Delhi Police To Seek Larger Bench Reference Over Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments On UAPA Bail
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
19 May 2026 7:13 PM IST
The Delhi Police on Tuesday orally told the Supreme Court that the issue of grant of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act may require consideration by a larger bench in view of apparently conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches on the governing legal standard.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju made the submission before a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale, which was hearing bail pleas filed by Delhi riots larger conspiracy accused Tasleem Ahmed and United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi against the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant them bail.
Raju sought that the matter be taken up tomorrow to consider whether it should be referred to a larger bench, stating that he needed time to examine the Supreme Court's judgment delivered yesterday in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency.
In that judgment, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that bail remains the rule even in UAPA cases and expressed reservations about earlier rulings that adopted a narrower approach to grant of bail under the anti-terror law.
The development assumes significance because in January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case while refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The remaining accused, including Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, subsequently approached the Court seeking similar relief.
In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, Justice Bhuyan specifically questioned the correctness of the rulings in Khalid and Gurwinder Singh, both authored by Justice Aravind Kumar. The judgment observed that the denial of bail to Khalid and Imam appeared to have overlooked the three-judge bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which held that prolonged incarceration and the improbability of an early conclusion of trial can justify grant of bail even in UAPA cases.
“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench,” Justice Bhuyan said.
Before the Justice Kumar-led bench today, ASG Raju said he had not fully gone through the Andrabi judgment and would do so before making submissions. He said that since there are now conflicting views from co-ordinate two-judge benches, the issue may need authoritative resolution by a larger bench.
Raju's submission came in the context of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent restrictions on grant of bail by requiring courts to deny bail if the accusation appears prima facie true, a departure from the ordinary criminal law presumption of innocence.
However, the ASG did not oppose the grant of interim bail.
Background
Ahmed is one of the Delhi riots accused, arrested in FIR No. 59/2020 under Sections 13/16/17/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 302/307/353/186/212/395/ 427/435/436/452/454/109/114/147/148/124A/153A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
He had first approached the Trial Court seeking regular bail in June 2021 on grounds of parity with co-accused Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2021. Although their bail was not cancelled, the Supreme Court stated that this bail order cannot be relied upon by the co-accused as a precedent, as it dealt with the interpretation of UAPA provisions, which were disputed by the NIA.
The Trial Court denied the petitioner bail. He then approached the Supreme Court, which vide an order dated May 2, 2023, observed that the petitioner can claim parity, and it is for the petitioner to make out a case.
Again, Ahmed approached the Trial Court, but his second regular bail was dismissed on April 22, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the petitioner approached the Trial Court again on grounds that he has completed more than four years in custody and there had been no progress in Trial. When this plea was denied, he approached the Delhi High Court, which questioned the Delhi Police as to how long an accused can be kept in jail, when it has been five years since the 2020 riots. He is also an accused in another FIR No. 48.2020, in which he is on regular bail.
Notice on the present plea was issued on February 11.
As per Saifi's plea, he has suffered five years of incarceration and is seeking parity with the Gulfisha and others, who were granted bail in the recent order by the Supreme Court. However, when the notice was issued on this petition on February 18, the bench orally stated that he couldn't claim parity with other co-accused.
The allegation is that Saifi was a member of various WhatsApp groups such as DPSG, CAB Team, and United Against Hate, and the creator of various protest sites at Khureji, Karawal Nagar, Kardam Nargar and Nizamuddin. Further allegation is that he delivered an inflammatory speech intended to incite communal riots. He is accused of having sent a message in the DPSG group, instructing people to cover CCTV cameras installed by the Police with black tape.
Case Details: TASLEEM AHMED v STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI|Diary No. 5434-2026 and ABDUL KHALID SAIFI @ KHALID SAIFI v STATE (NCT OF DELHI)|SLP(Crl) No. 3867/2026
Appearances: Rajat Kumar Adv appearing filed by Yash S Vijay AOR(for Saifi)
