Delhi Police Questions SC on UAPA Bail Amid Trial Delay Debate

In a significant development reflecting a crucial judicial debate in India, the Delhi Police recently urged the Supreme Court to refer to a larger bench the issue of granting bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on the grounds of prolonged trial delays. The submission, made through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, came during the hearing of bail pleas by Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who are accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case and charged under UAPA. The Delhi Police dramatically illustrated its concerns by posing a hypothetical question: whether individuals like Ajmal Kasab (the executed Mumbai terror attack convict) or Hafiz Saeed (the Pakistan-based alleged mastermind) could be granted bail solely due to trial delays, regardless of the gravity of their alleged crimes. This rhetorical use of high-profile names underscored the police's apprehension that a broad interpretation of bail on delay could undermine national security cases. This argument directly follows recent pronouncements by different benches of the Supreme Court, which have presented what the Delhi Police perceives as conflicting views on bail jurisprudence, particularly concerning stringent laws like UAPA. A two-judge bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in the recent *Syed Ifthikar Andrabi* judgment (May 18, 2026), emphatically reiterated the constitutional principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" even in UAPA cases. This bench stressed that prolonged incarceration and an unlikely prospect of a timely trial can serve as a ground for granting bail, drawing upon the precedent set by the three-judge bench in *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb* (2021). The *Andrabi* judgment also expressed "serious reservations" about earlier rulings by co-equal benches, such as the *Gulfisha Fatima* case (January 2026), which had denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, and *Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab* (2024), for allegedly adopting a narrower view of the *K.A. Najeeb* precedent. During the hearings for Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, the Supreme Court, while reserving orders on the Delhi Police's plea for a larger bench reference, indicated a prima facie inclination to grant interim bail to the accused. Significantly, ASG S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, did not object to the grant of interim bail for Ahmed and Saifi, who have been in custody since 2020. The counsel for Saifi, Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, argued for parity, noting that co-accused like Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita have already been granted bail. The Delhi Police's argument underscores a fundamental tension in Indian criminal jurisprudence: balancing the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial (enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution) against the stringent provisions of anti-terror laws like UAPA, which impose difficult conditions for bail if a prima facie case is established. The police contend that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA necessitates that the presumption of innocence takes a "backseat" if accusations appear prima facie true, making bail restrictions mandatory. However, the *Andrabi* ruling and the *K.A. Najeeb* precedent affirm that constitutional courts can override these statutory restrictions when prolonged incarceration, without a realistic prospect of trial conclusion, violates fundamental rights. This ongoing legal tussle has broad implications for countless undertrials, especially those accused under UAPA, who face lengthy periods of pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision on referring the matter to a larger bench will be critical in clarifying the legal position and ensuring consistency in bail jurisprudence across the country. The fact that the debate is occurring within the highest court, with different benches expressing differing interpretations of established precedents, highlights the complexity and importance of this constitutional question. In a related development, activist Umar Khalid, also accused in the Delhi riots case, was recently granted three days of interim bail by the Delhi High Court to attend to his ailing mother who was undergoing surgery. This further demonstrates the judicial system's consideration of humanitarian grounds, even for individuals facing serious charges under anti-terror laws, while the broader debate on bail for trial delays continues to evolve at the Supreme Court level.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest