Supreme Court Refers UAPA Bail Conflict to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court of India referred a critical legal question to Chief Justice Surya Kant on May 22, 2026, to resolve conflicting judicial views on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The dispute centers on whether prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override stringent statutory bail restrictions, specifically the interpretation of the 2021 KA Najeeb precedent.

The conflict intensified on May 18, when a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a narco-terrorism accused held since 2020. The bench reaffirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" and expressed "serious reservations" about a January 2026 judgment that denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court highlighted an "abysmal" UAPA conviction rate in Jammu and Kashmir, which National Crime Records Bureau data shows is below 1%.

In response, the Government of India and Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that statutory presumptions against bail in terror cases should outweigh the presumption of innocence. While the court later granted bail to Suhail Ahmad Thokar and interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, the judicial clash between coordinate benches led to the formal request for a larger bench to provide an authoritative resolution on whether trial delay constitutes a "mathematical formula" for automatic release.