Laws laid down by larger Benches binding, cannot be ‘diluted, circumvented or disregarded’ by Benches of smaller strength: SC

Holding that bail remains the rule and jail the exception even in cases under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong reservations over its January 5, 2026 judgment denying bail to Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, observing that the view taken therein appeared contrary to the law laid down by a three-judge Bench in the February 1, 2021 judgment in K.A. Najeeb case.

The 2021 Najeeb judgment had held that where an accused has undergone prolonged incarceration and there is little likelihood of an early conclusion of trial, constitutional courts are obliged to consider grant of bail notwithstanding the rigours of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

Advertisement

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while deciding the bail plea of one Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, reiterated that the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is not a mere statutory slogan flowing from the Code of Criminal Procedure, but a constitutional principle rooted in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Bhuyan observed, “we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAP Act, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’; of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case.”

The judgment further stated, “It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. Statutes may undoubtedly calibrate the manner in which that principle is applied, particularly in cases involving national security or terrorist offences for which the UAP Act is meant, but those cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention.”

Before dealing with Andrabi’s plea for bail, the Bench expressed reservations over the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima, observing that it appeared to narrow the scope of the Najeeb ruling. The Court said the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima gave an impression that Najeeb was only a limited exception to Section 43-D(5), whereas the real concern in Najeeb was the prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners and delays in completion of trial.

The Court clarified that Najeeb did not hold that mere passage of time automatically entitles an accused to bail. Rather, it recognised that the rigours of Section 43-D(5) would “melt down” where there is no likelihood of trial concluding within a reasonable time and the accused has already spent a substantial period in custody.

Stating that “We do not want to join issue any further with the two-Judge Bench … this Court has categorically held that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the offence. Ideally, more serious the accusations are, the speedier the trial should be.”

On February 1, 2021, Najeeb judgment was given by a bench of then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant (Present CJI) and Justice Aniruddha Boser (since retired). This judgment was authored by Justice Surya Kant,

Underlining the binding nature of larger Bench decisions, the Court said Najeeb continues to be binding law protected by the doctrine of stare decisis and “cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts or even by Benches of lower strength of this Court.”

The Bench noted that while Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh were decisions by two-judge Benches, K.A. Najeeb was rendered by a three-judge Bench. Stressing judicial discipline, the Court observed that Benches of smaller strength are bound by the law declared by larger Benches and, if smaller benches are unable to agree, the proper course is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench.

The observations were made while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Handwara in Jammu and Kashmir, who was arrested by the NIA in June 2020 on allegations of being part of a cross-border narcotics and terror-financing syndicate linked to organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.

Andrabi, who faces charges under the NDPS Act, the UAPA and the IPC, had remained in custody for nearly five years after both the Special NIA Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejected his bail pleas, citing the gravity of the allegations and the early stage of the trial.

While granting bail to Andrabi, the Court also referred to the low conviction rates in UAPA cases, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Referring to NCRB data from 2019 to 2023, the Court noted that the all-India conviction rate in such cases ranged between 1.5 and 4 per cent, while in Jammu and Kashmir it remained below 1 per cent, indicating an overwhelmingly high possibility of acquittal after prolonged incarceration. Andrabi was granted bail subject to conditions including regular appearance before thepoliccooperation with the investigation and surrender of his passport.