Jaipur, January 18, 2026: Former Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, on Sunday made a strong statement advocating that bail before conviction should be treated as a right, particularly in situations where the criminal justice system cannot guarantee a speedy trial. Chandrachud emphasized that pre-trial detention should never serve as a form of punishment, and courts must carefully weigh the circumstances of each case, especially when matters of national security are involved.

The remarks were made at the ongoing Jaipur Literature Festival, during a session titled ‘Ideas of Justice’, in response to a question from senior journalist Vir Sanghvi, who raised the issue of the Supreme Court recently denying bail to activist Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. Khalid, along with fellow activist Sharjeel Imam, has been in incarceration since 2020. In its order on January 5, the Supreme Court observed that the accused had been involved in the “planning, mobilisation and strategic direction” of the riots that erupted in northeast Delhi.

Chandrachud highlighted a fundamental principle of law, asserting that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial. “Bail, before the constitution, should be a matter of right,” he said. “Pretrial detention cannot be a form of punishment. If someone is jailed for five to seven years before trial and is later acquitted, how would you compensate for that lost time?”

While stressing the presumption of innocence, the former CJI clarified that bail may be legitimately denied if there is a risk of the accused repeating the offence, tampering with evidence, or fleeing the jurisdiction. “If these three grounds are not present, then bail must be granted. In cases involving national security, the court’s duty is to examine the matter with great depth and care,” Chandrachud said. He added that failure to do so often results in individuals remaining imprisoned for years without having been convicted.

A significant concern Chandrachud raised was the inability of Indian courts to conclude trials within a reasonable timeframe. He drew attention to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and includes the right to a speedy trial. “If an expeditious trial is not possible under present conditions, then bail should be the rule, not the exception,” he observed, framing the issue as both a legal and human rights concern.

Drawing from his experience as CJI, Chandrachud noted that over 24,000 bail applications had been disposed of during his tenure. However, he expressed concern over the routine denial of bail by sessions and district courts, pointing out that judges often fear their integrity may be questioned if they grant bail. “This culture of fear and mistrust drives cases to the Supreme Court unnecessarily,” he said. He highlighted the consequential burden on the apex court, noting that it now deals with approximately 70,000 cases per year, a volume surpassed only by a few judiciaries worldwide, such as Brazil’s. Chandrachud posed a broader question: “How do we address this general culture of distrust in public authority, which has permeated our criminal justice system?”

Chandrachud also addressed the judicial appointment process, particularly the collegium system for high courts and the Supreme Court, suggesting reforms to enhance transparency and bolster public faith. He proposed the inclusion of eminent members from civil society in the collegium, arguing that their participation could strengthen accountability and legitimacy.

He defended the collegium system, noting that criticisms are often misplaced. “The appointment process takes place in stages. Recommendations are first vetted in the High Courts, then reviewed by state governments—which may or may not be politically aligned with the Centre—and finally undergo character checks by the Intelligence Bureau before being submitted to the Supreme Court,” he said. Chandrachud explained that, ultimately, the Chief Justice recommends members of the collegium, whose appointments are then placed before the President of India for final approval.

The former CJI’s remarks touched upon several interconnected issues in India’s criminal justice system: the presumption of innocence, delays in trials, excessive pretrial detention, and the delicate balance between individual liberties and national security. By framing bail as a fundamental right, he underscored the idea that judicial systems should not inadvertently punish individuals before they are formally convicted.

Chandrachud’s comments come at a time when the Indian judiciary is grappling with systemic delays, overburdened courts, and public scrutiny. He highlighted that these challenges contribute to prolonged pretrial detention, which can have devastating consequences for those accused, particularly in high-profile or politically sensitive cases. His perspective reinforces the need for courts to maintain judicial independence while balancing public safety concerns, procedural fairness, and human rights.

The former CJI also drew attention to the broader social and legal implications of bail and pretrial detention. He argued that a failure to grant timely relief can erode public confidence in the justice system, fuel perceptions of arbitrariness, and exacerbate social inequalities. “When individuals languish in jail for years without a trial, it undermines the very principle of justice our legal system is built upon,” he said.

By advocating for reforms in both bail practices and judicial appointments, Chandrachud’s statements offered a comprehensive critique of structural challenges in India’s criminal justice system. His emphasis on procedural fairness, transparency in appointments, and speedy trials reflects a broader vision for a more efficient, accountable, and humane judiciary.

In summary, at the Jaipur Literature Festival, D. Y. Chandrachud highlighted the urgent need to treat bail as a fundamental right in situations where the justice system cannot guarantee a speedy trial. He balanced this with the need for courts to carefully examine cases involving national security, while simultaneously calling for greater transparency and inclusivity in judicial appointments. His remarks served as a reminder of the delicate interplay between individual liberties, judicial responsibility, and systemic efficiency, and have sparked renewed discussion on reforms aimed at protecting the rights of the accused while strengthening public trust in India’s judiciary.