Supreme Court’s sharp reaffirmation of K.A. Najeeb may reshape the future of bail jurisprudence in terror cases
By PC Bureau
May 18, 2026: Hope has been revived for Umar Khalid and dozens of others behind the bars for yars in UAPA case after the Supreme Court on Monday delivered one of its strongest recent reaffirmations of personal liberty . In doing so, the Court not only questioned the legal foundation of earlier rulings denying bail to Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, but also sent a broader message against the growing normalization of indefinite pre-trial incarceration under anti-terror laws.
READ: Only in Manipur—Killing, Mass Abduction, but No Probe, No Suspects, No Arrest
The Court observed that later rulings delivered by th two-judge benches in Gurwinder Singh v. Union of India and Gulfisha Fatima v. State appeared to adopt a divergent approach that diluted the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb.
The bench said it found it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted in those judgments.
“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such a binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent or disregard the ratio of a larger bench,” Justice Bhuyan stated.
The significance of Monday’s judgment lies not merely in its legal reasoning, but in what it signals about the judiciary’s growing unease with the way UAPA has evolved in practice. Over the last decade, the law has increasingly been criticised for enabling prolonged incarceration without conviction. Trials often move slowly, chargesheets run into thousands of pages, and accused persons can remain behind bars for years before evidence is even fully examined.
In several high-profile cases—including those involving activists, journalists, students, and academics—the process itself has effectively become the punishment.
Justice Bhuyan’s judgment directly confronts this concern.
“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength,” the Court observed, adding that smaller benches cannot “dilute, circumvent or disregard” binding precedent.
This was more than a procedural reminder about judicial discipline. It was an explicit warning against the gradual erosion of liberty through restrictive interpretations of bail jurisprudence.
The Court also addressed a growing trend in UAPA cases: the reliance on the 2019 NIA v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali judgment to deny bail almost as a rule. In Watali, the Supreme Court had held that courts should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence at the bail stage if the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. Over time, however, this principle came to be interpreted by many courts as virtually foreclosing bail altogether in UAPA cases.
Monday’s ruling pushes back against that approach.
The bench clarified that Watali cannot be used to justify endless pre-trial detention, especially where trials are unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that Article 21 of the Constitution—which guarantees personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial—must remain central even in national security cases.
Perhaps the most consequential part of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the so-called “two-prong test” evolved in Gurwinder Singh. Under that formulation, bail could be granted only if the accused demonstrated that the prosecution case lacked prima facie merit.
Justice Bhuyan warned that such a standard would create a dangerous situation where the State needs only to cross a minimal threshold to keep an accused imprisoned indefinitely while trials drag on for years.
“If this test is accepted, the State needs only to satisfy a low prima facie threshold while the trial may continue for years, with the result that pre-trial incarceration begins to acquire a post-trial punitive character,” the judgment noted.
That observation cuts to the heart of the UAPA debate in India.
Critics of the law have long argued that its harsh bail provisions invert the presumption of innocence and allow incarceration to function as punishment without conviction. Supporters of stringent anti-terror laws argue that extraordinary threats require extraordinary powers. But the Supreme Court’s latest observations suggest a growing judicial recognition that constitutional safeguards cannot disappear merely because the State invokes national security.
Importantly, the Court also rejected attempts to portray K.A. Najeeb as applicable only in “exceptional” situations. Instead, it reaffirmed that prolonged custody itself—when combined with systemic delays—can become a constitutional ground for bail.
Amidst the prevailing despair, the Supreme Court still remains a ray of hope…..
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 18) expressed reservations about the judgment in ‘Gulfisha Fatima’ (which denied bail to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case) saying… pic.twitter.com/3rraEicTS6— John Brittas (@JohnBrittas) May 18, 2026
“We make it clear that K.A. Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of stare decisis,” Justice Bhuyan declared.
The ruling could have immediate implications for several pending UAPA cases across the country, particularly those involving accused persons who have spent years in custody without trial completion. For Umar Khalid, who has remained incarcerated since 2020, the judgment may significantly strengthen future bail arguments.
More broadly, however, the decision marks an attempt by the Supreme Court to restore balance between national security and civil liberties—a balance many legal scholars and rights advocates believe has steadily eroded in recent years.
Whether lower courts fully internalise this message remains to be seen. But for now, the Supreme Court has made one thing unmistakably clear: anti-terror laws cannot become instruments for indefinite imprisonment without trial, and constitutional courts cannot surrender the principle that liberty remains the rule, not the exception.
