Key SC Hearings on Criminal Justice and Constitutional Issues - 2026-01-13

Key SC Hearings on Criminal Justice and Constitutional Issues

In a week marked by intense judicial scrutiny, India's Supreme Court has delved into pressing matters spanning criminal procedure, affirmative action, and institutional accountability. From questioning remission benefits for TADA convicts in the high-profile Abu Salem case to entertaining pleas for excluding the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations and facing criticism over bail denials in UAPA cases, the apex court is navigating the delicate balance between national security, constitutional rights, and public trust. These hearings, involving extradition treaties, election immunities, and administrative appointments, underscore evolving jurisprudence that legal professionals must closely monitor for implications on practice and policy.

The docket reflects broader tensions in India's legal landscape, where assurances given internationally clash with domestic statutes, and long-standing reservation frameworks are tested for equity. With benches led by CJI Surya Kant and other justices issuing notices and directives, these proceedings could set precedents affecting thousands of litigants, from terror accused to aspiring public servants.

Abu Salem's Bid for Release: Remission Under Scrutiny

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, the notorious figure extradited from Portugal in 2005 for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that claimed 257 lives, is once again before the Supreme Court seeking premature release. Convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and awarded life imprisonment in 2017, Salem argues that he has completed the 25-year imprisonment cap assured by India to Portugal under their extradition treaty.

The treaty assurance, formalized in a December 17, 2002, letter from then-Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, promised no death penalty and no term exceeding 25 years to secure Salem's extradition. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling and a 2022 judgment reinforced this, directing release upon 25 years' completion. However, Salem's counsel, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, now contends that jail-earned remission—3 years and 16 days for good conduct—must count toward this period, pushing his effective sentence past the mark by March 31, 2025.

During the hearing before Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, the bench raised pointed queries on calculation. "First of all, how do you calculate 25 years from 2005?" the court asked, noting Salem's arrest date as November 11, 2005. More critically, Justice Mehta probed TADA's impact: "Let's see the prison rules of Maharashtra. Whether in a case where the accused is convicted for TADA, he would get a single day's remission or not?" This references potential exclusions under state prison rules for terror convicts, where remission is often barred.

Salem's initial plea to the Bombay High Court claimed a breach of Article 21's right to life and liberty, arguing illegal detention beyond the treaty term. The state countered via affidavits that he had served only 19 years, 5 months, and 18 days as of March 31, 2025, without remission. The High Court, in July 2025, denied interim relief, observing prima facie incompletion of 25 years, including pre-trial detention.

The Supreme Court adjourned the matter, directing Salem to furnish Maharashtra prison rules within two weeks, with the next hearing set for February 9, 2026. This case revives debates on harmonizing international obligations with stringent anti-terror laws, potentially clarifying if "imprisonment" includes remissions for extradited offenders.

Creamy Layer Exclusion in SC/ST Quotas: A Constitutional Push

Shifting to affirmative action, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations should exclude the "creamy layer"—affluent beneficiaries who no longer require upliftment. A writ petition by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argues that blanket quotas violate Articles 14, 15, 16, and others, perpetuating inequality rather than promoting socio-economic justice.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government, tagging the plea with a pending PIL in Ramashankar Prajapati vs. Union of India , which seeks priority for economically weaker sections within reserved categories. Upadhyay's petition stresses that reservations, envisioned as temporary by the framers, must target the truly underprivileged. "Excessive Reservation without implementing Creamy Layer System with stringent measures, is violative of the Constitutional Spirit of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience," it states, citing the Preamble's goals and Article 335's efficiency mandate.

This builds on the 2024 Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh , where a 6-1 majority permitted SC sub-classification for more backward subgroups and opined on creamy layer exclusion, though not mandating it. The plea warns that without periodic assessments, quotas become "antithetical to the constitutional goal of socio-economic justice and equal opportunity."

For legal practitioners in public interest litigation and service law, this could mandate income/asset thresholds akin to OBC reservations, reshaping recruitment and admissions. It invites scrutiny of post- Indra Sawhney (1992) jurisprudence, potentially curbing what critics call "hereditary entitlements."

Ex-Judges Slam Bail Denial in Delhi Riots Case

The Supreme Court's recent refusal of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case has drawn sharp rebukes from former judges, highlighting fissures in UAPA application. At a discussion hosted by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal—who represented Khalid—Justices Madan B. Lokur and Sudhanshu Dhulia labeled the verdict "sad" and "disappointing," respectively.

Arrested under UAPA for alleged conspiracy, Khalid and Imam have endured over four years in custody without trial completion. The judgment, per critics, misapplied Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which allowed bail for prolonged delays despite Section 43D(5)'s stringent bar. Lokur faulted the oversight of trial delays: "I am not at all happy with the judgment. On the question of delay, the judgment is completely wrong." He noted prosecution materials under CrPC Section 207 were provided only in 2023, three years post-arrest, and questioned UAPA's Section 15 invocation for "attending meetings, creating WhatsApp groups, giving speeches."

Dhulia echoed concerns, pointing to 900 pending witnesses versus Najeeb 's 200, rendering early trial impossible, and decried the one-year fresh bail embargo as unfounded. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave accused the bench of "fishing for reasons" while ignoring stare decisis , contrasting it with the same bench's Adani Power ruling on precedents. Sibal highlighted 750 riot FIRs where neither is named, with 97 acquittals criticizing police fabrication.

Dhulia warned of eroding public faith: "This institution is standing on the trust of the people. And... some injury has been caused to the public trust in judiciary." The critique spotlights selective "bail is rule, jail exception" application, citing easier bails for influential figures like Ashish Mishra in Lakhimpur Kheri. For criminal lawyers, this reinforces challenges in UAPA defenses, urging emphasis on Article 21's primacy over statutory rigors.

Challenging Immunity for Election Commissioners

In a PIL by Lok Prahari, the Supreme Court issued notice challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which grants lifelong civil and criminal immunity to the CEC and ECs for official acts. Advocate SN Shukla argued this unprecedented shield—absent even for the President or Governors—exalts the ECI beyond Article 324's intent, referencing Common Cause vs. Union of India (1996) on ECI's non-supremacy.

"The impugned provision does precisely that by giving a lifelong, unprecedented immunity to CEC and the EC," Shukla contended, noting its last-minute insertion unrelated to Article 324(2)'s appointment focus. The bench refused a stay but queried its constitutional fit, scheduling further hearings.

This could impact election law by curbing accountability for poll malpractices, urging lawyers to invoke separation of powers.

Judicial Recusal and New Appointments in Ongoing Scandals

Administrative matters saw Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recuse from the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre's (IAMC) SLP against a Telangana High Court order quashing free land allotment in Hyderabad. The June 2025 ruling upheld Rs. 3 crore aid but struck the G.O. for lacking public purpose justification. Justices Dipankar Datta and Sharma directed listing before another bench to ensure impartiality.

Separately, the Court appointed Ms. Sunena Sharma (Delhi Higher Judicial Service) as Special Judge for Coal Blocks allocation scam trials, relieving Justice Sanjay Bansal after 4.5 years. Stemming from the 2014 Coal India cancellation of arbitrary 1993-2009 allocations, this maintains CBI probes' momentum.

These steps emphasize judicial ethics and trial efficiency in corruption cases.

Legal Implications and Future Outlook

These hearings illuminate SC's role in reconciling conflicts: treaty fidelity versus TADA's severity; reservation equity under Articles 14-16; UAPA's security mandate against liberty; and institutional checks on ECI powers. Implications include refined remission doctrines, mandatory creamy layer tests, stricter UAPA bail scrutiny, and limited immunities—potentially reforming prisons, quotas, and elections.

For practitioners, they demand updated strategies: treaty arguments in extraditions, sub-classification briefs, and recusal protocols. Broader impacts? Restoring trust amid critiques, as ex-judges urge, while advancing justice. As cases progress, the SC's rulings will shape India's legal ethos.