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 governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) while hearing the case of Umar Khalid. Observing inconsistencies in recent judicial decisions related to terror cases, the apex court referred the matter to a larger bench for authoritative clarification. 

The move comes amid growing debate over differing Supreme Court rulings on granting bail in cases registered under the stringent anti-terror law. The larger bench is expected to address the conflicting interpretations that have emerged in recent judgments and lay down a clearer legal framework for future UAPA bail cases.

The Supreme Court of India on Friday also granted six months of interim bail to two accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

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

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

In January this year, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, ruling that the allegations against them were “prima facie true”. The bench held that arguments regarding prolonged delay in trial were not sufficient to override the strict bail conditions under the anti-terror law.

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 observed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in UAPA matters and pointed to delays in trial as a valid ground for granting relief.

The same bench also questioned the January ruling that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, creating a direct judicial conflict on how UAPA bail provisions should be interpreted.

Because of these contradictory views, a third Supreme Court bench has now recommended that a larger bench settle the legal question once and for all. The recommendation came while granting interim bail to two accused in the 2022 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

What Did the Judges Say About Delay in Trial?

The issue gained prominence during a May 19 hearing before a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.

While hearing the bail plea of narco-terror accused Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, the bench openly questioned whether the January judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam was legally consistent.

The judges observed that the earlier order appeared to conflict with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Union of India vs KA Najeeb, where the court had held that excessive delays in trial could justify bail in UAPA cases despite the law’s stringent restrictions.

The bench reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and indicated that this principle should not completely disappear merely because a case is filed 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. He argued before the court that the strict bail conditions under UAPA do not violate the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

According to him, the principle of “bail, not jail” cannot automatically apply to all accused booked under anti-terror legislation. At the heart of the dispute is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. Unlike ordinary criminal law, where bail is generally considered the norm, this provision makes bail extremely difficult if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true” based on the chargesheet and case records.

Why Was Umar Khalid Denied Bail Earlier?

On January 5 this year, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria again refused regular bail to Umar Khalid.

The court held that Section 43D(5) applied because the allegations against him involved the alleged “planning, mobilisation and strategic direction” of the Delhi riots conspiracy. Interestingly, the same bench granted bail to five co-accused persons, including Gulfisha Fatima, while allowing Khalid the liberty to revive his bail plea after one year.

On the same day that the Supreme Court referred the larger legal issue for reconsideration, the Delhi High Court granted Umar Khalid a three-day interim bail so he could meet his ailing mother, who is undergoing surgery.

Inside Umar Khalid’s Long Bail Battle

Umar Khalid has remained lodged in Tihar Jail since his arrest in September 2020 in the Delhi riots conspiracy case under UAPA. Despite multiple attempts, he has repeatedly failed to secure regular bail.

A Delhi trial court first rejected his plea, and later, on October 18, 2022, the Delhi High Court also denied him relief. The High Court observed that Khalid was allegedly in “constant touch” with co-accused individuals and that the accusations against him appeared “prima facie” true, disclosing at first glance the commission of a “terrorist act”. Khalid moved the Supreme Court in 2023, but the matter saw repeated adjournments and even a judicial recusal. In February 2024, he eventually withdrew the plea, citing changed circumstances, and decided to approach the trial court afresh.

Over the years, he has only received limited interim bail on humanitarian grounds. He was granted temporary bail in 2022 for his sister’s wedding, again in 2024, and once more in December 2025. Each time, the relief came with strict conditions, including restrictions on speaking to the media. On every occasion, Khalid surrendered before authorities within the time allowed by the court.