Supreme Court of India said constitutional protections under Article 21 remain central even in cases filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
May 18, 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Monday criticised its January 5 judgment denying bail to former JNU student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. The court strongly reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” even in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Jammu and Kashmir resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. The bench expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted in the earlier January verdict delivered by another bench of the apex court.
Reading out portions of the judgment in open court, Justice Bhuyan said that bail was not merely a statutory concept but a constitutional principle flowing from Article 21. The court stressed that the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of the justice system and referred to the larger bench ruling in Union of India vs KA Najeeb (2021), which recognised that prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can justify bail even under stringent UAPA provisions.