The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious reservations over its own earlier order denying bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, observing that the ruling failed to properly apply the principles laid down by it on prolonged incarceration under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Khalid, who has been in jail since September 2020, was denied bail in January this year; his review petition was rejected in April.
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 Supreme Court noted on Monday that this binding precedent, rooted in judicial discipline, was not properly applied while rejecting Umar 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 Ujjal Bhuyan said. He was alluding to a two-judge bench that denied Khalid bail in January.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan 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.
In its judgment, the bench specifically referred to the January 2026 ruling, in which a two-judge bench had denied bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Khalid's review petition was also rejected in April by the Supreme Court.
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.
Reiterating the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the court held that the principle “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” applies even in UAPA cases. “Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the bench observed.
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.
