Today news

A Supreme Court bench has expressed “serious reservations” regarding a previous verdict that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, citing a potential contradiction with established legal precedent. The bench indicated that recent division-bench decisions may be undermining the constitutional authority of larger bench judgments.

Constitutional Hierarchy and Judicial Discipline

Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan stated it was “demanding to follow” the division-bench judgment in the Delhi riots case. They expressed concern over the “propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.”

The bench emphasized that the 2021 three-judge Najeeb case verdict remains the “law of the land.” According to the justices, this precedent dictates that bail should be granted in instances of long incarceration and trial delays, even under the provisions of the UAPA and PMLA.

Did You Know? The Najeeb case verdict, which involved an alleged PFI member, is considered binding law that cannot be diluted or disregarded by trial courts, high courts, or smaller benches of the Supreme Court.

The justices noted that the principle of “bail is the rule, jail the exception” is a constitutional mandate grounded in Article 21 and Article 22. They argued that while statutes may calibrate how the presumption of innocence is applied—particularly regarding national security or terrorist offenses—they cannot “altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention.”

Expert Insight: The core significance of this development lies in the tension between statutory restrictions and fundamental rights. The bench is asserting that the Constitution must maintain hierarchy over specific statutes, ensuring that legal embargoes do not overpower the right to liberty.

The bench specifically criticized the reasoning in the Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima judgments. They suggested these rulings departed from the ratio laid down in the Najeeb case, stating that the reasoning “appears to proceed against something invented and then destroyed.”

Regarding the proper procedure for disagreeing with a larger bench, the justices stated: “If smaller benches are unable to agree with the ratio laid down by the larger bench then the proper and only course of action open is to make a reference to the Hon- ’ble CJI for placing the matter for consideration by a still larger bench.”

The Balance of Liberty and Statute

The court clarified that the Najeeb ruling did not suggest that the mere passage of time automatically entitles an accused to bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. Instead, the larger bench recognized that when incarceration is unduly prolonged and a trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time, the application of that section becomes “constitutionally suspect” under the mandate of Article 21.

the bench maintained that the constitutional force of the Najeeb decision serves to restore the hierarchy between statutes like the UAPA and the Constitution itself, noting that “Section 43-D(5) remains subordinate to Article 21 at all times.”

As the legal community processes these observations, the matter of judicial discipline may lead to a formal reference to the Chief Justice of India. Such a move could result in a still larger bench being convened to resolve the inconsistencies between different bench strengths regarding bail and the right to liberty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary concern raised by the Supreme Court bench?
The bench is concerned that smaller division benches are “hollowing out” the constitutional force of larger bench decisions, specifically the 2021 Najeeb case verdict, without expressly disagreeing with them.

How does the Najeeb case impact bail under the UAPA?
The Najeeb case established that while the UAPA has specific provisions, they are subordinate to Article 21. In cases of gross delay and prolonged incarceration, the constitutional mandate for liberty may override statutory embargoes like Section 43-D(5).

What should a smaller bench do if it disagrees with a larger bench’s ruling?
The bench stated that the only proper course of action is to make a reference to the Chief Justice of India to place the matter before an even larger bench.

How should the court balance national security statutes with the fundamental right to liberty?