A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said an earlier judgment rejecting bail to the Delhi riots accused appeared to dilute the binding precedent laid down by a larger bench
NEW DELHI — A Supreme Court bench on Monday appeared to doubt the verdict of another bench of the apex court in the controversial order wherein bail was denied to scholars and student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The bench opined that bail should be the rule and jail the exception even in stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases, and expressed serious reservations about the court’s own earlier judgment.
In January this year, a separate two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The accused had approached the court for bail on the grounds of a delay in trial proceedings.
On Monday, the court said the 2021 ruling in the case of Union of India vs KA Najeeb by a three-judge bench clearly recognised prolonged delay in trial as a valid ground for granting bail, even under the strict provisions of the UAPA.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said an earlier judgment rejecting bail to Khalid and Imam appeared to dilute the binding precedent laid down by a larger bench in the KA Najeeb case.
“They cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard binding precedent,” Justice Bhuyan said, pointing out that two judges who denied bail to Khalid ignored a binding three-judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court, which said bail is the rule and jail an exception.
“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 stated in the judgment.
The bench observed that the pre-Najeeb judgment in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali (2019) cannot be invoked to justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration under UAPA.
The top court specifically referred to the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima vs State, which had rejected bail pleas linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy case, and said it failed to properly follow the principles laid down in the KA Najeeb ruling.
The judges cautioned that the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be defeated merely because an accused has been charged under anti-terror laws.
“The statutory embargo of Section 43D (5) UAPA must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the bench held. — With inputs from agencies
