Umar Khalid could have been granted bail: SC doubts its own order, says bail is rule under UAPA

Supreme Court notes that a smaller bench diluted binding precedent when it barred Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from seeking bail for a year.

In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India on Monday stated that the principal of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” holds ground even under stringent anti-terror laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

While hearing a separate narco-terrorism case, a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious reservations about an earlier apex court ruling that had denied bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

Bench Questions Previous Umar Khalid Order

The apex court observed that the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be secondary to statutory restrictions. The bench pointed out that the landmark 2021 judgment in the K.A. Najeeb case established that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases if an individual's fundamental rights are being violated by prolonged incarceration.

However, the judges noted that this binding precedent was seemingly diluted or "hollowed out" by a smaller bench on January 5 this year, which not only rejected the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam but went as far as barring them from filing any fresh bail applications for a period of one year.

Judicial Discipline Binding on Smaller Benches

"Judicial discipline and certainty demand that benches of smaller strength are mindful of the decisions rendered by larger benches and are bound to follow the same," the court remarked during the dictate.

The top court clarified that the K.A. Najeeb ruling is a settled law and must not be circumvented, bypassed, or weakened indirectly by lower courts or co-ordinate benches of lesser strength. Legal experts at the Tilak Marg court complex noted that today's spoken observations could open up immediate remedial pathways for multiple political prisoners currently lodged in Tihar Jail.

Low Conviction Rates Highlighted by Apex Court

To substantiate its stance on why indefinite pre-trial detention is unconstitutional, the bench cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data recently presented before the Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.

According to official records, the nationwide conviction rate under UAPA fluctuates strictly between a low 1.5% and 4%.

The bench noted that in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, the conviction rate is below 1%. Statistically, this translates to an overwhelming 96% to 99% probability of final acquittal, making prolonged imprisonment without a concluded trial a severe violation of the presumption of innocence.

Context of the Current Narco-Terror Hearing

These significant constitutional observations were made while the top court was granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Handwara in Kupwara district. Andrabi was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in June 2020 on allegations of operating a cross-border drug syndicate to fund terror operations.

He had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh refused him relief. Pointing out that Andrabi had already spent nearly six years in custody as an undertrial with over 320 witnesses yet to be examined, the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail, directing him to surrender his passport and mark his presence at the local police station fortnightly.

The Long Walk for Delhi Riots Accused

The observations come as a significant talking point for the defense teams of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, all of whom have been incarcerated for over five years in connection with the February 2020 northeast Delhi communal violence.

The violence had claimed 53 lives and left more than 250 injured. Khalid alone has moved the courts six times across different levels of the judiciary without securing relief. While the formal restriction on his bail application remains active from the January order, today's Supreme Court declaration heavily signals a shifting judicial approach toward long-term UAPA detentions.