On Friday, the Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the growing judicial conflict surrounding bail principles in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPAP’), while examining questions raised over earlier rulings denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, setting the stage for an authoritative ruling on how the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is to be balanced against the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The controversy emerged during the hearing of interim bail pleas filed by Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who were granted interim bail for six months by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale. During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju urged the Court to reconsider a recent ruling, where another Bench had observed that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” even in UAPA matters. That Bench had also questioned the correctness of the earlier judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.A. Najeeb as recognising prolonged incarceration as a ground for bail despite statutory restrictions under UAPA. Opposing such an interpretation, the ASG argued that bail in UAPA cases must depend on the gravity of allegations in each individual case and cannot be governed by a blanket application of liberal bail principles.
The Bench observed that a coordinate Bench cannot effectively unsettle the reasoning of another Bench of equal strength merely by expressing reservations in a later judgment. Emphasising the need for judicial consistency, the Court remarked, “A coordinate bench cannot make strong observations and effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier bench while sitting in equal strength.”
The Court further clarified that the real issue was not whether Article 21 of the Constitution survives Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, but “how it is to be applied in a statutory way where the parliament has placed restrictions on bail.” Holding that the legal position required authoritative settlement, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate larger Bench to resolve the conflict in interpretation surrounding K.A. Najeeb and subsequent UAPA bail rulings.
Source PTI
Picture Source :