New Delhi: Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police Friday, told the Supreme Court that it would be seeking a reference on the issue of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in view of the apparently conflicting rulings by co-ordinate benches.
He said this before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale, which was hearing bail applications of Khalid Saifi and Tasleem Ahmed, accused and jailed in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.
The request came after a co-ordinate bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and U. Bhuyan, while granting bail to Syed Andrabi (in jail for 6 years in a UAPA-narcotics terror case), expressed “serious reservations” Monday about co-equal two-judge bench judgments that denied bail to accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the UAPA.
The Justice Nagarathna-led Bench strongly criticised the January 2026 Khalid-Imam order and Gurwinder Singh v. Union of India (2024) order for failing to apply the binding three-judge precedent set in the landmark Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) case.
In January this year, while denying bail to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 riots case, and granting it to five co-accused in the same case, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria held that a prima-facie case was made out against the two and, therefore, the strict bail conditions under UAPA were not met.
This has a three-judge bench precedent in the K. A. Najeeb judgment which held that constitutional courts can grant bail even under stringent laws like the UAPA if the trial is delayed significantly and the accused has been in jail for a long time.
Another Supreme Court judgment of 2005 (Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra) has already laid down the principle that a two-judge bench is bound by principles laid down by a three-judge bench. A smaller bench cannot express disagreement or question the correctness of the larger bench’s view.
If a two-judge bench disagrees with the decision of a three-judge bench, it cannot overrule or ignore it. The only proper judicial course is to refer the matter to a larger bench, setting out the reasons for disagreement.
On Friday, ASG Raju said, “You cannot say all accused stand in the same line”. Justice Kumar noted that in other cases where imprisonment is for life and the delay is not attributable to the accused, “we have granted bail”.
In the same context, ASG Raju said that the Andrabi judgment (by the Bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan) says “we don’t have to see all this. There is no categorisation” as the Najeeb judgment on facts is a very different case.
He added that the Andrabi judgment does “a mechanical override” as without categorisation, you can’t grant bail.
Lastly, in the instant case of bail to Saifi and Ahmed, the court indicated that it is prima facie convinced on granting bail as they are seeking parity with Gulfisha Fatima and others who got bail in the same case. The bench has reserved its order.
Separately, the Delhi High Court granted Umar Khalid interim bail for 3 days to attend his relative’s after-death rituals and for his mother’s surgery. This comes after a Delhi court denied him bail Wednesday, holding these grounds “unreasonable”. Khalid had sought an interim bail of 15 days.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: 2020 Delhi riots case: SC distinguishes Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam’s role from others to deny bail