The Supreme Court of India reiterated that bail, not prolonged detention, should remain the norm even under the UAPA, while granting relief to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi and expressing reservations over denial of bail to Umar Khalid.
The Supreme Court of India reiterated that, even in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), bail should ordinarily be granted and continued detention should be treated as the exception. While granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Jammu and Kashmir accused in a narco-terrorism case, the Court also stated that it had serious reservations about an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench that had refused bail to activist Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots conspiracy matter.
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations while hearing Andrabi’s bail plea. The Court noted that Andrabi has been in custody since June 2020 in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
During the hearing, the Bench specifically discussed the decision in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, a case connected to the Delhi riots conspiracy prosecutions. In that matter, some accused were granted bail, but activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied relief.
The Court today said,
“We have serious reservations about judgment in Gulfisha Fatima. The judgment in Gulfisha Fatima would have us believe that Najeeb (a judgment which says accused cannot be indefinitely jailed) is only a narrow and exceptional departure from Section 43D(5), justified in extreme factual situations. It is this hollowing out of the import of the observations in Najeeb that we are concerned with. The broad reading of Najeeb suggests that the mere passage of time, if it arises from all surrounding circumstances, mechanically entitles an accused to release,”
The Bench emphasised that the stringent safeguards contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot dilute the constitutional guarantees protecting personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Articles 21 and 22.
The Court held,
“The statutory embargo of Section 43D(5) UAPA must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Of course, in an appropriate case, bail can be denied having regard to the facts of that particular case,”
The Supreme Court further clarified that its earlier three-judge Bench decision in Union of India v. KA Najeeb remains binding law. The Court said this cannot be diluted by Benches with fewer judges. In Najeeb, the Court had held that UAPA accused also enjoy constitutional protection against indefinite incarceration and may be granted bail where trials are unduly delayed.
The Court held today,
“In that spirit, we make it clear that Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of judicial discipline. It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts, or even by benches of lower strength of this Court,”
Addressing what it described as concerning judicial trends, the Bench observed that smaller Benches cannot weaken or reinterpret larger Bench rulings unless they formally disagree and refer the issue to a larger Bench.
The Court said,
“More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it,”
The Court reiterated the requirement of judicial discipline, stating that smaller Benches are bound to follow larger Bench precedents.
The Court said,
“A smaller Bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger Bench. If a smaller Bench cannot agree with a larger Bench, it can only refer the case to the Chief Justice of India for allocation to a larger Bench,”
The Bench also pointed out that some two-judge Bench decisions, including the ruling in the Umar Khalid bail case, appeared to depart from the principles laid down in Najeeb.
The Court added,
“Judicial discipline and certainty demand that benches of smaller strength are mindful of the decisions rendered by larger benches and are bound to follow the same,”
The Court rejected the contention that delays in UAPA trials should not be grounds for granting bail. It underlined that the protections under Article 21 must be preserved, and said serious allegations should ideally result in faster trials rather than prolonged incarceration.
The Court remarked,
“Ideally, the more serious the accusations are, the speedier the trial should be,”
Factual Backgrounds:
These remarks were made while deciding Andrabi’s case. According to the NIA, Andrabi who is from Handwara in Kupwara district of Jammu and Kashmir was allegedly linked to a cross-border narcotics syndicate that sourced heroin from the Tangdhar border area and routed proceeds to terror organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
He faces charges under multiple provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the UAPA, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy).
A Special NIA Court had rejected Andrabi’s bail plea in August 2024. He then approached the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, where a Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar dismissed his plea on August 19, 2025. The High Court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the material on record outweighed the case for bail. Challenging that order, Andrabi moved the Supreme Court.
Observations and Order of the Court:
The apex court disagreed with the High Court’s approach and held that the legal principles laid down in Najeeb and related decisions clearly bar indefinite incarceration merely because UAPA allegations are involved.
The Court said,
“The position of law emerging from Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal (cases) is therefore clear. Watali (another case) cannot be invoked to justify indefinite incarceration of the accused under the UAPA,”
The Bench also clarified that even the existence of a prima facie case cannot be used to justify endless detention while the trial remains pending.
The Court said,
“A plain reading of Najeeb will show that it was trying to prevent precisely this possibility from arising, when it cautioned that Section 43D(5) must not become the sole metric for denial of bail, causing wholesale breach of the constitutional right to speedy trial,”
While granting bail, the Supreme Court referred to official data published by the National Crime Records Bureau concerning conviction rates in UAPA cases. The Court observed that convictions remain extremely rare nationwide, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court observed,
“We have quoted statistics from National Crime Records Bureau. For the five years from 2019 to 2023, the all-India figures show that the rate of conviction minimum is 1.5% and the maximum is 4%, whereas in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the rate of conviction in 2019 was zero, and the maximum was in 2022 at 0.89%. Therefore, for the all-India figures, we have 2% to 6% convictions, meaning thereby that there is a 94% to 98% possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country. So far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1%. It means that at the end of the trial, there is a 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases,”
The Supreme Court ultimately granted bail to Andrabi subject to conditions, including periodic appearance before police authorities, cooperation with the ongoing investigation, and surrender of his passport. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for Andrabi before the Supreme Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE