The bail rule: On liberty and the Andrabi ruling

📌 Summary:

• Context: On May 18, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu, the Supreme Court restated that bail should be the rule even in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), granting bail to Andrabi after over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody

• Core argument: The right to personal liberty and a speedy trial cannot be made subservient to UAPA's Section 43-D(5); the idea of justice should never allow indefinite imprisonment without trial

• Why Section 43-D(5) is the problem (causal chain): the provision makes bail near-impossible once a court is satisfied, on the prosecution's material, that a prima facie case exists -> undertrials remain jailed for years -> when there is no realistic prospect of the trial concluding, prolonged incarceration violates personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial

• The governing precedent: in K.A. Najeeb (2021), a three-judge Bench held that the "rigours" of Section 43-D(5) would "melt down" where there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and the incarceration already undergone is substantial

• The dilution problem: two two-judge Benches — Gurwinder Singh (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima — sought to weaken Najeeb; Andrabi held that two-judge Benches could not have departed from a binding three-judge ruling in the first place

• Key data and precedents: Andrabi spent over 5 years 9 months in custody; in Gulfisha Fatima, the Delhi Riots "larger conspiracy" case, the Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam (both jailed over five years) and even barred renewal of their bail pleas for a full year

• The editorial argues Khalid and Imam should have been granted bail on the basis of Najeeb, not denied it on a narrower reading of that ruling

• Caveat / limits of the verdict: the relief is about favourable consideration of bail where the accused has been in custody for long periods without trial — not a general right to bail under the UAPA — and its value depends on it being treated as binding in all such cases

• Continuing institutional resistance: a day after Andrabi, an Additional Solicitor General told another Bench that under UAPA's statutory bail bar "the presumption of innocence takes a backseat" — exactly the position Andrabi has set itself against, in line with constitutional principles

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (Polity and Governance) — judiciary, personal liberty and Article 21, undertrial incarceration, anti-terror law versus rights, and the doctrine of binding precedent.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA imposes a stringent bail bar — bail is denied if a prima facie case is made out against the accused

• K.A. Najeeb (2021) was decided by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court

• In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs NIA, the accused had spent over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody

• A larger Bench's ruling is binding on smaller Benches of the Supreme Court

🔑 Key Term: "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception" — the principle that an accused should ordinarily be released on bail pending trial, since they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.