The Supreme Court has delayed hearing the plea of Tahir Hussain, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots, who sought interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.
Hussain, who has been fielded as a candidate from the Mustafabad constituency by the Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), was hoping to get temporary relief to participate in the election process.
However, the court could not hear his petition on Monday due to time constraints. The bench, consisting of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, has listed the matter for further hearing on January 21.
During the brief mention for urgent hearing, Justice Mithal remarked that it is easy to win elections while sitting in jail and suggested that individuals like Hussain should be barred from contesting elections.
This comment highlights the concern about individuals facing serious criminal charges running for public office.
Last week, the Delhi High Court had also rejected Hussain’s request for interim bail but allowed him to be granted parole to file his nomination papers for the elections. As per the High Court's order, Hussain was permitted to be out on custody parole, but with strict conditions.
He was instructed not to have access to a phone or the internet, refrain from speaking to anyone except officials involved in the nomination process, and avoid addressing the media.
The court also prohibited his family members from taking photographs during the nomination process or posting them on social media.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while disposing of Hussain's plea, had noted that simply being a former municipal councillor did not justify granting him interim bail.
The judge considered Hussain’s criminal history and the serious nature of the charges against him. The court granted him custody parole solely for completing the necessary formalities for filing his nomination papers, including subscribing to the oath, but it rejected the request for interim bail to campaign.
On January 14, the Delhi High Court had reserved its decision after hearing arguments from both sides. Senior advocate Rebecca John, representing Hussain, argued that he should be granted interim bail to campaign for the elections.
She emphasised that Hussain needed to physically file his nomination papers and provide an accurate account of his assets, which required his temporary release.
In contrast, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police, opposed the plea.
He pointed out the severity of the charges against Hussain, including involvement in money laundering and unlawful activities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Sharma contended that granting Hussain interim bail could allow him to influence witnesses and interfere with the investigation. He also highlighted that there is no fundamental right to contest elections, and Hussain could still file his nomination while under custody parole.
The case has drawn attention to the issue of whether individuals facing serious criminal charges should be allowed to participate in the democratic process, particularly when they have been accused of engaging in activities that threaten public order and safety.
The Delhi riots, in which Hussain is an accused, led to widespread violence and loss of life, and the authorities have expressed concerns about his potential to influence the election process if he were granted bail for campaigning purposes.
Hussain’s legal team had also referred to previous instances where interim bail was granted for election-related purposes, such as the case of Jammu and Kashmir leader Engineer Rashid, who was granted interim bail in a terror funding case.
However, the court’s decision in Hussain’s case will likely set a precedent for future cases where individuals facing serious charges seek temporary relief to contest elections.
Follow us
