On October 9, 2025, a month after the Delhi high court dismissed his bail plea, jailed student activist Umar Khalid stated that he was "singled out" by the police in the north-east Delhi riots case.
The former Jawaharlal Nehru University scholar was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) along with nine others for allegedly conspiring in the 2020 Delhi riots and has been in Tihar jail for five years as his case awaits trial.
Soon after his bail plea was rejected on September 2, a clip of former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud commenting on the delays in his case and stating that Khalid's counsel sought at least seven adjournments was shared widely.
Khalid's case has come up for hearing several times and was also adjourned multiple times.
In October 2022, the Delhi high court rejected Khalid's bail plea. In April 2023, Khalid's counsel filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi HC's decision. It was in July 2023 that his SLP challenging the denial of bail first came up in the apex court. For nearly a year since then, however, his case remained unheard --- being dismissed and adjourned several times. On February 14, 2024, Khalid's team withdrew the bail application from the Supreme Court and approached the Delhi HC again. In September 2025, the high court upheld the previous order, denying him bail.
What Chandrachud Said
The former CJI's remarks followed a question by journalist Barkha Dutt. Dutt brings up the example of rape convict Ram Rahim, who enjoyed multiple and regular parole visits, whereas Umar Khalid is awaiting trial for five years. She said that there seemed to be "great unevenness" in granting bail.
To this, Chandrachud responds with, "Not really. Since you mentioned Umar Khalid's case, and I don't want to comment on the merit of the case... But, I must tell you something which has been lost sight of by a lot of people when it comes to Umar Khalid's case. Can you imagine that the case was adjourned, there were at least seven, if not more, adjournments which were sought by the counsel appearing for Umar Khalid and eventually the application for bail was withdrawn. So, what do you have to say to this, when on one hand, lawyers appearing for the accused repeatedly asked for adjournments of cases before a judge, and then you withdraw a case?"
Further, he says, "But, in Umar Khalid's case, if the record is seen, it will show that repeated applications for adjournment were made before the court. Now, the end of it what happens is, a particular perspective is conveyed on social media and the media. Judges have no place to defend themselves, and if you really look into the fine print of what happens in the court, the reality is a little more nuanced than what happens".
Ex-CJI's Remarks Spark 'Forum Shopping' Claim
The ex-CJI's response was shared by several social media users, who identify as pro-Right in their bios, to suggest that the delay in Umar Khalid's case was also owing to his own legal team seeking several adjournments.
X user @PoliticalKida posted the above-mentioned clip on September 2 with the following caption: "Ex-CJI Chandrachud takes on the liberal narrative on Umar Khalid's bail:..." (Archive)
At the time of writing this report, the post received more than 318,000 views and has been reposted over 2,300 times. This user has been fact-checked by Alt News several times in the past.
Also, readers should note that these posts have been doing the rounds since February 2025, when the CJI's interview was first published.
Propaganda news outlet OpIndia's chief editor, Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi), also shared the clip on February 14 and claimed that Khalid was a "cabal" who "later played victim". (Archive)
On February 15, Sharma also published her report, where she wrote that Umar Khalid's counsel attempted 'forum shopping' and failed. Forum shopping refers to the 'practice of selecting the most favourable jurisdiction or court for initiating legal action'.
To understand whether what the former CJI and Nupur Sharma claimed was true, Alt News analysed court documents to check how many adjournments were sought in Umar Khalid's case and whether his team refrained from bringing up the case before a specific Bench.
Adjournments
Between May 2023 --- after the SLP was filed and the matter came up for hearing for the first time --- and February 2024 --- when Umar Khalid's counsel withdrew the application --- a total of 12 adjournments were sought. This includes those sought by the petitioner (counsel representing Umar Khalid), the prosecution or respondent, as well as by the Bench.
We found that among the 12, only two were sought by the petitioner's side alone; the rest of the adjournments were either requested by the respondent, or jointly by defence and prosecution, or by the Bench. Below is a timeline:
On July 24, 2023, the petitioner's side sought an adjournment by one week due to the advocate appearing for the petitioner being out of town for "unavoidable personal reasons".
Further, on September 5, 2023, Khalid's counsel again sought an adjournment by two weeks as 'senior counsels representing the petitioner were held up before the Constitution Bench'.
From this, it is clear that the ex-CJI's remark that Umar Khalid's counsel sought seven adjournments is not true.
'Why This Reluctance To Argue A Case?'
In the viral clip, Chandrachud also asks rhetorically why Khalid's counsel was reluctant to argue the case and sought adjournments. To understand this better, Alt News spoke to a senior lawyer and a retired judge.
Sanjay Ghose, senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi high court, told us that advocates keep various factors in mind while asking for a hearing to be adjourned. "For instance, if one is enjoying a stay order, then the advocate, under the pressure of the client, or on their own, may want to get an adjournment because then the stay continues, the benefit continues," he said.
Ghose then added that advocates often also assess the nature of the Bench. "For example, I am a workers' lawyer, and if I find that the judge is a very pro-management judge, then I may strategically take an adjournment, hoping that the roster will change and a pro-worker judge will come. Often, this kind of strategic call is taken by a lawyer; it is a common strategy," he explained.
Alt News also spoke to a retired judge of the Calcutta high court. The jurist, who did not wish to be named, said that it was a common practice for counsels to find ways to have their case heard by a Bench that they think would give a 'favourable' order. Over the years, judges do grow such reputations and lawyers also form opinions about judges based on previous orders. Some might call this a form of "court shopping" or "forum shopping" he explained. "Sometimes, advocates seek adjournments if they know that an 'unfavourable' judge is to retire soon. Sometimes, they also wait for a different judge to take up matters related to a particular field if they feel the present judge may be unfavourable".
We then looked at the Bench assigned to hear Umar Khalid's case in the Supreme Court to understand if the composition of the Bench may have been a factor.
- It was on April 6, 2023, that Khalid filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the SC challenging the Delhi HC decision rejecting his bail in October 2022.
- On May 18, 2023, the case came up before a Bench of Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli, who listed it next for July 12.
- On July 12, 2023, the case came up before a Bench comprising Justices Bopanna and Sundresh. The petition was listed to be heard on July 24 next.
- On July 24, 2023, the case was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Bopanna and Bela Trivedi. That's when Umar Khalid's counsel sought their first adjournment.
- On August 9, 2023, the matter was heard by a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra. However, Justice Mishra recused himself from the matter and the next date of hearing was set to be on August 17, 2023.
- On August 17, 2023, the matter was supposed to be presented before Justices Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, but owing to a scheduling issue and the matter being deleted from the day's case list a day before, the Bench was unable to hear it. On the evening of August 17, the matter was listed for the next day before Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi. The respondent sought two weeks before the next hearing and the two-judge Bench listed the case to be heard on September 5, 2023.
- On September 5, 2023, it was Khalid's counsel who requested an adjournment for another two weeks.
After this, until February 2024, the matter was assigned to a two-judge Bench comprising the now-retired judge Bela Trivedi and a second senior judge.
We noticed that the times Khalid's counsel did seek an adjournment, the common factor was Bela Trivedi being part of the Bench. That, coupled with what Sanjay Ghose and the retired judge told us, led us to believe that it may have been a legal strategy.
Also, former Justice Trivedi had earned an ill reputation for denying bail applications, especially in politically sensitive cases.
A Look at Bela Trivedi's Career
Bela Trivedi began her career in 1983 as an advocate enrolled in the Gujarat Bar. In 1995, she was appointed as a judge in the City Civil and Sessions Court in Ahmedabad, where her father was also serving as a judge. Trivedi also served as the registrar - vigilance in the Gujarat high court and the law secretary to the Gujarat government between 2004 and 2006, when Narendra Modi was the state's chief minister.
In February 2011, Trivedi was elevated as a judge of the Gujarat high court. In June, she was transferred to the Rajasthan high court. In February 2016, she was returned to the Gujarat high court. It was in 2021 that she was appointed as a Supreme Court judge.
Trivedi retired on May 16, 2025, after serving as an SC judge for nearly four years.
A Bench led by Trivedi also dismissed bail pleas of Gulfisha Fatima and Sharjeel Imam in 2024 --- accused on similar grounds as Umar Khalid --- because their applications were pending before the Delhi high court. The two had sought SC's intervention because the case was pending in the HC for over two years.
A Scroll report from May 23, 2025, referred to Trivedi as a "deeply unpopular judge" who not only refrained from granting bail but also "clashed with lawyers".
The former judge also did not receive a farewell from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) or the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which hold ceremonies for retiring judges. At the time, the CJI B R Gavai expressed his discontent with this decision of the bar bodies.
So, could Trivedi being part of the Bench have been a reason why Khalid's counsel was reluctant to argue the case? It's possible because his legal team would be left with little recourse if Khalid's bail plea were rejected by the apex court. Again, this cannot be substantiated with evidence, but it may likely have been the case.
It's also interesting to note that eight politically sensitive cases were all assigned to Justice Bela Trivedi, contrary to the Supreme Court's rules of assignment. According to a report by Article 14, the rules of assignment state that when cases are first listed before a senior judge, or are similar to cases already being heard by some judge, they should stay with that judge and shouldn't be arbitrarily moved to others. However, this rule was allegedly flouted when the Bench changed and Trivedi landed with similar cases.
Umar Khalid's case was tagged to a Bench comprising Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna, who, in 2023, was the seventh in seniority. Then, on August 18, the case was reassigned to a Bench led by now-retired Justice Aniruddha Bose, along with Bela Trivedi. However, since November 2023, the case had been moved to a Bench led by former Justice Bela Trivedi, along with other junior judges.
It must be noted that the power to assign cases lies with the Chief Justice of India, who is the 'master of roster', in this case D Y Chandrachud --- who served as CJI between 2022 and 2024. This also means that he was well aware that a Bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi was hearing Umar Khalid's case when he made the remarks on Dutt's show. Also, seeking adjournments so that the case comes before a favourable Bench is a fairly common legal strategy employed by lawyers and known to judges, including CJI Chandrachud.
To put it simply, Khalid's legal team sought only two adjournments independently and even if these were instances of 'forum shopping,' these are strategic bids deployed by both defense and prosecution to get a favourable chance for their arguments that need not be seen in such negative light.
न्यूज़ हिमाचली News Himachali | हिमाचल की No. 1 हिंदी वेबसाइट CM योगी का बड़ा बयान, UP में सभी भर्ती परीक्षाओं के लिए बने एक एज...
Hello, my name is Ankit Sahu. I'm a 25 year old self-employed Pirate from the Chhindwara.