The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail for 6 months to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi who are accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, while referring important questions concerning the grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to a larger bench for authoritative clarification.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale noted that different coordinate benches of the Supreme Court had interpreted the landmark judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, differently, particularly in relation to prolonged incarceration and the rigours of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju urged the Court to refer the issue, arguing that subsequent judgments had created uncertainty regarding how K.A. Najeeb should be applied in UAPA bail cases. The Court observed that K.A. Najeeb remains an authoritative pronouncement and cannot be diluted through inconsistent readings by coordinate benches.
The Bench remarked Najeeb is an authoritative pronouncement of this Court. At the same time, the Court clarified that the judgment does not completely override the legislative restrictions imposed under Section 43D(5) UAPA. The Court observed:
“KA Najeeb does not per se oust the power to grant bail under 43D(5). Courts are expected to follow legislative policy while granting bail, especially when the period of incarceration has exceeded a substantial part.”
Referring to the earlier decision in Gulfisha Fatima, the Bench explained that the judgment recognised the right to speedy trial under Article 21 as a constitutional safeguard against prolonged incarceration, but did not endorse a mechanical grant of bail solely on the basis of delay.
The Bench further clarified that Gulfisha Fatima involved accused-specific evaluation based on individual roles and prima facie material, while still treating Article 21 as a continuing constitutional check against excessive detention. However, the Court noted that a later judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu, SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026 had expressed reservations regarding aspects of Gulfisha Fatima, leading to uncertainty in the law.
Read at- Bail Is the Rule Even Under UAPA Cases; SC Grants Bail to Kashmiri Accused in NIA Narco-Terror Case https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-bail-rule-uapa-narco-terror-case/
The Bench remarked:
“A coordinate bench cannot make strong observations and effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier bench while sitting in equal strength..A bench of equal strength cannot achieve by language of reservation what it cannot achieve by declaration of law.”
Holding that the conflict required authoritative resolution, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench to clarify the correct interpretation and application of K.A. Najeeb, particularly in the context of Section 43D(5) UAPA.
Clarifying the larger constitutional issue involved, the Bench remarked: “The question therefore is not whether Article 21 survives 43D(5). The true question is how it is to be applied in a statutory scheme where Parliament has placed restrictions on bail.”
Pending consideration by the larger bench, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi.
Appearance
For Tasleem Ahmed in SLP (Crl.) No. 2867/2026: Mehmood Pracha, Adv, R. H. A. Sikander, AOR, Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Sikander Raza, Nujhat Naseem, Kumail Abbas, Chirag Verma, Advocates