The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to two accused in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, while referring to a larger bench the question of law whether prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can outweigh the statutory restrictions governing the grant of bail.
Observing that there was a "perceived conflict" among different benches regarding the understanding of the 3-judge bench judgment in Union of India v KA Najeeb - which held that long incarceration can be a ground to grant bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, regardless of the statutory rigours - a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench.
While referring the matter, the Court also granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi for six months in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. It has imposed bail conditions, including that they must not interact with the media and speak about their case. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale referred the matter, considering the arguments made by the Delhi Police in the petitions filed by Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi seeking bail in the Delhi riots UAPA case.
The request for reference was made in the context of a judgment delivered by a two-judge bench early this week in Syed Ifthikar Andrabi, which criticised the judgments in Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh (both authored by Justice Aravind Kumar) saying that they took a narrow view regarding bail in UAPA cases. The bench in Andrabi took the view that Gulfisha Fatima and Gurwinder Singh departed from the KA Najeeb verdict.
In the reference order passed today, the bench observed that KA Najeeb was not a mathematical command to mechanically grant bail if there was a delay in trial in a UAPA case. The bench observed that Gulfisha Fatima understood KA Najeeb as a principled safeguard and not as a mathematical formula. The bench further observed that in Gulfisha Fatima, bail was granted to five accused, and was denied to two others (Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam), upon an individualised assessment of their roles.
The bench also noted that the present petitioners (Tasleem Ahmadi and Khalid Saifi) are also relying upon Gulfisha Fatima to seek bail, and this demonstrated that Gulfisha Fatima did not dilute the principle laid down in KA Najeeb. ''Andrabi' Bench should have referred the matter if there was doubt The bench observed that it did not propose to adjudicate on the correctness of the critical observations in Andrabi. The doubts expressed by a coordinate bench cannot be answered through counter-observations, Justice Kumar observed, saying that the matter needs to be resolved by a larger bench.
"Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another bench of equal strength. The discipline of precedence demands a higher institutional method. Where a coordinate bench entertains a reservation about an earlier judgment of another coordinate bench, particularly on the application of a binding 3-judge bench decision, the proper course is well settled. The matter must ordinarily be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench.
Follow us
