Overview
The Supreme Court was told orally that the question of granting bail under the UAPA may need a larger bench. The request came after two‑judge benches delivered apparently opposite rulings on the legal standard for bail in terrorism cases.
Key Developments
- Additional Solicitor General SV Raju asked the bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale to defer the matter for a day so that he could study the recent Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA judgment.
- The Andrabi judgment, delivered by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, reaffirmed that bail is the rule even in UAPA cases and criticised earlier narrow interpretations.
- The bench highlighted that earlier decisions by Justice Aravind Kumar in the Khalid and Gurwinder Singh cases seemed to ignore the three‑judge precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which allows bail when prolonged incarceration is likely.
- Justice Bhuyan warned that a decision of a smaller bench must follow the ratio of a larger bench, or the issue should be referred to a larger bench for authoritative clarification.
- Despite the strict Section 43D(5), the ASG did not oppose interim bail for the petitioners.
Important Facts
1. The petitioners are Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Both have spent over five years in custody.
2. Ahmed faces charges under multiple sections of the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code, the