The Supreme Court granted 6-month interim bail to anti-CAA activists Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, and referred key questions on bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to a larger Bench for clarity.
The Bench stated that the issue involves a broader constitutional question on how Article 21 protections interact with Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The matter requires authoritative clarification to address inconsistencies in judicial interpretation.
The government argued for a reference to a larger Bench and relied on past rulings, including the Gulfisha Fatima case. The Court responded that the issue extends beyond narrow distinctions between accused persons and involves fundamental questions of personal liberty and prolonged detention. It reaffirmed that the ruling in Union of India v. KA Najeeb remains binding, noting that courts retain the power to grant bail in cases where prolonged incarceration affects constitutional rights. It also clarified that statutory restrictions under UAPA must be applied with care.
The Court also pointed to differing interpretations in subsequent judgments; such differences cannot remain unresolved. It stated that a Bench of equal strength can’t alter the effect of an earlier ruling without formal reference.
Civil rights groups have raised concerns about delay in trials and the impact on personal liberty.