Delhi Police suggests larger bench of Supreme Court to review UAPA bail restrictions

The submission was made before the bench of Aravind Kumar and PB Varale during the hearing of the 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 imprisonment and delays in court proceedings can override statutory bail restrictions under anti-terrorism laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, may require consideration by a larger bench in view of two “conflicting” judgments that have been handed down.

Oral submissions were made before the court by Aravind Kumar and PB Varale during the hearing of bail applications filed by 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order denying them bail.

Referring to the judgment delivered a day earlier by the bench of BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which strongly stated that “bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception” even in prosecutions under the UAPA, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the Delhi Police, said the judgment may not have laid down the correct legal position.

“…If there is a legal presumption as contained in Section 43D(5) of the ZÚAPA, which is a mandatory presumption, and the word used is ‘shall’, then the presumption of innocence of the accused gives way…that aspect has been lost,” he said.

‘Contradictory Decisions’

During the hearing, Justice Kumar asked Mr. Raj whether his position was that the coordination bench had committed an error. “You say the coordination bench made a mistake,” asked the judge.

“That will be my suggestion if I have read the judgment. I have not read the judgment as I have not had time,” replied Mr. Raju.

He further said that while he was not opposed to granting bail to the two accused, the broader question of law required consideration by a larger bench in light of “contradictory” decisions.

“My Lords may consider bail, I am not opposed to that … but the matter requires the consideration of the larger bench in view of the two conflicting judgments,” he added.

The judgment of a Bench headed by Justice Nagarathna was delivered on 18 May 2026 while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terrorism case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency. In its ruling, the Bench expressed “serious reservations” over 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 barring their right to seek bail for a year.

The Bench pointed out that the January 5, 2026 verdict did not correctly apply the binding principles laid down by the larger three-judge Bench in Union of India v. KA Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged imprisonment and delay in trial can override statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA.

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the submission and posted the matter for hearing on May 20 to consider the bail applications.

‘bail is the rule’

Justice Bhuyan, who authored the May 18, 2026 judgment, observed that the phrase “bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception” is not just 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 dismay at some of the verdicts “emptying” larger judicial decisions such as KA Najeeb, which upheld personal freedom against state excesses.

The Delhi High Court on 2 September 2025 rejected the bail applications, saying that “delay in the process” could not be the only ground for consideration. He said that except in cases of appreciable violation of fundamental rights or violation of constitutional rights, bail cannot be granted only because of long imprisonment or delay in trial.

Delhi police say the riots were orchestrated to effect “regime change” and were deliberately timed around then US President Donald Trump’s visit in February 2020 to portray India in a bad light globally.

Published – 19 May 2026 16:33 IST