A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale passed the reference order while granting interim bail for six months to two other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case — Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
Image: IANS
The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a larger Bench the issue arising from its January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, after questions were raised over whether the decision was contrary to the law laid down by a three-judge Bench in the 2021 K.A. Najeeb judgment governing grant of bail in UAPA cases.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale passed the reference order while granting interim bail for six months to two other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case — Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
Advertisement
The Court directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench to clarify the legal position, particularly regarding the interpretation and application of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail.
Advertisement
The development came days after another two-judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi on May 18, had expressed reservations over the correctness of the January 5, 2026 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The May 18 judgment had observed that the January 2026 ruling appeared inconsistent with the principles laid down by the three-judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb judgment, which held that prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial could justify grant of bail even under the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
During Friday’s hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju urged the Court to reconsider the recent observations extending the “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” principle to UAPA cases. He argued that bail pleas under the anti-terror law must be assessed on the specific facts and gravity of each case and that stringent statutory restrictions under the UAPA did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench noted that while the January 2026 judgment had not disregarded the K.A. Najeeb ruling, the later observations made in the Andrabi case had questioned its reasoning. The Court observed that a Bench of equal strength could not effectively unsettle the reasoning of another coordinate Bench and such differences required authoritative resolution by a larger Bench.
While making the reference, the Court clarified that nothing in its order was intended to dilute the authority of the 2021 K.A. Najeeb judgment.
The Delhi riots conspiracy case pertains to the communal violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, in which over 50 people were killed.
Advertisement
