Overview
The Supreme Court on June 17, 2026 issued a notice on the bail pleas of two men who have been in jail for more than twelve years. Both are accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The order sets new deadlines for the counter affidavit and schedules a hearing in July.
Key Developments
- A two‑judge bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. M. Panchali directed the Delhi Police to file its counter affidavit by July 20, 2026.
- The matter is listed for a hearing on July 28, 2026.
- The petitioners, Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, were arrested in March 2014 and charged with alleged membership of the banned Indian Mujahideen under Sections 18, 18A, 19 and 20 of the UAPA.
- The Delhi High Court had denied bail on April 24, 2026. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that order.
- The prosecution has listed roughly 600 witnesses, indicating a protracted trial.
Important Facts
The case is recorded as MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI v. STATE | SLP (Crl) 11369/2026. Both accused have spent over twelve years in custody, making this one of the longest pre‑trial detentions under the UAPA. The Supreme Court’s notice does not grant bail; it merely asks the police to respond to the petitioners’ arguments.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this case helps aspirants in several ways:
- It illustrates the functioning of the Supreme Court in supervising lower courts and ensuring procedural fairness.
- The UAPA is a key piece of anti‑terror legislation often asked in GS2 questions on internal security and legal reforms.
- The role of the Delhi Police in filing a counter affidavit shows procedural aspects of criminal law.
- The concept of bail under stringent statutes like the UAPA is a frequent topic in jurisprudence and criminal justice sections.
- The involvement of a banned terrorist outfit, the Indian Mujahideen, highlights the challenges of counter‑terrorism and the balance between security and individual rights.
Way Forward
While the Supreme Court has not yet decided on bail, the notice signals that the petitioners will get an opportunity to present their case. The large number of witnesses suggests a lengthy trial, raising concerns about prolonged pre‑trial detention. For policymakers, the case underscores the need to review bail provisions under the UAPA to prevent excessive incarceration without trial. Aspirants should monitor the July 28 hearing for any direction that could influence future jurisprudence on terrorism‑related offences and bail jurisprudence.