SC voices ‘reservations’ on its own bail decision, Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court expressed reservations about its previous judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case.
• The court emphasized that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, even in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• The observations came while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man incarcerated for five years under the UAPA in a narco-terrorism case.

Detailed Insights:

• The court acknowledged concerns that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which sets a low bar for denying bail, can lead to prolonged pre-trial incarceration, effectively becoming a punishment before conviction.
• The Supreme Court clarified that the right to personal liberty and speedy trial cannot be subordinate to the stringent bail provisions of the UAPA.
• The court noted that constitutional courts can intervene and grant bail in UAPA cases where the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration due to delayed trials, even if the "prima facie" threshold under Section 43-D(5) is met.
• The Supreme Court underscored that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA remains subordinate to Article 21 (fundamental right to life) of the Constitution, emphasizing the primacy of personal liberty.
• The court expressed concern that some verdicts were undermining previous judgments that championed personal liberty against state abuse.

Key Concepts Involved:

• UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act): An anti-terror law that allows for prolonged detention and restricts bail.
• Article 21: A fundamental right in the Indian Constitution that guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• Section 43-D(5): A provision within the UAPA that makes it difficult for accused individuals to obtain bail.