The Supreme Court has issued a split verdict on whether Tahir Hussain, a former AAP councillor facing serious allegations, should be granted interim bail to campaign in the Delhi Assembly elections. Justice Mithal opposed the plea citing potential misuse of bail, while Justice Amanullah supported it with conditions, highlighting delays in Hussain’s trial. The case will be referred for further review.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on whether former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain should be granted interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as a candidate for the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM).
A Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah disagreed on the issue, with Justice Mithal rejecting the plea and Justice Amanullah supporting conditional interim bail. The case will now be referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for a decision by a third judge or a larger bench.
Justice Mithal rejected Hussain’s plea, expressing concerns over the precedent it might set if interim bail was granted to contest elections.
Also Read: HC Seeks ED Evidence for Tahir Hussain’s PMLA Case Dismissal Plea in 2020 Riots
“If interim bail is allowed for contesting elections, it will open a Pandora’s box. Since elections in the country are all year round, every prisoner will come out with a plea that he wants to participate in the elections. This will open floodgates of litigation and cannot be permitted,”
he said.
Justice Mithal also noted the serious allegations against Hussain, particularly his involvement in the death of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the Delhi riots.
“The right to campaign for elections is not a fundamental right. It is up to the court’s discretion, and Hussain has not made a case for interim bail,”
he added.
In contrast, Justice Amanullah argued that the gravity of allegations alone cannot deny bail, emphasizing the slow progress in Hussain’s trial.
“It is settled law that the magnitude of offense and gravity is not the only criterion for bail cases. Subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioner can be granted bail until the forenoon of February 4, 2025,”
he said.
Justice Amanullah proposed strict conditions for Hussain’s bail, including restrictions on discussing the Delhi riots cases during campaigning and an obligation to surrender promptly after the bail term ends.
The judge also criticized the State’s delay in prosecuting the case, pointing out that only a few witnesses had been examined in over four years.
Hussain, who has been in continuous custody since March 2020, sought interim bail to campaign for elections. He argued that his presence was essential for election procedures and his ability to connect with voters.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Hussain, contended:
“I have been kept away from my electorate for the last four years. I am not canvassing for a party but for myself. I had no prior criminal antecedents except one case of defacement in which I was acquitted.”
However, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju opposed the plea, stating:
“Hussain cannot claim a fundamental right to campaign for polls outside jail. He played a significant role in orchestrating the Delhi riots. The charges against him are grave.”
Raju also rejected comparisons to bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during elections, arguing:
“Kejriwal’s case did not involve deaths. Comparing the two cases is like comparing oranges and apples.”
Since the two judges disagreed, Justice Amanullah stated:
“Let the Registry place this matter before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a third judge or before a three-judge bench.”
The Supreme Court’s final decision will determine whether Tahir Hussain can temporarily leave custody to participate in the democratic process while facing serious charges. The case highlights the delicate balance between an accused’s rights and the State’s duty to ensure justice in high-profile criminal cases.
Previous Hearing
The Supreme Court stated yesterday that individuals with serious allegations against them should be prevented from contesting elections, as it postponed the hearing of a plea by former councillor and Delhi riots accused, Tahir Hussain, until January 21.
A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah adjourned the hearing due to a lack of time.
Case Title – MOHD TAHIR HUSSAIN Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI | SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE