Umar Khalid case: Supreme Court says bail is rule even in UAPA, questions own order

The Supreme Court noted on Monday that a binding precedent on bail under the UAPA, laid down in a 2021 ruling, was not properly applied while rejecting Umar Khalid's bail plea.

In Short

• 2021 ruling on bail under UAPA overlooked in Umar Khalid case, says SC
• Rejects lower bench's stricter bail tests, stresses bail as rule, jail exception
• Grants bail to a UAPA accused after six years in custody, citing trial delay

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” remains applicable even in cases under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), while expressing serious reservations over its own earlier order denying bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The court observed that the ruling denying bail to Khalid, who has remained incarcerated since September 2020, failed to properly apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on prolonged pre-trial detention. Khalid was denied bail in January this year, and his review petition was rejected in April.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan underscored that although Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposes strict conditions on granting bail in terror-related cases, those restrictions cannot override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. It, therefore, reaffirmed the long-standing legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” making it clear that courts must not treat denial of bail as automatic merely because the charges are under the UAPA.

"Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception," the court held.

The Supreme Court had, in a landmark 2021 ruling in Union of India vs KA Najeeb, held that a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial could constitute grounds for constitutional courts to grant bail in UAPA cases. The bench noted on Monday that this binding precedent, rooted in judicial discipline, was not properly applied while rejecting Khalid’s bail plea.

"A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench," Justice Bhuyan said. He was alluding to a two-judge bench that denied Khalid bail in January.

The court made the observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has spent more than six years in custody in a UAPA case alleging terror funding through narcotics supply. Referring to the January 2026 judgment that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the court said it found it “difficult to accept” the approach adopted by the earlier bench.

Justice Bhuyan said the court found it “difficult to accept” the approach adopted in Umar Khalid’s case and another UAPA case involving Gurwinder Singh, noting that both judgments interpreted the stringent bail provisions under the law differently from the 2021 ruling of a three-judge bench, Live Law reported.

The bench emphasised that the 2021 ruling in the KA Najeeb case had clearly recognised prolonged delay in trial and extended pre-trial incarceration as grounds for granting bail, even in cases involving UAPA charges and its stringent bail provisions.

The court also rejected the “two-prong test” applied in the Gurwinder Singh case, the second judgment questioned by the court apart from Umar Khalid’s case, under which bail could be granted only if the accused demonstrated that the case lacked merit in primary analysis.

Warning against the consequences of such an approach, the court observed that it could effectively turn pre-trial detention into punishment.

"If this test is accepted, the State needs only satisfy a low prima facie threshold while the trial may continue for years, with the result that pre-trial incarceration begins to acquire a post-trial punitive character. And even then, no court will ever grant bail, no matter the length of period of such incarceration, because the case is prima facie true," the court said further.

The ruling is likely to have wider implications for pending bail pleas in UAPA cases, including those linked to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy investigation, where several accused persons have spent years in custody awaiting trial.

Khalid is a former Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader and activist, who was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the alleged “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots. Delhi Police accused him of making provocative speeches during the anti-CAA protests and claimed he was part of a pre-planned conspiracy that led to the violence.

He was charged under the stringent UAPA, besides various IPC provisions. Khalid has denied the allegations and maintained that he was not present in Delhi when the riots broke out.

The Supreme Court denied bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in January 2026, while granting bail to five other accused including Gulfisha Fatima and Meeran Haider. The court said Khalid and Imam stood on a “qualitatively different footing” from the others and held that the allegations against them were “prima facie true” under the UAPA’s strict bail provisions.

The bench distinguished their alleged roles as key conspirators, while the others received bail largely due to prolonged incarceration and delays in trial.

- Ends