The bail plea of former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, in jail for close to three years in connection with the 2020 Delhi communal riots, was on Wednesday adjourned for the sixth time in a row, with the Supreme Court warning that no further adjournment would be granted.

The next hearing is to be held on January 24, after Khalid’s lawyer Kapil Sibal and Delhi police, represented by additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju who was not in court on Wednesday, sought an adjournment. Rights activist Khalid has been in jail since September 14, 2020, under the anti-terror law UAPA. He has sought bail on parity with the co-accused — Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha — who have been released.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the repeated pleas for adjournment, pointing out that while the delay in the hearing was on account of the failure of the respective parties to argue the case, an impression was gaining ground that the court was not hearing the matter.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, sought adjournment by a week since he was engaged in a seven-judge constitution bench matter dealing with the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University.

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud began the AMU hearing on Tuesday.

Besides Khalid’s bail plea, the court was on Wednesday also scheduled to take up a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which critics complain is being increasingly used against political opponents and journalists by parties in power. Khalid is among the petitioners who have challenged the UAPA.

As soon as Sibal made the adjournment request on Wednesday, Justice Trivedi, heading the bench, said: “You please argue the case, we are not going to adjourn the matter. We can’t grant you any exemption.”

Sibal replied: “He (Khalid) is in jail. How does it matter? We have never asked for time and Mr Raju, he is not available. I am in a constitution bench matter. Kindly give a week’s time. It is a reasonable request.”

Justice Mithal reminded the assembled counsel: “It is giving an impression that the court is not taking up the matter.”

The bench reminded Sibal: “You have earlier said the matter was not being heard.”

Senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Arvind Datar, who are appearing for certain others in the batch of PILs, also supported the plea for adjournment on the ground that the lawyers are busy with various other matters.

The bench adjourned the matter to January 24, saying: “Request is made on behalf of petitioner. The request is made by senior advocate Mr Kapil Sibal for accommodation as he is busy in a constitution bench matter. Request for adjournment is also made on behalf of learned ASG Mr S.V. Raju…. List the matter for January 24, 2024. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.”

At the last hearing on November 29, 2023, an earlier bench of Justices Trivedi and Satish Chandra had adjourned the matter on a joint request made by the lawyers appearing on behalf of Sibal and Raju. While Raju was at that time stated to be indisposed, Sibal was engaged in other courts.

Justice Trivedi wanted to hear the matter on December 6, 2023, but since Sibal was not available on that date, it was adjourned to January 10.

Khalid’s bail plea has witnessed several adjournments, although it is not uncommon. The apex court had initially issued notice on May 18 last year and wanted to hear it during the summer vacation in June. However, counsels appearing for Khalid and the Delhi police had expressed their inability to argue the matter during the vacation. It was listed on August 9, but Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, one of the judges on the bench headed by Justice A.S. Bopanna, recused himself from the case.

Thereafter the matter was listed on August 18 but got adjourned after a brief hearing to October 12. When Khalid’s bail plea came up for hearing on October 12, it was again adjourned due to paucity of time. It was again listed on November 29, but when the matter came up for hearing, it was adjourned to January 10 on a request from both sides.

At the last hearing, senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Foundation of Media Professionals, had requested that the matter relating to the validity of the UAPA be referred to a three-judge bench which is hearing pleas relating to the validity of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The argument of Datar was that Section 45 of the UAPA and Section 43(D) of the PMLA both related to the stringent provisions of bail and were couched in identical language, therefore the matter had to be dealt with by a larger bench of three judges.

He was supported by advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing three other joint petitioners.

However, Justice Trivedi did not accede to the request, saying that the matter had been assigned to the bench by the CJI.