New Delhi: A day after the Supreme Court criticised its own earlier order denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, Delhi Police on Tuesday told the apex court that the matter should be referred to a larger bench, arguing there appeared to be an “error” in the ruling, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.
The issue surfaced during the hearing of bail pleas filed by other accused in the 2020 Delhi riots cases, highlighting differing judicial views within the Supreme Court over the interpretation of bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Appearing before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju referred to the Supreme Court’s May 18 judgment, which reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of any society governed by the rule of law.
Raju argued that in cases involving special laws like the UAPA, the principle of presumption of innocence “takes a backseat.”
The bench asked the ASG whether he intended to suggest that the judgment contained an error. In response, Raju said he had not yet read the full judgment and requested a day’s time to study it, but maintained that the issue should ultimately be considered by a larger bench.
On Monday, a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that it was “difficult to follow” an earlier division bench ruling in the Delhi riots case because it appeared to contradict the Supreme Court’s 2021 three-judge verdict in the Najeeb case.
As soon as the bail pleas of accused Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi came up for hearing on Tuesday, the ASG referred to Monday’s observations and sought an adjournment.
Notably, the January 5 judgment criticised by the Nagarathna-Bhuyan bench had been delivered by a bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar.
In its May 18 ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that the principle of “bail is the rule, jail the exception” is not merely derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure but is rooted in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The court also expressed “serious reservations” about the earlier denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that it failed to follow the larger bench ruling in the Najeeb case. The court emphasised that the larger bench judgment constituted the “law of the land” and supported granting bail in cases involving prolonged incarceration and delayed trials, even under laws such as the UAPA and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“Statutes may undoubtedly calibrate the manner in which that principle is applied, particularly in cases involving national security or terrorist offences for which the UAPA is meant, but those cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention,” the court observed.
