Supreme Court Reaffirms Bail Principle In UAPA Cases While Reviewing Umar Khalid Order

The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while raising concerns over its own earlier judgment that had denied bail to former JNU student leaders Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the earlier verdict appeared to dilute binding precedent laid down by a larger bench in the landmark case of Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb. The court stressed that lower benches, or co-equal benches, cannot override or bypass principles established by a larger bench decision.

During the hearing, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that judicial authorities “cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard binding precedent,” pointing out that the earlier bench had not adequately followed the legal principles set out in the K.A. Najeeb judgment. The court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial can justify bail, even under special statutes like UAPA.

Also Read: President Murmu Approves Supreme Court Expansion to 38 Judges to Expedite Justice Delivery

The observations were made while the court granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident who had been in custody since June 2020 in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The bench used the occasion to revisit broader concerns around delays in trials and undertrial incarceration in serious offences.

The judges also referred to the earlier verdict in the Delhi riots conspiracy-linked case involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs State appeared to deviate from established principles on bail jurisprudence, particularly the balancing of individual liberty against the gravity of allegations under special laws.

The court’s remarks are expected to reignite debate around bail standards in UAPA cases, especially regarding prolonged detention without trial. Legal observers note that the reaffirmation of the “bail is the rule” doctrine signals continued judicial scrutiny over the application of stringent anti-terror laws and their impact on personal liberty.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Video-Conferencing For Miscellaneous Day Hearings