Supreme Court refers UAPA bail curbs to larger Bench for 'authoritative' ruling

📌 Summary:

• The Supreme Court on May 22, 2026 granted six months of interim bail to two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, and referred to a larger Bench the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delay can override the stringent bail curbs under anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

• The reference, made by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale, was held necessary to ensure "parity, consistency and institutional fidelity" in how coordinate Benches apply binding precedents.

• It arose after a May 18 judgment by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed "serious reservations" about a January ruling that had refused bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case.

• Core legal issue: Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restrains courts from granting bail where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is "prima facie true"; the three-judge Bench in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) held that prolonged incarceration and trial delay can "melt down" this embargo, linking it to the right to life and liberty under Article 21.

• The court held that when a coordinate Bench doubts the reasoning of an earlier coordinate Bench, the proper course is to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate (larger) Bench — a coordinate Bench cannot, by strong observations, unsettle an equal-strength Bench's ratio.

• Delhi Police (ASG S.V. Raju) argued that bail must turn on the facts and circumstances of each case, warning against a "blanket generalisation" that ignores the role of the accused and the nature of the crime.

• The Justice Kumar-led Bench declined to examine the correctness of the May 18 observations, stressing that the "discipline of precedent" must be respected.

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (Polity) — the judiciary, judicial discipline and the doctrine of precedent; the tension between statutory bail bars under anti-terror laws and the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21; how conflicts between coordinate Benches are resolved.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• UAPA is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

• Section 43D(5) of the UAPA restricts the grant of bail where the accusation is prima facie true.

• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021): a three-judge Bench held that prolonged incarceration and trial delay can override the UAPA bail bar.

• A coordinate Bench is one of equal strength; conflicts are resolved by a larger Bench constituted by the CJI.

🔑 Key Term: Doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) — the principle that courts must follow rulings of equal or larger Benches; a coordinate Bench cannot overrule another of equal strength and must refer any conflict to a larger Bench.