
52:01investment in Iraq
52:02would be under
52:02jeopardy.
52:03Actually, that
52:03didn't happen at
52:04all.
52:04In fact, once
52:05things stabilized,
52:06China actually
52:06doubled up on
52:07Venezuela, in my
52:10view, would
52:11probably follow a
52:12similar script.
52:13I don't think U.S.
52:14is in there to
52:15push China out
52:16because it's not
52:17like China has
52:18had major success
52:20in influencing a
52:21Maduro regime in
52:22any way or
52:23protecting it.
52:25The Americans went
52:25in and just abducted
52:26them just like that.
52:27So I don't think if
52:28there were any
52:28military questions
52:30we would be
52:31discussing in this
52:32particular line of
52:33reasoning, it
52:33would be very
52:34different.
52:34So I would say
52:35that as far as
52:36China is concerned,
52:37they have to watch
52:38and see.
52:39They will also say
52:40that if your
52:41neighborhood is
52:41that separate
52:42saying, what
52:42about our
52:43neighborhood, is
52:44that then our
52:44plaything?
52:46I appreciate all
52:47three gentlemen
52:47for joining us.
52:48We're going to keep
52:49a keen eye on all
52:50developments as
52:51they take place.
52:51Thank you for
52:52watching and we'll
52:54see you tomorrow
52:54night.
Comments