- By Aditya Jha
- Mon, 18 May 2026 02:37 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
The Supreme Court, while expressing reservations about its verdict denying bail to former JNU students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case, asserted that bail is the rule and jail is the exception even in the serious cases under the UAPA. The apex court highlighted that the constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be defeated merely because an accused has been charged under the serious laws.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that the denial of bail to Khalid and Imam appeared to dilute the precedent laid down in the landmark Union of India vs KA Najeeb case, pointing out that bail is the rule and jail is the exception even under the UAPA.
ALSO READ: PM Modi Arrives In Norway On Historic Visit; First By An Indian Prime Minister In 43 Years
"The statutory embargo of Section 43D(5) UAPA must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception," the bench held.
The bench also pointed out that the smaller benches, on numerous occasions, have been weakening the large bench rulings. "A decision made by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such binding precedent must either be followed in full, or in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench," the top court observed.
The bench made these observations while allowing the bail plea of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been under custody under UAPA. The apex court stated that prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial cannot be justified under the UAPA. It also pointed out that the trial should be speedy in the cases of serious cases, adding that the bail cannot be avoided even in the serious cases.