Supreme Court Refers UAPA Bail Law Conflict To Larger Bench, Grants Interim Bail To Tasleem Ahmed And Khalid Saifi

May 22, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a larger Bench the important question relating to the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), seeking to settle the apparent divergence in judicial opinion over the application of the landmark judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb concerning prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

At the same time, a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale granted interim bail for six months to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 Delhi riots. The relief was made subject to stringent conditions, including a bar on interacting with the media or making any public statements regarding the proceedings.

The issue arose while the Court was hearing the bail pleas filed by Ahmed and Saifi. During the proceedings, the Bench examined the impact of the recent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency delivered earlier this week by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

In Andrabi, the Court had expressed reservations about earlier decisions in Gulfisha Fatima v. State and Gurwinder Singh v. State, both authored by Justice Aravind Kumar. The Andrabi judgment observed that those rulings appeared to adopt a comparatively restrictive approach to bail under the UAPA and could be inconsistent with the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb.

However, the Bench led by Justice Kumar clarified in its reference order that K.A. Najeeb did not prescribe a rigid or mechanical rule mandating bail solely because of delay in trial. The Court observed that the Gulfisha Fatima judgment had interpreted K.A. Najeeb as embodying a constitutional safeguard requiring a nuanced and individualised assessment of the role attributed to each accused rather than creating an automatic entitlement to bail based only on prolonged detention.

The Bench pointed out that in Gulfisha Fatima, bail had been granted to five accused persons while being denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam after a detailed consideration of their respective roles. It further noted that Ahmed and Saifi themselves had relied upon the Gulfisha Fatima ruling to support their present pleas, indicating that the judgment did not dilute the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb.

Justice Kumar observed that differences of opinion between coordinate Benches were part of the normal evolution of jurisprudence. At the same time, he stressed that judicial discipline required such disagreements to be resolved through a formal reference to a larger Bench rather than through critical observations by coordinate Benches on judgments rendered by benches of equal strength.

The Court emphasised that institutional stability and judicial integrity depend upon adherence to settled principles of precedent and hierarchy. It held that where a coordinate Bench doubts another coordinate Bench’s interpretation of a binding larger Bench decision, the proper course would be to refer the issue to the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.

The Bench also cautioned against adopting extreme positions while considering bail under anti-terror laws. It observed that treating prolonged incarceration alone as an automatic ground for bail in serious offences affecting national security could weaken legitimate security concerns. Conversely, it warned that a rigid and mechanical application of the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, without adequate regard to constitutional protections under Article 21, could result in serious violations of personal liberty.

Holding that authoritative clarification was necessary to maintain consistency and doctrinal coherence in the application of K.A. Najeeb, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench to settle the law governing bail under the UAPA.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that the Andrabi ruling did not correctly state the law governing bail under statutes imposing stringent twin conditions for release. He contended that prolonged incarceration by itself could not be a sufficient ground for grant of bail under the UAPA.

In Andrabi, however, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had reiterated that the principle of “bail is the rule” continues to apply even in UAPA cases and stressed that benches of equal or lesser strength remain bound by decisions of larger Benches unless the issue is formally referred for reconsideration.