SC refers Umar Khalid bail questions to larger bench in Delhi riots case
The Supreme Court referred questions on UAPA bail principles to a larger bench while granting interim relief to two Delhi riots accused
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court on Friday (May 22) referred the recent questions regarding the correctness of its earlier judgement wherein bail was denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case.
Interim relief for two accused
The development took place during the hearing of bail pleas of two other accused in the Delhi riots case, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi. The two accused were granted interim bails for a period of six months.
Also Read: Delhi riots conspiracy case: HC grants Umar Khalid 3-day interim bail
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, during the hearing, argued that that the recent judgment which stated that bail should be the rule even in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), should be reviewed.
Questions over UAPA bail principles
In the earlier case, a Division Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had expressed doubts over the correctness of a previous judgment in January wherein bail was denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Also Read: Delhi court rejects Umar Khalid’s interim bail plea, says it's 'not reasonable'
During the hearing today, sought a larger bench for reference on the case. He argued that that the strict criterion for bail in cases lodged under the UAPA, are not in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution adding that all accused booked under the anti-terror law could not be extended the the blanket benefit of 'bail not jail' principles.
"It is necessary that an appropriate bench be constituted by CJI to clarify the law in KA Najeeb particularly the application of 43D(5) of UAPA (stringent tests for bail)," stated the bench as quoted by the Bar and Bench.
Bench seeks clarity on legal position
"We therefore consider it our duty, to place the conflict before a bench of appropriate strength. The matter cannot be left to uncertain application by courts. The question therefore is not whether Article 21 survives Section 43 (UAPA),” stated the bench.
“True question is how it is to be applied in as a statutory way where the parliament has placed restrictions on bail. We clarify that nothing in this order is intended to whittle down the authority in KA Najeeb," it added.