Dissent Behind Bars: Unpacking The Delhi Riots Bail Judgment

Bail, democracy, and statutory rigours

The UAPA bail regime already inverts the ordinary grammar of liberty by treating jail as the norm and bail as the exception, subject to a 'prima facie truth' standard. This standard, in practice, has translated into routine, prolonged pre-trial detention, where the accused is required to prove the weakness of the state's case even before the trial begins.

In theory, the Court acknowledges that Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial serve as a counterweight to this statutory rigour, as articulated in the line of dicta starting with K.A. Najeeb v. UOI. However, in the Delhi Riots Conspiracy case, the Court has treated delay not as a constitutional wrong, but rather as a neutral fact to be “contextualised”, thereby draining the rights-based approach of its emancipatory force.

Delay without purpose, custody without need

The Court carefully differentiates between 'delay simpliciter' and 'unconscionable delay', insisting that only unconscionable delay can override the rigours of Section 43D(5). Yet there is almost no serious engagement with the core question: What legitimate, legally recognised purpose is served by the continuing incarceration after several years of pre-trial custody?

Instead of primarily adverting to the question of the necessity of continuous custody and the existence of any live need for detention for investigation, trial integrity, or risk reasons, the Court's analysis begins with the nature of the offence, the statutory label, and the prima facie case. This inverts the logic of bail: the burden of justification silently shifts from the State curtailing liberty to the accused reclaiming it.

Albeit previously, the Court has recognised that prolonged incarceration can itself be a constitutional injury, independent of the ultimate truth of the allegation, it has narrowed that vision by treating delay as a trigger for 'heightened scrutiny' that rarely matures into an actual restoration of liberty.

Terror, dissent, and the missing context

The Court repeatedly states that accusations must be read 'contextually' in light of the special character of UAPA offences and the alleged conspiracy behind the Delhi riots. However, the most crucial context is missing. These events unfolded in the midst of a nationwide political protest against a controversial law, in which dissent, assembly, and speech lay at the heart of the mobilisation.

International standards, such as the Rabat Plan of Action, stipulate that only expressions intended and likely to incite imminent violence cross the line into punishable incitement. By contrast, the Court treats the architecture of protest, i.e., meetings, pamphlets, WhatsApp groups, calls for road blockades, etc., as naturally sliding into 'terrorist activity' once violence occurs somewhere downstream.

This move is sharpened by the statutory vagueness surrounding the phrase “terrorist activity” itself. The law speaks in broad, open-textured terms without a precise and narrow definition that lucidly distinguishes democratic dissent from genuine terror. In such a landscape, the prima facie true standard operating on vague categories inevitably leans towards validating the prosecution's broad narrative. When protest itself becomes part of the evidentiary chain towards alleged terrorism, pre-trial liberty for dissenters becomes institutionally fragile.

Diluting Najeeb by elevating statute over the Constitution

K.A. Najeeb marked a crucial turning point in UAPA bail jurisprudence. Even the harshest statutory rigours cannot be applied in a way that makes personal liberty illusory when trials stagnate, and custody stretches into years. Delay is the factor which dilates this statutory rigour. This rights-based principle has been unevenly applied, sometimes as a genuine constitutional check and other times as being irrelevant when the “statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) operates with full force”. The Court has re-read Najeeb as a narrow, exceptional safety valve, firmly subordinated to the statutory philosophy of Section 43D(5), rather than as an independent constitutional guarantee of life and liberty.

Most troubling for a democratic order is the suggestion that constitutional guarantees cannot be given preference where the statutory bar is attracted, effectively collapsing the Article 21 enquiry back into the very statutory test that is supposed to be constitutionally reviewed. Instead of independently enquiring whether continued incarceration is proportionate and necessary, the Court has reiterated the strength of the accusation and the statutory embargo as reasons to continue detention.

Balancing interests before finding them

Throughout, the Court speaks of balancing interests such as personal liberty against national security, public order, and the integrity of the trial. But this balancing is undertaken before those interests are actually located and tested in the concrete facts of the case. Firstly, there is no rigorous articulation of how, at this stage, releasing a particular accused would concretely endanger national security or derail the trial, especially after years of completed investigation and custody. Secondly, community risk is assumed from the labelling offence and the narrative of conspiracy, rather than demonstrated as a present, specific danger that only incarceration can address.

Balancing is employed as a rhetorical device to invoke the statutory severity of UAPA, dictating the outcome. At the same time, the constitutional side of the scales is weighted with abstractions about liberty, but with little real substance.

Every bail decision, even under the UAPA, should begin with the question: “Is custody still needed and, if yes, for what purpose?” Only thereafter should gravity and statutory context enter the frame, and never as trumps over an unexamined, ongoing deprivation of liberty.

Protest as threat, liberty as a conditional grace

The Court embodies a vision in which the State's fear of disorder takes precedence over the citizen's right to dissent. Speech, assembly, and organisational activity are repeatedly re-described as “foundational” to a criminal conspiracy, even where the prosecution's own material shows they were framed as political protest against a law. For the general public that joined or watched the anti-CAA demonstrations, the message is chilling: the closer one is to the heart of democratic mobilisation, the farther they are from pre-trial liberty.

When buzzwords like 'national security' and 'terrorism' are spelt, constitutional liberty often appears only at the margins, as a language of concern, of calibrated oversight and periodic future review, while the actual present reality is that people remain imprisoned year after year, not because a court has found them guilty, but because the accusation is grave and the statute is special.

Constitutionalism must not return merely as a shadow in bail decisions, but should shape judicial thinking from the very outset. In a democratic society worthy of the name, bail under a special law like the UAPA should be the most intense site of rights-based scrutiny, not the place where constitutional guarantees are at their weakest. Until courts are willing to ask, in every single bail order, “Why must this person still be in custody today?” and demand a principled, rights-consistent answer from the State, pre-trial liberty will remain a conditional grace rather than an inherent guarantee.

Author is an advocate.

Views Are Personal