Supreme Court Divided on Bail, Upholds Right to Liberty
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court appears divided on the issue of bail and the fundamental right to liberty. On Monday, an SC bench expressed “serious reservations” regarding its prior decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, indicating it did not adhere to a ruling from a larger bench. The bench highlighted that bail should be granted in cases involving long incarceration and trial delays, even under anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted the complexity of following a division-bench judgment in the Delhi riots case, which contradicted the 2021 three-judge verdict in the K.A. Najeeb case. The justices expressed concerns over smaller benches undermining the constitutional authority of larger bench decisions without formally disagreeing. The bench described the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” as grounded in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence as a foundational element of any civilized society governed by law. While statutes may dictate how this principle applies—especially in national security or terrorism cases—the court stated that such laws cannot fundamentally alter the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention.
In reviewing earlier Supreme Court decisions that followed the Najeeb ruling, the bench observed a clear departure in the judgments concerning Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima, which related to the Delhi riots case. The justices affirmed that smaller benches are obligated to follow the precedents set by larger ones. If smaller benches have objections to the principles established by larger benches, they should refer the matter to the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench.
The justices reiterated that the rulings in the Najeeb case, which involved granting bail to an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), are binding and cannot be disregarded by trial courts, high courts, or by smaller benches of the Supreme Court. However, they clarified that the Najeeb ruling did not state that the mere passage of time automatically guarantees bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. Instead, the larger bench acknowledged that excessive incarceration without a reasonable trial timeframe raises constitutional concerns under Article 21.
While the bench had previously denied Khalid and Imam’s bail plea, it noted that the findings in the Najeeb case are constitutional safeguards that should not be applied universally. The bench expressed “serious reservations” regarding aspects of the Gulfisha Fatima case, particularly the limitation placed on the appellants’ right to seek bail for one year. There is concern that the Gulfisha Fatima judgment implies that the Najeeb case only applies in extreme situations, potentially undermining the intent of the Najeeb ruling.
The court concluded that the Najeeb ruling was fundamentally constitutional, aimed at preventing Section 43-D(5) from overshadowing Article 21 considerations in cases involving significant delays and lengthy incarceration. The justices reiterated that the supremacy of Article 21 should always prevail over Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
