In a significant ruling with wide implications for bail under anti-terror laws, the Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty cannot be overshadowed by statutory restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who had spent nearly five to six years in custody in a Jammu & Kashmir narco-terror case despite no direct recovery of contraband from him. The court said the case raised an important constitutional question on how Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes strict conditions on bail, must be balanced against the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The court unequivocally held that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” continues to apply even in UAPA cases. It clarified that statutory restrictions cannot override constitutional protections and that courts must not treat denial of bail as automatic merely because stringent provisions are invoked. The bench underscored that the presumption of innocence remains a foundational principle and that prolonged incarceration without trial cannot be justified solely on the basis of the charges.
SC questions Umar Khalid ruling
In a significant development, the court expressed reservations about its own earlier decision denying bail to Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Khalid, a former JNU student leader, has been in custody since September 2020. His bail plea was rejected in January 2026, and a review petition was dismissed in April.
The bench noted that the earlier ruling failed to properly apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on prolonged pre-trial detention.
It said it found the approach adopted in Khalid’s case difficult to accept, indicating a possible shift in the court’s approach to such cases.
K.A. Najeeb precedent reaffirmed
The court strongly reaffirmed the binding nature of its 2021 judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which held that prolonged delay in trial can be a ground for granting bail even under UAPA.
also read
- CJI Surya Kant clarifies 'cockroaches' remark in SC after backlash: 'I am pained...'
- 'Cockroaches' attacking system: Why CJI Surya Kant lashed out at lawyer filing contempt plea
- Will actor Darshan get bail? Kannada actor tells SC he is threatened by jail inmates
- West Bengal: Supreme Court opens door for fresh pleas on voter roll deletions
The bench said the ruling was aimed at preventing pre-trial incarceration from turning into punishment and remains good law protected by the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by things decided").
It added that this precedent was not properly applied while rejecting bail in recent cases, including that of Umar Khalid.
The judgment also contains strong observations on judicial discipline. The court said smaller benches cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard binding rulings of larger benches.
“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength,” Justice Bhuyan noted, adding that doubts must be referred to a larger bench instead of deviating from precedent.
The court specifically flagged divergence in rulings such as Gurvinder Singh v. State, where a stricter interpretation of bail provisions was adopted.
Warning against ‘pre-trial punishment’
The bench cautioned against adopting approaches that effectively convert pre-trial detention into punishment.
It criticised the two-prong test used in some rulings, under which bail could be denied if the case appeared prima facie true. The court warned that such a standard could allow the State to keep an accused in custody for years without trial.
“If this test is accepted, pre-trial incarceration begins to acquire a post-trial punitive character,” the court observed.
Reinforcing constitutional principles, the court held that the embargo under Section 43D(5) must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22.
It made clear that national security laws may regulate bail, but cannot invert the balance between liberty and detention.
The judgment reiterates that courts must consider factors such as delay in trial, length of custody, and nature of evidence, rather than relying solely on statutory restrictions.
Wider implications
The ruling is expected to impact several pending UAPA cases, particularly those arising from the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy investigation, where multiple accused have spent years in custody awaiting trial.
By reasserting the primacy of liberty and cautioning against judicial inconsistency, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message, even in the most serious cases, constitutional protections cannot be diluted.
