The Supreme Court has referred the contentious issue of whether a delay in trial can justify bail for individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This decision comes after two benches of the apex court expressed divergent views on the matter.
Background of the Case
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale took exception to remarks made by another bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who had criticized the former for not granting bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The two were arrested under the UAPA for allegedly inciting the 2020 Delhi communal riots to force the government to roll back the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) amendments.
Observations by the Bench
Justices Kumar and Varale stated, “Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another Bench of equal strength.” They explained their decision to deny bail to Khalid and Imam in January, emphasizing that a coordinate bench cannot alter the prevailing law through observations alone.
Criticism from the Other Bench
Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan had earlier held that the refusal of bail to Khalid and Imam contradicted the Supreme Court's order in the Najeeb case. In that case, a three-judge bench had ruled that the stringent conditions for bail under the UAPA would “melt away” if there was a delay in the trial of the accused.
Response to the Criticism
Addressing the observations, the bench of Justices Kumar and Varale said, “A coordinate Bench cannot, by strong observations, effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while continuing to sit in equal strength.” They further elaborated, “A Bench of equal strength cannot achieve, by language of reservation, what it cannot achieve by declaration of law. If the earlier view is thought to be inconsistent with a larger Bench decision, the proper course is reference. That course protects not merely the judgment doubted, but the authority of this Court itself.”
The Najeeb Case Precedent
The controversy centers on the interpretation of the 2021 Najeeb case verdict. A division bench of Justices Kumar and Anjaria, while rejecting Khalid's bail plea, had stated that “the jurisprudence of this Court” does not accept the idea that mere delay can override a law made by Parliament to address specific serious offenses. Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan criticized this reasoning, asserting that the Najeeb order, being the law of the land, was not followed in Khalid's case.
Clarification by the Current Bench
However, Justices Kumar and Varale rejected this criticism on Friday. While granting bail to two other accused in the Delhi riots case, the court argued that the three-judge bench order in the Najeeb case would not impact all UAPA accused uniformly, even if they had been incarcerated for a long period. The court clarified that “Najeeb is an authoritative pronouncement, which preserves the constitutional force of Article 21, while at the same time recognizing the legislative policy underlying special statutes such as the UAPA.”
Path Forward
The court acknowledged that disagreement between coordinate benches is “neither unusual nor undesirable” but emphasized that the proper way to resolve it is by referring the matter to a larger bench, rather than leaving it at the stage of criticism. Consequently, the issue has been referred to a larger bench for an authoritative decision.
