The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, while referring broader questions on UAPA bail jurisprudence and interpretation of K.A. Najeeb judgment to a larger Bench.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Tasleem Ahmed and Abdul Khalid Saifi in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. At the same time, the Court referred broader questions concerning the interpretation of bail jurisprudence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to a larger Bench.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale also underlined the need for authoritative clarity on how earlier rulings including K.A. Najeeb should be applied, in light of what it described as a “perceived divergence” in the way different Benches have approached bail under UAPA.
The Bench recorded the State’s submission that bail-related decisions under UAPA have reflected different understandings of the three-judge ruling in K.A. Najeeb.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the State, cited multiple judgments including Gulfisha Fatima and Kartar Singh to argue that courts have distinguished between accused persons based on their specific roles and the material on record while granting bail.
The Court noted that K.A. Najeeb continues to be an authoritative pronouncement and a constitutional safeguard under Article 21, especially where detention has become prolonged. It also clarified that the judgment does not dilute the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, and that courts must still respect these legislative limits when considering bail—particularly where substantial incarceration has already occurred.
Context of Gulfisha Fatima and later remarks
The Bench further stated that the Gulfisha Fatima decision must be read in context. It held that the ruling rejected the idea of applying delay mechanically as the sole basis for bail, while nevertheless recognising Article 21 as an ongoing constitutional check against unconscionable detention.
The Court also referred to later observations in Andrabi, noting concerns raised regarding how Gulfisha Fatima was interpreted. It emphasised that Benches of coordinate strength cannot effectively overturn earlier rulings, and that any such differences must be resolved by a larger Bench. In doing so, it observed that while disagreement between judges can be part of legal evolution, uncertainty in applying bail principles under UAPA cannot remain unresolved.
Concluding that the issue involves striking a balance between Article 21 and statutory restrictions under UAPA, the Court held that the matter requires examination by a Bench of appropriate strength to clarify the law on K.A. Najeeb and Section 43D(5). It clarified that its present order does not dilute the authority of K.A. Najeeb, but seeks clarity on its application due to conflicting interpretations.
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. It then granted interim bail to the petitioners.
The Bench had, during the pre-lunch session, reserved orders on the bail pleas filed by the two Delhi riots accused. It was also examining whether the law governing bail under UAPA needed reconsideration by a larger Bench in view of seemingly conflicting Supreme Court rulings.
Factual Backgrounds:
Ahmed has been in custody since his arrest in FIR No. 59/2020. He faces multiple charges, including under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and other provisions connected with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. His bail applications have been rejected multiple times by the trial court. Earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that he could seek parity with co-accused.
Saifi has been in custody for over five years and is seeking parity with co-accused who were recently granted bail by the Supreme Court. He is accused of being part of multiple WhatsApp groups allegedly used for coordination during the protests and of delivering inflammatory speeches allegations he disputes.
In February, the Bench had issued notice on a plea filed by United Against Hate member Khalid Saifi challenging the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail. That case involved allegations of a broader conspiracy behind the 2020 Delhi riots, including charges under the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA. At that time, the Bench orally indicated that Saifi could not claim parity with the Supreme Court’s January 2026 decision granting bail to five co-accused in the same matter.
Saifi then approached the apex court against the Delhi High Court’s September 2, 2025 order refusing him bail.
In January, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused, including Gulfisha Fatima, while rejecting the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Thereafter, Tasleem Ahmed moved the Supreme Court notice had already been issued in his petition while Saifi’s plea was tagged with it.
According to Saifi’s petition, he has spent nearly five years in custody and seeks bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. He also seeks parity with those recently enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court.
It is noted that on February 6, 2024, the Delhi High Court had expressed concerns about the prosecution’s protracted arguments during Khalid Saifi’s bail hearing, including dissatisfaction with what it described as seemingly endless submissions by the prosecution. It is also alleged that Saifi attended a meeting on December 26, 2019, at Lodhi Colony, after which DPSG was created on December 28, 2019.
Case Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State and Abdul Khalid Saifi v. State (NCT of Delhi)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE