BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Tasleem Ahmed And Abdul Khalid Saifi In 2020 Delhi Riots Case
Supreme Court granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi while referring conflicting interpretations of UAPA bail law to a larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy matter, while simultaneously referring broader questions on the interpretation of bail jurisprudence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to a larger Bench.
The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale also flagged the need for authoritative clarity on the application of prior rulings, including K.A. Najeeb, in light of what it described as a “perceived divergence” in how different Benches have approached bail under UAPA.
The Bench noted submissions from the State that decisions involving bail under UAPA reflected varying interpretations of the three-judge Bench ruling in K.A. Najeeb.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State had referred to multiple judgments, including Gulfisha Fatima and Kartar Singh, arguing that courts have distinguished between accused persons based on specific roles and material while granting bail.
The Court observed that K.A. Najeeb remains an authoritative pronouncement and a constitutional safeguard under Article 21, particularly in cases involving prolonged incarceration. However, it clarified that the judgment does not dilute legislative restrictions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, and courts must still adhere to statutory constraints while considering bail, especially where substantial incarceration has already occurred.
The Bench further noted that Gulfisha Fatima judgment must be understood in context, holding that it rejected a mechanical application of delay as the sole ground for bail while still recognising Article 21 as a continuing constitutional check against unconscionable detention.
The Court also referred to later observations in Andrabi, noting concerns expressed regarding the interpretation of Gulfisha Fatima. It emphasised that coordinate Benches of equal strength cannot effectively unsettle earlier rulings and that such differences must be resolved by a larger Bench. It observed that while judicial disagreement is part of legal development, uncertainty in application of bail principles under UAPA cannot be left unresolved.
Concluding that the issue involves the balance between Article 21 and statutory restrictions under UAPA, the Court said the matter requires examination by a Bench of appropriate strength to clarify the law on K.A. Najeeb and Section 43D(5). It clarified that the present order does not dilute the authority of K.A. Najeeb, but seeks clarity on its application in light of conflicting interpretations. The Bench accordingly directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench, while granting interim bail to the petitioners.
It is to be noted that the Court in the pre-lunch session had reserved orders on the bail pleas filed by the two Delhi riots accused while also considering whether the law governing bail under the UAPA requires reconsideration by a larger bench in view of seemingly conflicting Supreme Court rulings.
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.