Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh has strongly criticised recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing the scope of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), while making a striking remark about the Delhi riots larger conspiracy and Bhima Koregaon prosecutions.
"Let me say this loud and clear. I don't believe any judge of the Supreme Court of India, hand on heart, does not know what is the reality in the Bhima Koregaon and Delhi riots cases. I don't believe that any judge believes in their heart that there is even an iota of truth in the charges. You can put a gloss on things that there are very serious allegations. They are allegations. Every judge knows that these allegations are hollow and that they will crash to the ground and burn," Singh said in a recent interview with LiveLaw.
The remarks came during a discussion on what Singh described as inconsistencies in the Supreme Court's bail jurisprudence under special statutes such as the UAPA.
Singh pointed out that the Supreme Court's three-judge Bench judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb settled the legal position that constitutional courts can grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions where prolonged incarceration and delays in trial result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
He noted that the principles laid down in Najeeb were subsequently followed in more than 20 decisions, including cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). However, he described the 2024 judgment in Gurwinder Singh as a departure from that settled position.
In Gurwinder Singh, a Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar held that under the UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail is an exception" and that delay in trial alone cannot justify the grant of bail in serious offences.
Singh argued that the position adopted in Gurwinder Singh was later reinforced by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria in Gulfisha Fatima.
"There were only two judgments where a contrary view was taken. The first one was Gurwinder Singh. In Gurwinder Singh, they distinguished Najeeb for the first time. That again has been followed in the case of Gulfisha Fatima, which, in my submission, ignored the larger number of judgments which said that the seriousness of charge is irrelevant if you are not able to complete the trial expeditiously. Then Article 21 gets violated. The seriousness of the charge or the wording of the law becomes completely irrelevant," Singh said.
The senior counsel pointed out that several later judgments reaffirmed the binding nature of Najeeb. Referring to the decision in Sheikh Javed Iqbal, Singh said the Supreme Court had made it clear that when a trial is substantially delayed, it is not open to the State to oppose bail merely by citing the gravity of allegations.
He also referred to the recent judgment in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bh