Supreme Court to Revisit UAPA Bail Rules in Umar Khalid Case, Refers Matter to Larger Bench

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday agreed to re-examine the legal principles regulating bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) while hearing the case of Umar Khalid. The Supreme Court sent the case to a larger bench for authoritative clarification after noticing discrepancies in recent court rulings pertaining to terror cases. 

The action coincides with the escalating discussion of conflicting Supreme Court decisions regarding the granting of bail in cases filed under the strict anti-terror law. It is anticipated that the larger bench will resolve the divergent interpretations that have surfaced in recent rulings and establish a more precise legal framework for UAPA bail matters in the future.

Two defendants in the Delhi riots conspiracy case were also granted six months of interim release by the Supreme Court of India on Friday.

Why Has the Supreme Court Referred the UAPA Bail Issue to a Larger Bench?

The legal debate started after two separate Supreme Court judgments seemed to take completely different positions on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A two-judge Supreme Court of India bench denied Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail in January of this year, finding the accusations against them to be "prima facie true." The bench decided that the anti-terror law's stringent bail requirements could not be overridden by arguments about a protracted trial delay.

However, this week, another two-judge bench while granting bail to a UAPA accused in a separate narco-terror case took a very different approach. The bench noted that even in UAPA cases, "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" and cited trial delays as a legitimate justification for relief.

The January decision that refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam was also questioned by the same bench, leading to a direct legal dispute over the interpretation of UAPA bail requirements.

Due to these divergent opinions, a third Supreme Court bench has now suggested that a larger bench definitively resolve the legal issue. The recommendation was made while two defendants in the conspiracy case involving the 2022 Delhi riots were granted temporary bail.

What Did the Judges Say About Delay in Trial?

During a hearing before a bench made up of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan on May 19, the matter gained attention.

The bench openly questioned the legality of the January ruling granting bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam while considering the bail application of drug-terror accused Syed Iftikhar Andrabi.

The judges noted that the prior order seemed to go against the Supreme Court's historic decision in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, where the court decided that, notwithstanding the strict limitations of the statute, significant trial delays could warrant bail in UAPA cases.

The bench reaffirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" and stated that this idea shouldn't entirely vanish just because a case is brought under UAPA.

What Is the Government’s Stand?

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju opposed the broader application of liberal bail principles in terror-related cases. In front of the court, he argued that the stringent bail requirements under UAPA do not infringe upon the right to personal liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The idea of "bail, not jail" cannot, in his opinion, be applied to every suspected person detained under anti-terror laws. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is at the center of the disagreement. This clause makes bail very challenging if the court determines that the accusations are "prima facie true" based on the chargesheet and case records, in contrast to conventional criminal law, where bail is typically regarded as the standard.

Why Was Umar Khalid Denied Bail Earlier?

A Supreme Court bench that included Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria once more refused Umar Khalid regular bail on January 5 of this year.

The court concluded that Section 43D(5) applied because the charges against him comprised the alleged "planning, mobilization, and strategic direction" of the Delhi riots conspiracy. Interestingly, the same court granted liberty to five co-accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, and let Khalid to reapply for bail after a year.

On the same day that the Supreme Court submitted the more important case for review, the Delhi High Court granted Umar Khalid a three-day temporary bail so he could visit his ailing mother, who is undergoing surgery.

Inside Umar Khalid’s Long Bail Battle

Since his arrest in September 2020 in connection with the Delhi riots plot case under UAPA, Umar Khalid has been detained in Tihar Jail. He has continually failed to obtain regular bail despite numerous tries.

His plea was initially denied by a Delhi trial court, then on October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court further denied him relief. The High Court noted that Khalid was allegedly in "constant touch" with other defendants and that the charges against him seemed "prima facie" accurate, revealing the performance of a "terrorist act" at first glance. In 2023, Khalid petitioned the Supreme Court; however, the case was repeatedly postponed, and a judge even recused himself. He ultimately withdrew the plea in February 2024, citing altered circumstances, and made the decision to reapply to the trial court.

He has only been granted limited interim bail on humanitarian grounds over the years. For his sister's wedding, he was given temporary bail in 2022, 2024, and December 2025. Each time, a breather was accompanied by strict standards, such as limitations on media appearances. Khalid always turned himself in to the authorities within the court-mandated time frame.