The Hindu
Delhi Police suggest larger Supreme Court Bench to review UAPA bail restrictions
Delhi Police suggest larger Supreme Court Bench to review UAPA bail restrictions Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju said the apex court’s May 18 ruling overlooked that under the UAPA’s statutory bail bar, the presumption of innocence takes a…
Delhi Police suggest larger Supreme Court Bench to review UAPA bail restrictions
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju said the apex court’s May 18 ruling overlooked that under the UAPA’s statutory bail bar, the presumption of innocence takes a ‘backseat’
Updated – May 20, 2026 12:11 am IST – NEW DELHI
The submission was made before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale during the hearing of a bail plea filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Delhi Police on Tuesday (May 19, 2026) told the Supreme Court that the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override the statutory restrictions on bail under anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, may warrant consideration by a larger Bench in view of two “conflicting” judgments rendered by coordinate Benches.
The oral submission was made before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale during the hearing of bail pleas filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, challenging the September 2, 2025, order of the Delhi High Court denying them bail.
Bail is the rule is not an empty slogan, even in UAPA and ‘terror’ cases: Supreme Court
Referring to a judgment delivered a day earlier by a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which emphatically held that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even in prosecutions under the UAPA, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that the ruling may not have laid down the correct position in law.
“…When there is a presumption in law, as contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which is a mandatory presumption, and the word used is ‘shall’, then the presumption of innocence of the accused takes a backseat…that aspect has been lost,” he said.
‘Conflicting rulings’
During the hearing, Justice Kumar asked Mr. Raju whether his position was that the coordinate Bench had committed an error. “You are saying that the coordinate Bench has committed an error,” the judge asked.
“That is going to be my submission, provided I read the judgment. I have not read the judgment because I did not have time,” Mr. Raju responded.
He further submitted that while he was not opposing interim bail for the two accused, the broader legal issue required consideration by a larger Bench in light of the “conflicting” rulings.
“My Lords may consider interim bail, I am not opposing that… but the issue requires consideration by a larger Bench in view of the two conflicting judgments,” he added.
The judgment by the Bench headed by Justice Nagarathna was delivered on May 18, 2026 while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. In its ruling, the Bench had voiced “serious reservations” about the January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, including the foreclosure of their right to seek bail for a year.
The Bench underscored that the January 5, 2026 verdict had failed to correctly apply the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge Bench in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Taking note of the submissions, the top court posted the matter for hearing on May 20 to consider the interim bail pleas.
‘Bail is the rule’
Justice Bhuyan, who authored the May 18, 2026 judgment, had observed that the phrase “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” was not merely an empty slogan but a constitutional principle flowing from the fundamental rights to life, speedy trial, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. He also expressed concern over certain verdicts “hollowing out” larger Bench rulings such as K.A. Najeeb, which championed personal liberty against state excess.
The Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025, had dismissed the bail pleas, saying “delay in trial” cannot be the sole ground for consideration. It had said that except in cases of palpable violation of fundamental rights or breach of constitutional rights, bail cannot be granted on the sole factor of long incarceration or delay in trial.
The Delhi Police have alleged that the riots were orchestrated to effect a “regime change” and were deliberately timed around the February 2020 visit of then U.S. President Donald Trump to portray India in a poor light globally.
Published – May 19, 2026 04:33 pm IST
Related Topics
Source & Attribution
This article was generated from an imported news source and rewritten for clarity and readability. View original source
[anap_related_posts]
Prateek Tanmay