Supreme Court to Reassess Bail Principles in UAPA Cases Amidst Controversy

The Supreme Court is currently grappling with the issue of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), particularly in light of conflicting decisions from different benches. This raises a critical question: should the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" apply to terrorism-related cases? The central government has strongly urged that this matter be referred to a larger bench for further deliberation. The bench, comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and P.B. Varale, is hearing bail petitions from accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. During the proceedings, the court reserved its decision not only on the bail applications but also on whether the entire issue should be escalated to a larger bench, with a ruling expected later or on May 25.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, argued that bail decisions should be based on the specific facts of each case. He cautioned that if prolonged detention were the sole criterion, it could lead to granting bail even in serious terrorism cases. He illustrated this point by referencing Ajmal Kasab, the perpetrator of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, questioning whether he would have been granted bail had he remained in custody for an extended period due to trial delays. Similarly, he cited Hafiz Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, suggesting that if evidence collection from abroad took time, would mere years in jail justify his release?

Raju further emphasized that recent judgments have not adequately considered the nature of the crime and the accused's role. He reminded the court that the Delhi riots resulted in 53 fatalities, asserting that a standard criminal approach cannot be applied to such cases. He urged the court to evaluate the severity of each case, the accused's involvement, the status of the trial, and the reasons for any delays.

The controversy intensified following a ruling on May 18, where a bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuiyan granted bail to accused Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a UAPA case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), disagreeing with previous judgments from two other benches. The court stated that the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" stems from Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, which uphold the presumption of innocence in any civilized society.

This ruling questioned earlier decisions in the Gurvinder Singh case from February 2024 and the Gulfiya Fatima case from January 2026. The Gurvinder Singh case, linked to separatist activities, indicated that if charges appear credible at first glance, bail could be an exception, with jail considered the norm. Conversely, in the Gulfiya Fatima case, the court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy but denied relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing their more significant involvement in the conspiracy.

In the Gulfiya Fatima ruling, the court also noted that merely being in jail for an extended period does not automatically entitle one to bail, especially in terrorism-related cases. However, the May 18 ruling clarified that previous judgments should not be used to justify indefinite detention under UAPA.

Additionally, the debate centers around the 2021 Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb case, where a three-judge bench stated that bail could be granted even under stringent laws like UAPA if the right to a speedy trial is compromised. This case involved a professor accused in a high-profile incident from 2015.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court faces a significant challenge: how to balance individual liberties with public safety in cases related to terrorism and national security. The central government argues that granting bail based solely on trial delays is inappropriate, while some court decisions suggest that indefinite detention contradicts constitutional principles. The forthcoming decision from the larger bench is anticipated to set a crucial precedent for bail in UAPA cases.