NEW DELHI: After two benches of the Supreme Court differed over whether delay in trial can justify bail for those accused under UAPA, the apex court has now referred the issue to a large bench for authoritative pronouncement.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale said this while taking exception to remarks made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan criticising them for not giving bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The two were arrested under UAPA for allegedly inciting 2020 Delhi communal riots to force the govt to roll back the amendments to the CAA.“Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another Bench of equal strength,” said Justices Kumar and Varale as they went on to explain their decision to decline bail to Khalid and Imam in Jan.SC: Bench of equal strength cannot alter prevailing lawThey had drawn criticism from Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan who held that refusal of bail to Khalid and Imam contradicted the court’s order in Najeeb case where a three-judge bench had held that tough conditions laid down under UAPA for bail would “melt away” if there was a delay in the trial of the accused.Taking issue with the observations passed by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan, a bench of Kumar and Varale, said, “A coordinate Bench cannot, by strong observations, effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while continuing to sit in equal strength”.“…A Bench of equal strength cannot achieve, by language of reservation, what it cannot achieve by declaration of law. If the earlier view is thought to be inconsistent with a larger Bench decision, the proper course is reference. That course protects not merely the judgment doubted, but the authority of this Court itself. …We, therefore, consider it our duty not to add another competing formulation to the field, but to place the perceived conflict before a Bench of appropriate strength so that the law may speak with the clarity and authority expected of this Court,” it said.It was Justice Kumar who penned the judgment in Khalid case. The controversy is on interpretation of the 2021 Najeeb case verdict. A division bench of Justices Kumar and Anjaria, while rejecting the bail plea of Khalid, said “the jurisprudence of this Court” doesn’t accept the idea that a mere delay can override a law made by Parliament to deal with specific serious offences. Criticising this reasoning, Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan said the Najeeb order, which was law of the land, was not followed in Khalid case.Justices Kumar and Varale, however, rejected the criticism on Friday. While giving bail to two other accused in Delhi riots case, the court argued that the three-judge bench order in Najeeb case would not impact all the UAPA accused the same way even if they all had been behind bars for a long time.It said that Najeeb is an authoritative pronouncement, which preserves the constitutional force of Article 21, while at the same time recognising the legislative policy underlying special statutes such as the UAPA.The court said that disagreement between coordinate benches is neither unusual nor undesirable but there is a way to resolve it by referring to larger bench and the matter cannot be left at the stage of criticism.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDepartment Of Space Clears Major Space Manufacturing Clusters In Gujarat And Tamil NaduCentre To Create Strong Anti-Infiltration Security Layer Across Tripura, Assam And Bengal: Amit ShahSC To Revisit UAPA Bail Standards As Umar Khalid Case Sparks Bigger Constitutional DebateIndia Conducts Successful Agni-1 Missile Test; Strategic Forces Command Validates All ParametersSuvendu Adhikari Announces New Direct Deportation Policy For Illegal Bangladeshi MigrantsKerala Swearing-In Sees Unity Moments As Rivals Exchange Smiles Inside Assembly Hall Today in KeralaTwisha Sharma Case: Husband Samarth Singh Surrenders In Court, Taken Into Police Custody | WatchWest Bengal: Crude Bombs Recovered In Birbhum’s Kod Village, Area Cordoned OffWest Bengal Begins Border Fencing In Phansidewa Amid Rising Infiltration And Smuggling ConcernsHumayun Kabir’s Cow Slaughter Remarks Trigger Political Row Over Qurbani And Law In West Bengal123Photostories5 most visited tourist attractions in the USA and what travellers need to knowFrom facing rejections over her dark skin tone to refusing a fairness cream ad film: When The Kerala Story 2 actress Ulka Gupta spoke about her strugglesCannes 2026: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan sets the red carpet on fire in a blue crystal gown by Amit AggarwalIndia’s most mystical and lesser-known mangrove forests travellers rarely talk aboutAam Panna to Lassi: 10 traditional Indian summer drinks & their calories per serving5 most beautiful parrots in the world that look almost unrealAll about Harry Styles and his USD 30 million real estate investments over the yearsHow children raised by overly strict parents turn out later in life: The answer is an eye-openerWhat is Lormalzi? Expert explains how it works and who it’s meant for5 cooling essential oils perfect for stressful summer days123Hot PicksBandra demolition driveIPL Schedule 2026Vinesh PhogatUP HeatwaveHardoi fireNID DAT counselling 2026TN Ministers ListTop TrendingTN Finance Minister Marie WilsonNID DAT counsellingChristiano RonaldoPM ModiHardik PandyaJEE Advanced Response SheetIPL Orange Cap 2026Conor McGregor Net WorthNEET UG Paper LeakWest Bengal Annapurna Yojana
NEW DELHI: After two benches of the Supreme Court differed over whether delay in trial can justify bail for those accused under UAPA, the apex court has now referred the issue to a large bench for authoritative pronouncement.A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale said this while taking exception to remarks made by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan criticising them for not giving bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The two were arrested under UAPA for allegedly inciting 2020 Delhi communal riots to force the govt to roll back the amendments to the CAA.“Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another Bench of equal strength,” said Justices Kumar and Varale as they went on to explain their decision to decline bail to Khalid and Imam in Jan.
SC: Bench of equal strength cannot alter prevailing law
They had drawn criticism from Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan who held that refusal of bail to Khalid and Imam contradicted the court’s order in Najeeb case where a three-judge bench had held that tough conditions laid down under UAPA for bail would “melt away” if there was a delay in the trial of the accused.Taking issue with the observations passed by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan, a bench of Kumar and Varale, said, “A coordinate Bench cannot, by strong observations, effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while continuing to sit in equal strength”.“…A Bench of equal strength cannot achieve, by language of reservation, what it cannot achieve by declaration of law. If the earlier view is thought to be inconsistent with a larger Bench decision, the proper course is reference. That course protects not merely the judgment doubted, but the authority of this Court itself. …We, therefore, consider it our duty not to add another competing formulation to the field, but to place the perceived conflict before a Bench of appropriate strength so that the law may speak with the clarity and authority expected of this Court,” it said.It was Justice Kumar who penned the judgment in Khalid case. The controversy is on interpretation of the 2021 Najeeb case verdict. A division bench of Justices Kumar and Anjaria, while rejecting the bail plea of Khalid, said “the jurisprudence of this Court” doesn’t accept the idea that a mere delay can override a law made by Parliament to deal with specific serious offences. Criticising this reasoning, Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyyan said the Najeeb order, which was law of the land, was not followed in Khalid case.Justices Kumar and Varale, however, rejected the criticism on Friday. While giving bail to two other accused in Delhi riots case, the court argued that the three-judge bench order in Najeeb case would not impact all the UAPA accused the same way even if they all had been behind bars for a long time.It said that Najeeb is an authoritative pronouncement, which preserves the constitutional force of Article 21, while at the same time recognising the legislative policy underlying special statutes such as the UAPA.The court said that disagreement between coordinate benches is neither unusual nor undesirable but there is a way to resolve it by referring to larger bench and the matter cannot be left at the stage of criticism.
