Supreme Court Refers Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam Bail Question To Larger Bench
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale, which denied bail to Umar Khalid in January, observed that a bench of similar strength could not have expressed exception to the order.
· www.ndtv.comNew Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday referred the judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2020 Delhi riots case to a larger bench for reconsideration.
The court said the judgment denying bail to former JNU student leader Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam requires reconsideration by a bench of appropriate strength in view of differing interpretations of the court's ruling in the KA Najeeb case.
On Monday, a separate bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and BV Nagarathana had criticised the January verdict by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, which had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The Delhi police appealed to the Supreme Court that the issue of bail on grounds of delay under UAPA should be settled by a larger bench, as two coordinate benches have expressed diverging views.
Also read: The Bail Question: Conflicting Court Views On Umar Khalid Bring UAPA Under Lens Again
Today, ASG SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi police, asked if Ajmal Kasab or Hafiz Sayeed would be given bail on the grounds of trial delays?
The Supreme Court today, while granting bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, who have been in undertrial custody since 2020 in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, has referred the Umar Khalid judgement to a larger bench.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale, which denied bail to Umar Khalid in January, today observed that a bench of similar strength could not have expressed exception to the order and thus the matter should be placed before the CJI.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi police, referred to several judgments and submitted that the ruling in the Umar Khalid case had correctly considered earlier precedents, including the Kartar Singh case, and differentiated between accused persons while deciding bail applications.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that the issue was "not a narrow one".
"At the outset, we deem it appropriate to record that Najeeb is an authoritative pronouncement of this court," the bench said, emphasising the need to recognise legislative policy behind the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The court clarified that the KA Najeeb ruling "does not per se oust the power to grant bail under 43D(5)" and that courts are expected to balance constitutional safeguards with legislative intent, especially in cases involving prolonged incarceration.
The bench said the right to a speedy trial is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and described the KA Najeeb judgment as a constitutional safeguard against prolonged detention.
At the same time, the court noted that the Gulfisha Fatima judgment rejected a "mechanical or solitary application of delay" in bail matters.
"The said approach does not dilute Article 21," the bench observed, adding that the judgment treated Article 21 as a "continuing constitutional check".
Also read: Umar Khalid Gets Interim Bail To Attend To Ailing Mother
The Supreme Court also referred to the Monday judgment, where another bench had expressed reservations about aspects of the Umar Khalid ruling and its interpretation of the KA Najeeb case (a set precedent).
"A coordinate bench cannot make strong observations and effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier bench while sitting in equal strength," the court said today.
"The law has often grown through reasoned difference. A coordinate bench may express doubt. But where it goes to the reasoning, it cannot be left at criticism," it added.
The bench further observed: "A bench of equal strength cannot achieve by language of reservation what it cannot achieve by declaration of law."
Saying the matter could not be left to "uncertain application" by courts, the Supreme Court said it was necessary for the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate larger bench to clarify the law laid down in the KA Najeeb case, particularly on the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
"The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory regime where Parliament has placed restrictions on bail," the bench said.
The court clarified that nothing in its order was intended to "whittle down" the authority of the KA Najeeb judgment.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
Follow us:
Supreme Court, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam