The Supreme Court of India said Monday that bail should be the rule and jail the exception in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [1].
This observation challenges the stringent application of anti-terror laws in India, where accused individuals often remain imprisoned for years without trial. The ruling suggests a shift toward protecting personal liberty even when facing severe national security charges.
A bench consisting of two judges, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan [3], said an earlier order from January 2026 [2] had denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court said the previous decision diluted a binding precedent regarding the granting of bail in UAPA cases [1].
According to the court, the two-judge bench that decided the matter in January had failed to properly follow a ruling established by a three-judge bench [4]. The court said this failure effectively weakened the principle that bail should be the norm [1].
Khalid and Imam have been detained in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case [1]. The current bench emphasized the legal standard by stating, “bail is the rule, jail the exception” [1].
The court's critique focuses on the hierarchy of judicial precedents. Because the three-judge ruling is binding, the court said the earlier two-judge decision failed to adhere to the established legal framework [4].
““bail is the rule, jail the exception.””
This development indicates a potential judicial correction in how the UAPA is applied. By reaffirming that a three-judge precedent outweighs a two-judge decision, the Court is signaling that the restrictive nature of anti-terror laws cannot override the fundamental legal presumption in favor of bail. This could open the door for other UAPA detainees to seek release if their bail denials were based on similar misapplications of precedent.
