- 7 weeks ago
In this edition of Democratic Newsroom, Preeti Choudhry and a panel of editors discuss the Supreme Court's rejection of bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Legal Editor Nalini Sharma and Senior Legal Correspondent Anisha Mathur analyse the verdict, highlighting the court's observation that 'delay is not a trump card' to displace statutory safeguards. The discussion explores the 'polyvocal' nature of the Supreme Court, comparing this ruling with previous UAPA judgments. Senior Executive Editor Gaurav Sawant argues that national security outweighs individual liberty in serious offenses, while the panel debates the consistency of judicial reasoning.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Very good evening. Welcome to yet another edition of the Democratic Newsroom.
00:04Our band of editors are back to discuss a brand new issue.
00:07And what is that?
00:09Well, a couple of judgments have sparked debate where it comes down to the interpretation of Article 21,
00:14which is the right to freedom and liberty.
00:17Can there be an interpretation of Article 21 is also a question,
00:21where bail or jail, and especially where bail comes into question,
00:25is it as a right relative and not unconditional?
00:29All of that we're going to take forward.
00:31You know, if you're just a tad bit confused on what have been the cases,
00:35let's just hark back to what happened in Omar Khalid and Sharjeev Imam's bail petition,
00:40which was turned down by the Supreme Court,
00:43while in the same case of UAPA giving bail to five others.
00:47And then one day later, you had, of course, a completely different case.
00:51It was under PMLA, where the Amtech former chairperson was given bail.
00:55But what was to note was the ruling of the bench then,
00:59where the bench very clearly said that even a court cannot deny bail on the charge of serious offenses.
01:07So let's take it from here.
01:09I have a packed house in the Democratic newsroom, and we're going to begin.
01:13Of course, Gaurav Savant is with us.
01:16Akshata are regulars, but we've got our two legal eagles here,
01:20Nalini and Anisha, both who cover the courts very closely,
01:23and know a thing or two more than the three of us.
01:25So, Nalini, why don't you kickstart the debate?
01:28Well, Preeti, I don't think there's anything left to say about this case
01:33that's not already been said on social media, on news channels and newspapers.
01:37But I think one thing that we need to remember before we kickstart this discussion
01:41is that it's not just the Supreme Court, but three different courts
01:45who have, one after the other, denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjee El-Imam.
01:49Another important thing to remember that it's a UAPA case that we're talking about.
01:54The accused, no matter how influential, no matter how popular, are accused of terrorism.
02:00And of course, there are no charges that have been filed in this case.
02:02But the third and the most important thing we have to remember
02:05is both the prosecution and the accused in this case
02:09who are equally responsible for the trial still not starting in the case.
02:13As somebody who's going through regular media reports
02:16about what's happening in Karkaduma court with regard to the trial,
02:20I can tell you that conclusively, that it's both parties who are responsible.
02:24You cannot shift blame on just one saying it's because of them
02:27that the trial has not happened.
02:28That's just my opening thoughts.
02:30And that was something that was debated in court as well.
02:32The prosecution actually held the agreement that the delay of trial,
02:35which, as per the prosecution, was at the behest of the accused.
02:39And on the other hand, the defense had their own, you know, I think, notes to make on that.
02:45And, Anisha, you'd want to weigh in on the fact that the defense also said
02:49that, A, the framing of charges hasn't happened.
02:52The witnesses haven't been interrogated.
02:55So a lot going on there.
02:56But the larger question, Anisha, it's not the problem of the tragedy
03:00is not the denial of bail.
03:01But the tragedy lies in the fact that inconsistencies of reasoning
03:05when it comes to denial of bail in similar cases.
03:08Yes, you know, the case that followed was, you know, not a UAPA case,
03:12but a PMLA case.
03:13But last year, you had a UAPA case under Justice Okha and Justice Massey.
03:18And they did give bail, saying very clearly that even UAPA is a charge
03:22where you cannot deny bail.
03:23Well, yes, Priti.
03:25Now, if you're talking about this case in specifics,
03:29or we're talking about the larger question of the law on bail,
03:33we are very clearly seeing, what I'm seeing is,
03:37we are very clearly seeing this sense of inconsistency, unevenness,
03:43and a sort of bench-based verdicts coming in.
03:47And this is something that we've been,
03:49the people who've been covering Supreme Court have been analysing.
03:53In fact, the Supreme Court itself has been analysing this.
03:56So, it's rule of bench, not rule of law.
03:58Depends which bench you get in a similar case.
04:00We can't even say that in so many words.
04:03The problem is that the law does allow this level of discretion.
04:08However, at the same time, we are seeing a situation
04:11where instead of following a precedent.
04:15Now, if you look at this Sharjee Limam and Numa Khalip case,
04:18now look at the Delhi Riots case.
04:20A three-judge bench in the K.A. Najeeb case has very clearly said
04:24that if there is a delay in trial, then bail ought to be given.
04:30Seriousness of the offence is something that can be considered.
04:33But however, whether witnesses can be influenced,
04:39whether there is any antecedents,
04:41whether all of that can be considered.
04:44But if there is delay, then ordinarily give bail.
04:47That is a judgment of a three-judgment.
04:50Now, after that, immediately after that,
04:52we've seen in the last three years alone,
04:54multiple benches either giving bail or denying bail
04:57in UAPA cases, in PMLA cases.
05:00So, we are seeing a very, I would say,
05:06when we have a Supreme Court that can speak in multiple voices
05:11because these are co-equal benches,
05:13we are seeing this situation where whether or not you get bail
05:17depends on who is the one hearing your...
05:20Exactly.
05:22And that's the question that has been raised.
05:23And that question creates big,
05:26puts a very, very big question mark
05:28on how we are looking at UAPA or PMLA or bail.
05:31Because remember, both UAPA and PMLA do have specific provisions.
05:36And similar provisions.
05:36Don't give bail unless...
05:37Similar provisions on bail.
05:39Very different in terms of charges.
05:41Very different in terms of...
05:42Because one is just for seven years.
05:43The other one, you can even get a death sentence.
05:45But when it comes down to provisions of bail,
05:47very, very similar.
05:48So, that is the thing.
05:49Both UAPA and PMLA say that if before granting bail,
05:52you look at prima facie evidence.
05:54In UAPA, it said that prima facie,
05:56if there is evidence, then you don't give bail.
05:59PMLA says, don't give bail unless prima facie,
06:02you think the allegation is false.
06:05So, in this scenario,
06:06you've given this kind of discussion
06:07and it is creating this very big question mark.
06:10And we've been talking...
06:11There's a fair amount of confusion
06:12and some would call it selective constitutionalism
06:15because, Gaurav, if you want to weigh in,
06:18it depends what bench you get as many...
06:20You know, what seem to suggest.
06:21Because same case, last year, UAPA, bail given,
06:24can be very different.
06:25You know, the role of the accused can be very different
06:26than what the role, perceived role of Omar Khalid
06:29and Sharjeev Imam is.
06:30It can be very, very different.
06:32But it's just seemingly that there is a difference
06:36in terms of the judgment on a similar charge.
06:39Well, each crime is different.
06:41So, each judge is dealing with a crime differently.
06:46And it's, I think, a little unfair
06:48to say that, you know,
06:50different judges give different verdicts
06:53on the same sections of law.
06:55Because every crime is different.
06:57Whatever may have been the crime there,
06:59the interpretation there,
07:00the circumstances there,
07:01and the crimes here.
07:03You know, if you don't get a judgment that you want,
07:06oh, the judges were bad.
07:08If you get the judgment that you want,
07:09oh, the judges are very good.
07:11That's not the way justice is dispensed with.
07:13You go into the merits of the case.
07:14And in this particular case,
07:16what did the honorable judges say?
07:17And they've weighed in
07:18and they've explained their judgment.
07:20The two gentlemen that you mentioned
07:22were architects of the conspiracy.
07:24They were masterminds.
07:25They were in a commanding authority.
07:27They had influence over others.
07:28They had a central role.
07:29They had an ideological role
07:31in this alleged conspiracy.
07:33And those who were at the periphery,
07:34they were granted bail.
07:35So, you know, comparing this to a PMLA case,
07:38it just, it doesn't add up,
07:40except perhaps for an academic discussion.
07:42But not speaking about a PMLA case.
07:44It's national security involved.
07:46But not speaking about a PMLA case.
07:47This is a very serious national security case.
07:48But I'm giving you the example of a case
07:50which happened just last year in 2024 in August.
07:52It was a UAPA case.
07:53It may well be.
07:55It may well be.
07:56Just look at the merits of this particular case.
07:58When there's such serious charges of terrorism
08:00against Umar Khalid, Shahjil Imam,
08:02are we really going to be debating a case
08:04where in the same courtroom,
08:07in the same area,
08:08you've got other accused also getting bail?
08:10And that itself tells you
08:11that against these two gentlemen,
08:12there are extremely grave, serious charges.
08:14So, it's not the same, is it?
08:17It's very clear,
08:18even within the same case,
08:19there are layers upon layers,
08:20which is what the court has gone into.
08:22As far as delay in trial is concerned,
08:23I think what Nalini said is very true,
08:25that three different courts have highlighted
08:26that the delay in the trial
08:28is also driven by the accused here,
08:30by the defence here.
08:31So, that's another factor
08:32that you have to consider.
08:33The two constant arguments you hear
08:35is, look, UAPA,
08:36there are different conditions,
08:37there are different aspects of it.
08:39But sure, it's different cases,
08:40there are different layers
08:41that need to be considered.
08:42And the second about a delay in trial,
08:44I think the court has referred to that,
08:46saying very clearly
08:46there can't be a trump card
08:48to go ahead and secure bail.
08:49And that's something the court has said.
08:50You have three different courts.
08:52You can talk about benches
08:53as much as you want,
08:54but three different courts,
08:55when they all align,
08:56saying that, look,
08:57the case has been delayed
08:58because of the accused,
08:59then you know where's
09:00the question of the bench there.
09:01No, but the three different courts
09:03till now,
09:03till the time it reached
09:04the Supreme Court,
09:05clubbed both Sharjeev
09:06as well as Umar
09:08along with the five others.
09:09The distinction of a different...
09:11However, the distinction was made.
09:13The distinction of a different footing
09:14was only made by the Supreme Court.
09:16So, till the Supreme Court...
09:17So, you can't say
09:18that three different courts,
09:19because the three different...
09:19The courts,
09:20two earlier courts,
09:22dealt with the case
09:22very differently
09:23than what the Supreme Court has.
09:24So, where the two different courts
09:25are concerned,
09:26sure, they clubbed everyone,
09:27there was no distinction
09:27made between the other accused,
09:29but a delay is a delay,
09:30irrespective.
09:30What I'm referring to
09:31is the aspect of the delay
09:33in the trial.
09:33Of the delay where
09:34these two are...
09:34And in that case, yeah,
09:35where the prosecution
09:36holds them responsible.
09:38Yes.
09:38But then on the other account...
09:39The delay is attributable
09:41at least in part
09:42to the conduct of the defense.
09:43That's what we were speaking of.
09:45And same case,
09:46same trial,
09:47records are the same,
09:48procedural background is the same,
09:49and yet different...
09:50Delay at part,
09:53you are very right,
09:53the both of you,
09:54is on the account of the accused.
09:57But how do the accused
09:58come into delaying a trial
10:01where the witnesses
10:02haven't been interrogated,
10:03questioned,
10:04number one.
10:04Number two,
10:05allow me,
10:06allow me,
10:06right,
10:07haven't been questioned,
10:07number two,
10:08the charges haven't been framed.
10:10And what the court said,
10:12that we'll give you one year,
10:14or if the witnesses
10:15are interrogated first,
10:16whichever one comes earlier.
10:18So does automatically
10:19after one year,
10:20Article 21 kick in?
10:21How does it really happen?
10:23May I weigh in
10:24on that aspect, please?
10:25So,
10:26which is why
10:27in my opening remarks,
10:28I said,
10:29whether you look at
10:30this case in particular
10:31or the larger question
10:33of how we're looking at bail.
10:34In this case,
10:35if you look,
10:36since we're debating
10:36this particular matter,
10:39the court is looking
10:40into three things.
10:42One,
10:43is there violation
10:44of the constitutionally
10:46protected right to liberty
10:47by a delay in trial?
10:49Who do you attribute
10:50the delay in trial to?
10:52And other than that,
10:53what are the circumstances,
10:55facts,
10:55etc.
10:56in this particular case,
10:58which justified grant
11:00or non-grant of bail?
11:01Now,
11:02in this particular case,
11:04why the court has chosen
11:05to take the decision
11:06that it has,
11:08is that
11:08it is recognizing
11:10and I'm going to quote
11:11something here,
11:13that
11:14delay can warrant
11:16a more searching
11:17constitutional scrutiny
11:19but does not
11:20authorize the court
11:21to dilute
11:22the statutory threshold
11:23by undertaking
11:24credibility finding.
11:26the balance
11:27must be maintained.
11:29Constitutional concern
11:30is real.
11:31This court is also
11:31accepting the fact
11:32that yes,
11:33it has been six years.
11:34The constitutional concern
11:36regarding delay
11:37for whatever reason
11:39the delay has happened
11:40is real.
11:41And more importantly,
11:41sorry,
11:42Gaurav,
11:42let me just finish this point.
11:44This court
11:45and every other court
11:46which is looking
11:47into the question
11:48of delay
11:48versus UPA bails
11:50is not looking at
11:52who is causing
11:53a delay
11:53or not alone.
11:54What they are looking at is
11:56is there any possibility
11:59or probability
11:59of the trial
12:01actually concluding
12:02within a reasonable time?
12:03In this case as well,
12:05what they have noted
12:06is that there are
12:07about 900 witnesses,
12:08there is,
12:09even charges
12:10have not been framed.
12:11For whatever reasons
12:12there have been
12:12multiple adjournments
12:13but there is no hope
12:15whatsoever
12:16of the trial
12:19concluding
12:19within the period
12:20of one year.
12:21So delay cannot be
12:23examined in isolation?
12:24Delay alone
12:25does not entitle
12:26a person to avail
12:27the right to speedy track.
12:29That article 21
12:30that you refer to
12:31is important
12:32but must be balanced
12:33when it comes to
12:33your national security.
12:35So you cannot take
12:35national security
12:36a very critical issue
12:38if a person is enlarged.
12:39If a person is enlarged,
12:41would he do the same thing again?
12:43And would you risk
12:44national security?
12:45Would you risk
12:46life being lost
12:46just so that
12:47he has liberty?
12:48Since we are reading
12:49from the court order here,
12:51can I also highlight
12:52that the bench said
12:52a delay in trial
12:53is not a trump card
12:54that can be used
12:54to display statutory safeguards.
12:56The constitution guarantees
12:58personal liberty
12:58but it does not
12:59conceive liberty
13:00as an isolated entitlement
13:02detached from the security
13:03of society.
13:04Okay, now I'll give you
13:05an example
13:06and why we say
13:06and with what Anisha
13:08also began
13:08that there's a fair amount
13:09of confusion
13:09when the benches
13:10come into question
13:11hearing the same cases
13:12like UAPA.
13:14Now where a person
13:15was incarcerated
13:16for a year and a half,
13:18you had the Supreme Court
13:19bench because you read out
13:20let me read out
13:21say it is very well settled
13:23that if the court
13:24or any prosecution agency
13:25including the court
13:26has no wherewithal
13:27to provide or protect
13:29the fundamental rights
13:30of an accused
13:30to have a speedy trial,
13:32the state or court
13:33should not oppose
13:34the plea to bail
13:35on the grounds
13:36that the crime committed
13:37is serious
13:37including UAPA.
13:38No, but what was
13:38that individual's crime?
13:39Including UAPA.
13:40Terror, terror, terror.
13:41What was his crime?
13:43It is the interpretation.
13:44No, no, but the degree
13:46of his crime,
13:47the degree of his involvement,
13:48everything matters.
13:50Those on the periphery
13:51were given bail.
13:51Those at the heart of it
13:52are not getting bail.
13:53But he was charged
13:53by UAPA,
13:54he was charged
13:54by anti-terror activities.
13:56Go ahead.
13:58UAPA has a very special section
14:00I want to talk about
14:01that the Supreme Court
14:01has also spoken about.
14:02Right.
14:03Okay.
14:04It talks specifically
14:04about bail
14:05and it's a negative section
14:07that says
14:08that judges
14:09have to ensure
14:10that in cases
14:11where a prima facie
14:13case has been made out
14:14they should not
14:15grant bail.
14:16Right.
14:16This is a law
14:17that has been laid down
14:18in the UAPA.
14:20The question that arises
14:21is that should courts
14:23and should judges,
14:24I don't think it's so much
14:25about different benches
14:26or different judges.
14:27As it is being made out
14:28to be by some
14:29which is very worrisome.
14:30I think it's more about
14:31disharmony
14:32against our courts
14:33should be unacceptable.
14:34No, I'm sorry.
14:35You know, I'm sorry.
14:36No institution
14:37in this country.
14:38Gaurav, no institution
14:39in this country
14:40is beyond question.
14:41But you start questioning
14:42judges and votives
14:43who is questioning
14:50one second?
14:50Who is questioning motive?
14:52Who is questioning motive?
14:52I'll tell you.
14:53I'll tell you
14:53when you're suggesting
14:54that one bench
14:55interprets it a certain way
14:56another interprets it another way.
14:58Let me just say it.
15:01Let me just say it.
15:02It's causing motive.
15:02May I answer that question?
15:04May I answer that question?
15:04That's a bizarre statement to me.
15:06Does this and other bench
15:07does that?
15:07What do you say, Anisha?
15:09I'm explaining exactly
15:10what I said.
15:11The judiciary,
15:12as Nalini said,
15:13has the right
15:14in a UAPA case
15:15to examine the evidence
15:17and interpret
15:18whether there is enough
15:20balance in favour
15:22or against the accused.
15:24Now when you're talking
15:25about the discretion
15:26of the person
15:28who's sitting
15:28on that chair,
15:30you have liberal judges,
15:31you have more conservative judges.
15:33Exactly.
15:33That is something
15:34that happens.
15:35It's the magnitude
15:36of a crime
15:36of an individual.
15:37No, no, no.
15:38The magnitude of a crime
15:39is conservative.
15:41One by one.
15:42One by one.
15:43Let's go one by one.
15:44If you look at
15:46the way courts
15:47look at bail,
15:49whether it's UAPA,
15:50PMLA
15:51or bail in general,
15:53there are certain judges
15:54who put more emphasis
15:57on the issue of delays,
15:59on the issue of liberty,
16:01rather than saying that,
16:03well,
16:03I'm not going to give you
16:05any...
16:05It's in their wisdom
16:06and that's why
16:07the Supreme Court judges
16:08differ from the other.
16:09That's what we are saying.
16:10Depends on the crime.
16:11Without attaching motive.
16:13It's a crime committed.
16:15In a polyvocal court,
16:16which is what
16:17the Supreme Court of India
16:18is that the same
16:19three different judges
16:21may have three different opinions
16:23about the same set of facts.
16:25We are,
16:26and I'm not saying this
16:27to criticise the court,
16:29I'm saying this
16:29with the help of
16:31analysis of the last
16:3239, 40, 50 cases
16:34where in the last
16:36two or three years
16:37where courts have
16:38either given or not
16:39given bail,
16:39there are judges
16:40who are on one side
16:42where...
16:43You know that
16:44section 43D5,
16:46that 43D5
16:48is very clear
16:49on when bail
16:51is to be given
16:51and what circumstances
16:52and what is the role
16:53of a particular individual.
16:55I don't know if we can say
16:57things like
16:57conservative versus
16:58liberal judges.
16:59Honestly,
17:00because to one person
17:01it may be conservative
17:02to another,
17:03not so much.
17:03No, no, no.
17:03Exactly.
17:05Akshita,
17:06I'm not talking about
17:07political ideologies
17:08when I say conservative
17:09or liberal.
17:09My suggestion is
17:12interpretation of the law
17:13is all you can talk about.
17:15Of course.
17:15And that is exactly
17:16what I am talking about.
17:18When you're talking about
17:19a set of judgments
17:21and I'm talking about
17:22a very, very
17:23simply
17:24that when you have
17:26judges
17:27who...
17:28When you have a system
17:29which allows a judge
17:31to weigh
17:32on their own conscience
17:33whether they want
17:34to give more weightage
17:36to the question
17:37of delay and liberty
17:38or they want to give
17:40more weightage
17:41to the seriousness
17:41of the offense
17:42which, by the way,
17:43Gaurav,
17:43is what Section 43D
17:45allows them to.
17:46Absolutely.
17:47Go to a superior court.
17:48Go to a bigger bench.
17:50It has also happened
17:51that in the Supreme Court
17:52one bench has turned
17:53the judgment
17:54of another bench.
17:55So that means
17:55it depends what bench
17:56you get.
17:57No.
17:57Okay, one second.
17:59We have a polyvocal
18:00Supreme Court.
18:01We have a situation
18:02where
18:03there are different judgments.
18:04Anishallah, Alalini.
18:05No, so like I was saying
18:07I don't think it's so much
18:08about which judges
18:09are listening to your case.
18:10I think it's more about
18:12so there are two things.
18:13There is the letter of the law
18:14then there's the spirit
18:15of the law.
18:16Even in the Kuldeep Singh Singer
18:17case we saw
18:18that the Delhi High Court
18:19had suspended
18:21his sentence
18:22and the judge
18:23had followed
18:24the letter of the law.
18:26Kuldeep Singh Singer
18:26did not fall
18:27under the definition
18:28of public servant
18:29according to
18:30the letter of the law.
18:31Precisely.
18:32So you can criticize
18:34it as much as you want
18:35but at the end of the day
18:36you've entrusted
18:36those people
18:38to sit on those chairs
18:39and make those decisions.
18:40Similarly in this case
18:41when the judges say
18:42that we've gone through
18:43the evidence
18:45in a prime of fessi manner
18:46not just the Supreme Court judges
18:47even the judgment
18:48given by the Delhi High Court
18:49by Justice Naveen Chawla
18:50has spoken in detail
18:52about the evidence
18:53the witness statements
18:54the WhatsApp chats
18:55everything he's gone through
18:56after which he's come
18:58to the conclusion
18:58that they were
18:59I think he's called them
19:00the intellectual architects
19:01of the entire conspiracy.
19:03But I'm saying that
19:04once you've entrusted
19:05them with that
19:06and when they say
19:07that according to the law
19:08we believe that
19:09there is a prime of fessi case
19:10and they should not
19:11be allowed out on bail
19:12then that's the judgment
19:14that you have to respect
19:15at the end of the day.
19:16And it's gone through
19:16multiple levels of scrutiny
19:18if I may.
19:19After a year from now
19:20they are of course
19:21not expecting for the trial
19:22to end.
19:23I don't think they're even
19:23expecting for the trial
19:24to begin
19:25in a year from now.
19:27But they've said that
19:27as long as the
19:28protected witnesses
19:29and remember this
19:31the fact that
19:32protected witnesses
19:33might be influenced
19:35is a very big reason.
19:37That's one part of it
19:38whether they influence
19:39witnesses to
19:40are they the
19:41intellectual ideologues
19:42who may do it again
19:43and lead to loss
19:45of life, property
19:46or adversely impact
19:47national security.
19:49So national security
19:49is far more important
19:50than their individual liberty.
19:52Okay.
19:5330 seconds.
19:53It may have been
19:54five years since the riot
19:55but we have to remember
19:56the serious charges
19:56that they face.
19:57You know there may be
19:58sympathists who question
19:59you know five years
20:00they've been languishing
20:01in jail.
20:01How can they not
20:02get bailed repeatedly?
20:03This is the law
20:04of the country.
20:05You have to follow
20:05the law of the land.
20:06If there are serious
20:07charges against you
20:07they've appealed
20:08and they've had a chance
20:09to appeal as is their right
20:10in every single court.
20:11If they've been denied bail
20:12it's for a reason.
20:13Just to add to what
20:17Akshira is saying
20:18you might have a problem
20:18with the law
20:19but the solution to that
20:20is challenge the law
20:21in a superior court.
20:22I'm just making
20:27one small point.
20:28Anything I've said today
20:31has nothing to do
20:32with this case
20:33in specifics
20:33but the question
20:34that we have
20:36a poly vocal court
20:38we have a system
20:39that allows a judge
20:40to take a decision
20:41as per their own conscience
20:43and that is why
20:44we have
20:44and this is not my
20:46this is an analysis
20:47not my opinion
20:48we have a situation
20:49where in the case
20:51of a UAPA
20:53or a PMLA
20:53or a general bail
20:54we are getting
20:55different judgments
20:56from different judgments.
20:57In fact in the last 30 seconds
20:58those who are so vocal
21:00about these two individuals
21:01were so silent
21:02when it came to
21:03Colonel Purohit
21:03in an earlier time
21:05who was in jail
21:05for nine years
21:06in similar
21:06or other circumstances.
21:07I'm running out of time.
21:08In the case of
21:09better of five years.
21:09Okay we are running
21:10out of time
21:11we need to go on
21:12to the next show
21:12so well ultimately
21:14the larger question
21:15is that the Supreme Court
21:16has been on crossroads
21:17with its engagement
21:18where liberty is concerned
21:20whichever way
21:20you might want
21:21to interpret it
21:22it's not about bail
21:23as such
21:24or the denial of bail
21:25what I would think
21:27is the tragedy
21:28is that the reasons
21:30which are varied
21:31of denial of bail
21:32in the same charges
21:33and that is open
21:34to discussion
21:35which we did
21:35on the democratic news.
21:37It's a national security case.
21:38Well that's what I see.
21:39Alright with that
21:40a quick break
21:40to stay with me
21:41on the other side
21:41is to the point.
Comments