3-Judge Bench Ratio In 'K.A. Najeeb' Cannot Be Diluted By Smaller Benches To Deny UAPA Bail: Supreme Court

"Statutory embargo of Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAP Act, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, " Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment dated May 18, 2026, has unequivocally reaffirmed that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 overrides the stringent bail restrictions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act must "melt down" when an undertrial has suffered prolonged incarceration and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.

The appellant, a government employee and political activist from Jammu & Kashmir, was arrested on June 11, 2020, in connection with an NIA case alleging narco-terrorism under the UAPA and the NDPS Act. Despite being in custody for over five years and nine months, the trial showed no signs of completion, with more than 350 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh had previously denied him bail, leading to the present appeal before the top court.

The primary question before the court was whether the statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA can indefinitely supersede the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court was also called upon to determine the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of the three-judge bench decision in Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb.

Constitutional Primacy Over Statutory Restrictions

The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct, and its force cannot be displaced by legislation. It noted that the interface between Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty must always be resolved in favor of the latter when incarceration becomes unduly prolonged.

"Section 43-D(5) remains subordinate to Article 21 at all times and a constitutional court need not hold back bail to the accused in the garb of Section 43-D(5)."

Conflict Between Smaller Benches and 'K.A. Najeeb'

A significant portion of the judgment was dedicated to the "judicial discipline" required when interpreting the three-judge bench decision in K.A. Najeeb. The Court expressed "serious reservations" regarding the approach taken by two-judge benches in cases like Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Gulfisha Fatima Vs. State.

Court Criticizes 'Hollowing Out' Of Binding Precedents

The bench observed that smaller benches cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger bench. It noted that the reasoning in Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima appeared to proceed against the core spirit of Najeeb, which warned against treating the statutory embargo as the sole metric for denial of bail.

"Judicial discipline and certainty demands that Benches of smaller strength are mindful of the decisions rendered by larger Benches and are bound to follow the same."

'Bail Is The Rule' Even Under UAPA

The Court repelled the contention that the UAP Act inverts the conventional approach of 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'. It held that while statutes may calibrate the application of this principle for national security, they cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention.

Bail Principle Is Not An Empty Slogan

The judges clarified that 'bail is the rule' is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles 21 and 22 and the presumption of innocence. The statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the constitutional guarantee.

"We have no manner of doubt in stating that even under the UAP Act, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’."

Statistics On Abysmal Conviction Rates

The Court took judicial notice of statistics provided to the Lok Sabha regarding UAPA cases. It noted that the country-wide conviction rate hovers between 2% to 6%, while in Jammu and Kashmir, it is less than 1%.

Prolonged Detention In Face Of Likely Acquittal

With a 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases in J&K, the Court questioned the justification for continuing the detention of the appellant simply because the charges were serious. It held that the seriousness of the offence cannot be the dominant factor when the trial is unlikely to be completed within a reasonable time.

"With these kind of statistics staring at our face, the question is, should we continue the detention of the appellant or defer the consideration to a later stage, simply because the charges are serious?"

Lack of Admissible Evidence and Direct Recovery

Regarding the merits of the case, the Court noted that there was no recovery of cash or contraband from the person of the appellant or his premises. Most incriminating statements were made before the police, which are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Trial Not Likely To Conclude In Near Future

The Court observed that with more than 350 witnesses remaining, the conclusion of the trial was "well-nigh impossible" in the near future. Under such circumstances, the ratio of K.A. Najeeb applies with full force to ensure that the fundamental right to a speedy trial is not violated.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be released on bail. The Court concluded that the appellant had made out a case for grant of bail pending trial due to the prolonged incarceration of nearly six years and the slow pace of the proceedings, reaffirming that statutory rigors must yield to constitutional liberty.

Date of Decision: May 18, 2026