In a pivotal move set to impact the landscape of bail jurisprudence in terrorism-related cases, the Supreme Court of India has decided to involve a larger Bench in examining the principles governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), particularly in instances of trial delays. On Friday, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale referred the legal questions arising from a recent judgment, which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the Delhi riots case, to a larger Bench.
During the proceedings, Justices Kumar and Varale granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, two other accused in the Delhi riots case, for a period of six months. The call for reevaluation was sparked by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who urged a reconsideration of a recent judgment advocating that bail should be the norm even in UAPA cases. This judgment was delivered by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who had expressed doubts about the correctness of the earlier judgment denying bail to Khalid and Imam.
The Bench led by Justice Nagarathna posited that the denial of bail to Umar Khalid contradicted the principles established in the KA Najeeb case, which acknowledged that prolonged trial delays could justify bail in UAPA cases despite stringent bail criteria. ASG Raju, however, argued that the rigorous standards for bail under UAPA do not infringe upon the right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, insisting that the ‘bail not jail’ principle should not apply universally to UAPA accused.
The Court has instructed that the matter be presented before the Chief Justice of India to appoint a suitable Bench that will provide a definitive verdict on these legal questions. “It is essential to form an appropriate bench to clarify the law in KA Najeeb, especially regarding the application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which outlines stringent bail criteria,” the Court stated.
The Delhi riots case relates to the violent communal clashes in North-East Delhi in 2020, which resulted in over 50 fatalities. The riots occurred amidst protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, with several individuals, including Ahmed and Saifi, being charged with conspiring to incite the unrest. Their initial bail pleas were rejected by the Delhi High Court, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court, which has now granted temporary relief.
More Read
In a January judgment in the case of Gulfisha Fatima and others v. State, the Court had granted bail to five accused while denying the same to Khalid and Imam, citing their distinct status in the case. ASG Raju defended the January decision during Friday’s hearing, expressing concern over the more recent Andrabi case judgment by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan, advocating for a case-by-case evaluation of UAPA bail petitions based on the severity of the alleged offenses.
The Court acknowledged Raju’s argument, noting that the Gulfisha Fatima case did not disregard the KA Najeeb ruling but rather rejected an automatic application of delay as a sole ground for bail. The Court emphasized that another Division Bench in the Andrabi case had expressed reservations about the Gulfisha judgment, highlighting that one Bench cannot overturn the decisions of another Bench of equal standing.
Concluding the session, the Court deemed it imperative to have a larger Bench resolve the issue to prevent legal uncertainties. “We deem it our duty to present the conflict before a larger Bench. The matter cannot be left to uncertain application by courts. The question is not whether Article 21 survives Section 43 of UAPA but how it is to be applied as a statutory measure where restrictions on bail have been legislated by Parliament,” the Court declared.
