On Monday, the Supreme Court raised serious questions about the earlier decision granting bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid. The court stated that the earlier decision did not properly adhere to the principle that long imprisonment and trial delays were grounds for bail. The court stated that personal liberty is an integral part of the Constitution and that the principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” applies to UAPA cases as well.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjwal Bhuyan was hearing a separate UAPA case involving Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has been in jail for more than six years in an alleged terror funding case. During the hearing, the court granted him bail and also commented on the Umar Khalid case.
The bench referred to the January 2026 decision that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court stated that it disagreed with the approach adopted in that decision. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated in his judgment that a smaller bench is required to follow the decision of a larger bench. If a decision is in doubt, the case should be referred to a larger bench.
The Supreme Court cited its controversial 2021 Najeeb case judgment. That decision stated that if an accused’s trial does not begin for a long time and he or she remains in jail for a long time, he or she can be granted bail, even if the case is under the UAPA. The court stated that the Najeeb case decision demonstrates that an accused is automatically entitled to release after the expiry of time.
During the hearing, the court also objected to the ‘two-prong test’ adopted in another case. Under this test, the accused had to prove that the case against him was not strong at first glance to obtain bail. The court stated that such an approach could convert pretrial detention into punishment. However, keeping someone in jail for years based solely on preliminary charges would be contrary to the principles of justice.
Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy case related to the Delhi riots. The Delhi Police alleges that he made inflammatory speeches during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and was part of the alleged conspiracy. He was booked under several serious sections of the UAPA, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He has been in jail since then in this case. The Supreme Court, while hearing his case on January 5th of this year, barred him from seeking bail for one year.