SC refers UAPA bail curbs question to larger Bench; grants interim bail to two accused
The Supreme Court referred the question of whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override stringent bail curbs under anti-terror laws like UAPA to a larger Bench. This decision aims to ensure "parity, consistency and institutional fidelity" in applying precedents. The court also granted six months of interim bail to two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case. The reference addresses a "perceived conflict" between a May 18 judgment, which held that prolonged incarceration can "melt down" bail embargoes, and an earlier January ruling. The court emphasized the need to balance societal interests with accused rights.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court referred the question of UAPA bail curbs and prolonged incarceration to a larger Bench.
- The reference aims to resolve a conflict between recent judgments regarding the application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
- The court granted interim bail to two accused, Abdul Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmad, in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
- The issue involves balancing the stringent bail provisions of UAPA with the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.
- A coordinate Bench cannot effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while sitting in equal strength.
Exam Facts
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
- Section 43D(5) of UAPA imposes stringent bail embargoes.
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) case held that prolonged incarceration can 'melt down' bail embargoes.
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.