After a recent Supreme Court judgment criticised an earlier ruling denying bail to former Umar Khalid, the Delhi Police has urged the apex court to refer the issue of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to a larger Bench, citing apparent inconsistencies in rulings delivered by different two-judge Benches.

The development follows judgment by a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and BV Nagarathna, which reaffirmed that the 2021 ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb remains binding precedent. The Bench observed that a smaller Bench cannot disregard the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even in UAPA cases involving prolonged incarceration and delayed trials.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that excessive delay in trial can justify bail under the UAPA despite the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43D(5). However, in January 2026, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria denied bail to Umar Khalid and fellow former JNU student leader Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court held that the two had a prima facie “central and formative role” in the alleged conspiracy and observed that delay in trial alone could not automatically justify bail under a stringent statute like the UAPA.

Originally enacted in 1967 to address activities threatening India’s sovereignty and integrity, the UAPA underwent major changes following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The UAPA Amendment Act, 2008 introduced Section 43D(5), which effectively bars bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. Subsequent amendments in 2004, 2008 and 2019 transformed the UAPA into India’s primary anti-terror law.