THE Supreme Court’s reiteration that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” even in cases under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) has again turned the spotlight on the prolonged pre-trial detention of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Granting bail to an accused in a narco-terror case, the Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has disapproved of the judgment delivered by another two-judge SC Bench in the Gulfisha Fatima case pertaining to the 2020 Delhi riots. In that case, several accused got bail in January this year, but Umar and Sharjeel were denied relief. The Court had made a distinction on the basis of a “hierarchy of participation,” holding that the duo stood on a “qualitatively different footing” from the co-accused.
It’s not common for the apex court to question its own verdicts. Introspection and self-correction that serve the interests of justice are welcome. The landmark judgment in the KA Najeeb case (2021), which recognised long delay in trial as a ground for bail in cases under UAPA, should be followed in letter and in spirit by Supreme Court and high court judges across the board. The grant of bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in the narco-terror case drives home the Court’s point that national security concerns cannot eclipse the fundamental right to personal liberty. The judgment aims to restore the balance between state power and individual rights. Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution guarantee protection against arbitrary detention, and these safeguards remain valid even if the allegations are grave.
Thousands have been arrested under UAPA over the years, yet the conviction rate remains dismally low (around 5 per cent). Umar and Sharjeel are among those who have spent years behind bars before trial, effectively serving punishment without conviction. It’s vital to ensure speedy trials and consistency in bail decisions under anti-terror laws. Failure to do so can undermine the presumption of innocence — the bedrock of any democratic legal system.
