Back
Weighs Larger Bench for Bail Disputes Amid Judicial Standoff
The on Tuesday indicated it may direct the question of granting bail under the stringent to a larger bench, following oral submissions by the highlighting apparently conflicting approaches by coordinate two-judge benches. Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale recorded the Additional Solicitor General’s position during bail proceedings involving 2020 Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi.
From Prolonged Incarceration Claims to Constitutional Tensions
Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, both arrested in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the northeast Delhi riots, have spent over four to five years in custody. Their regular bail applications were rejected by the and the , which held that delay alone could not justify release under . The petitioners now seek parity with five co-accused who were granted bail by the earlier this year, while Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied the same relief.
The present special leave petitions arise from the ’s orders dated refusing bail. During the hearing, the court was informed of a recent pronouncement by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan in , which affirmed that “bail remains the rule even in cases” and cast doubt on narrower interpretations adopted in earlier rulings.
Delhi Police Urges Authoritative Clarification
, appearing for the , submitted that the issue required authoritative resolution by a larger bench because of divergent views expressed by benches of equal strength. He noted that creates a once a is made out, and argued that this framework should not be diluted by coordinate benches. Raju clarified he was not opposing interim bail for the two petitioners but sought time to examine the latest judgment before making detailed submissions.
The petitioners countered that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial violates and that they are entitled to the same consideration extended to similarly placed co-accused. They highlighted that more than five years have elapsed since the riots, with trials showing little advancement.
Judicial Discipline and Binding Precedents Take Centre Stage
The court must reconcile recent pronouncements with the three-judge bench decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that inordinately long incarceration and the improbability of early trial conclusion can justify bail even under . Justice Bhuyan’s observations in Andrabi questioned whether earlier two-judge rulings had overlooked this , reminding that a smaller bench cannot disregard the .
The tension between the under ordinary criminal law and the stringent conditions of lies at the heart of the dispute. The bench posted the matters for further hearing on to consider both interim bail and the proposed reference.
Key Observations from the Bench and Counsel
Additional Solicitor General Raju stated: “My Lords may consider interim bail, I am not opposing that… but the issue requires consideration by a larger Bench in view of the two conflicting judgments.”
Justice Bhuyan had earlier observed that “ mandates that such a must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the .”
What Happens Next
By listing the matters for the following day, the has signaled that both the individual bail claims and the larger jurisprudential question deserve prompt attention. Any reference to a Constitution Bench would clarify the interplay between statutory restrictions and constitutional safeguards of liberty, potentially reshaping bail jurisprudence under anti-terror laws for years to come.
The outcome will determine not only the fate of the remaining Delhi riots accused but also the future application of across courts.
