UAPA Bail Issue May Be Referred To Larger Bench: Delhi Police Tells Supreme Court
The Delhi Police is likely to urged the Supreme Court to consider a larger bench reference on the UAPA bail standard amid conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches in Delhi riots cases
Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that UAPA bail law may require consideration by a larger bench due to conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches
The Delhi Police on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the legal position on grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may require examination by a larger bench, in view of what it described as conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches on the applicable standard.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju made the submission before a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, which was hearing bail pleas filed by Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” accused Tasleem Ahmed and United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi. Both have challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant them bail.
Raju requested that the matter be taken up the next day, stating that he needed time to study a recent Supreme Court judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. In that decision, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that bail remains the rule even under UAPA and raised concerns over earlier rulings taking a stricter view.
The ASG said the issue now appeared to involve divergent views of co-ordinate two-judge benches and may need authoritative clarification by a larger bench. He also clarified that he had not yet fully examined the Andrabi judgment.
In the Andrabi judgment, Justice Bhuyan had specifically questioned earlier rulings in Umar Khalid and Gurwinder Singh, stressing that a smaller bench cannot dilute or disregard binding precedent of a larger bench such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which allows bail in cases of prolonged incarceration. “Judicial discipline mandates that a binding precedent must either be followed or referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench,” the Court had observed.
Before the present bench, Raju argued that Section 43D(5) of UAPA; requiring courts to deny bail if the accusations appear prima facie true, has led to complex interpretational issues when weighed against constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. He, however, did not oppose interim bail.
What has happened so far:
Ahmed, one of the petitioners, has been in custody since his arrest in FIR No. 59/2020 involving multiple IPC, UAPA, Arms Act and other charges linked to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. His bail applications have been rejected multiple times by the trial court, even as the Supreme Court earlier observed that he could seek parity with co-accused.
Saifi, who has spent over five years in custody, is also seeking parity with co-accused who were recently granted bail. He is accused of being part of multiple WhatsApp groups allegedly used for coordination during protests and of delivering inflammatory speeches, allegations he disputes.
In February the bench had issued notice on a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi, challenging the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court in a case alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, involving charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The bench however had orally made it clear that Saifi cannot claim parity with the Supreme Court’s January 2026 judgment that granted bail to five co-accused in the same case.
Saifi had approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order refusing him bail. In January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, while rejecting bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Subsequently, the remaining accused, Tasleem Ahmed and now Khalid Saifi, move the Supreme Court. Notice had already been issued in Tasleem Ahmed’s petition, and Saifi’s plea was tagged with it. According to Saifi’s petition, he has spent nearly five years in custody and seeks bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, claiming parity with those recently enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court.