Delhi Police suggest larger Supreme Court Bench to review UAPA bail restrictions

📌 Summary:

• The Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on May 19, 2026 that the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override statutory bail restrictions under anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 may warrant consideration by a larger Bench, citing two "conflicting" coordinate-Bench judgments

• The submission came during the hearing of bail pleas of 2020 Delhi riots accused Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, challenging a September 2, 2025 Delhi High Court order denying them bail

• A May 18, 2026 judgment by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" even in UAPA prosecutions, while granting bail in an NIA narco-terror case

• That judgment voiced "serious reservations" about the January 5, 2026 verdict denying bail to JNU scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, including the foreclosure of their right to seek bail for a year

• Conflicting legal positions (causal chain): The Additional Solicitor General argued that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA — a "mandatory presumption" using the word "shall" — the presumption of innocence "takes a backseat"; the May 18 Bench held that the January 5 verdict failed to apply the binding three-judge Bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that prolonged incarceration and trial delay can override Section 43D(5) restrictions

• Justice Bhuyan stressed that "bail is the rule" is not an empty slogan but a constitutional principle flowing from the rights to life, speedy trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest, and warned against verdicts "hollowing out" larger-Bench rulings such as K.A. Najeeb

• The Delhi High Court had earlier held that, except in cases of palpable violation of fundamental rights, bail cannot be granted on the sole ground of long incarceration or trial delay

• The Supreme Court posted the matter for hearing on May 20 to consider the interim bail pleas

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (judiciary, judicial process, fundamental rights versus anti-terror law) — examines the tension between personal liberty under Article 21 and statutory bail bars in the UAPA.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• UAPA = Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) imposes a stringent bail bar
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021): a three-judge Bench held prolonged incarceration / trial delay can override Section 43D(5) bail restrictions
• A "coordinate Bench" is a Bench of equal strength; conflicting coordinate-Bench rulings are typically referred to a larger Bench
• "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is a long-standing principle of criminal jurisprudence

🔑 Key Term: Section 43D(5), UAPA — a provision that bars bail if the court, on a prima facie reading of the case diary or chargesheet, believes the accusation is true; courts have read it down where trial is unduly delayed.