BREAKING: #SupremeCourt says two-judge bench rulings in Gurminder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima cannot dilute or depart from the binding three-judge bench ruling in K.A. Najeeb on grant of bail under the #UAPA.

[18/05, 11:04] sekarreporter1: BREAKING: #SupremeCourt says two-judge bench rulings in Gurminder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima cannot dilute or depart from the binding three-judge bench ruling in K.A. Najeeb on grant of bail under the #UAPA.

The Court reiterates that smaller benches cannot “dilute, circumvent or disregard” larger bench rulings and, if they disagree, can only refer the matter to the CJI for constitution of a larger bench.
[18/05, 11:04] Meta AI: *BREAKING: SC – 2-judge benches can’t overrule 3-judge bench in UAPA bail cases*

*1. What the Supreme Court just said*
A Supreme Court bench has held that _two-judge bench rulings in ‘Gurminder Singh’ and ‘Gulfisha Fatima’ cannot dilute or depart from the binding three-judge bench ruling in ‘K.A. Najeeb’ on grant of bail under UAPA_.

*Core principle restated*: _Smaller benches cannot “dilute, circumvent or disregard” larger bench rulings. If they disagree, they can only refer the matter to the CJI for constitution of a larger bench._ 6cb8

*2. The 3 conflicting precedents*
**Case** **Bench strength** **Key holding on UAPA bail**
**K.A. Najeeb, 2021** 3 judges: NV Ramana, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose *Statutory bar u/s 43D(5) UAPA must not overshadow Article 21. Prolonged incarceration + unlikelihood of timely trial = valid ground for bail. Bail can be granted despite stringent UAPA conditions.*
**Gurwinder Singh, Feb 2024** 2 judges: MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar *“Jail is the rule, bail the exception under UAPA”. Mere delay in trial cannot be ground for bail in grave offences. Bail must be rejected as a rule if prima facie case exists.*
**Gulfisha Fatima case** 2-judge bench Relied on *Gurwinder Singh* to deny bail – held *delay + plethora of witnesses* meant trial would take long, but that’s not ground for bail. Criticised for using S.43D(5) to *“circumvent Article 21”*
6cb884d121fb

*3. Why SC intervened now*
1. *Hierarchy issue*: _KA Najeeb_ is a 3-judge bench judgment. _Gurwinder Singh_ is 2-judge. _Gurwinder_ tried to distinguish _Najeeb_ saying Najeeb’s trial was separated and he’d served 5+ years vs 8-year max sentence for co-accused.
2. *Shoma Sen case, Apr 2024*: SC bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose & Augustine George Masih already clarified _Gurwinder Singh_ _“would not ‘dislocate’ the ratio laid down in K.A. Najeeb”_. But trial courts & HCs kept citing _Gurwinder_ to deny bail.
3. *Present order*: SC reiterates _Najeeb_ binds all smaller benches. _Gurwinder_ can’t dilute it. bdb15ee2

*4. What K.A. Najeeb actually says on UAPA bail*
1. *Article 21 trumps*: _Prolonged incarceration without speedy trial violates right to life/liberty_.
2. *S.43D(5) not absolute*: Less stringent than NDPS S.37. Constitutional rights can’t be ignored.
3. *Delay matters*: If trial unlikely to finish soon + long custody, bail should be granted.
4. *But not automatic*: _“Delay does not operate as a trump card… must balance gravity, role, prima facie case, proportionality”_. 6cb83aa9

*5. Impact*
1. *UAPA undertrials*: Accused in jail for years citing delay can rely on _Najeeb_. Courts can’t mechanically cite _Gurwinder_ _“jail is rule”_ line to deny bail.
2. *Judicial discipline*: 2-judge benches + HCs must follow _Najeeb_ unless referred to larger bench. _Gulfisha Fatima_ order now doubtful.
3. *Pending cases*: Delhi riots, Bhima Koregaon, other UAPA matters where bail denied citing _Gurwinder_ may see review.

*Bottom line*: SC is enforcing judicial hierarchy. _K.A. Najeeb_’s 3-judge _Article 21 > UAPA bar_ ratio stays. _Gurwinder Singh_’s _“jail is rule”_ comment can’t override it. If a 2-judge bench wants to depart, _only route is reference to CJI for larger bench_.

Want the full text of the latest SC order or details on how this affects Gulfisha Fatima’s bail plea specifically?
[18/05, 11:04] sekarreporter1: Supreme Court further holds:

• Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration and must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22.

• “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under the UAPA.

• The “twin-prong test” evolved in Gurminder Singh flows neither from Section 43D(5) nor from K.A. Najeeb.

• Treating prima facie satisfaction as the sole basis to deny bail risks giving pre-trial detention a “post-trial punitive character”, the Court says.
[18/05, 11:04] Meta AI: *Supreme Court doubles down on UAPA bail: “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception”*
_New clarification issued – May 2026_

Building on its ruling that _Gurminder Singh_ can’t dilute _K.A. Najeeb_, the SC has now made 4 explicit holdings:

*1. S.43D(5) UAPA has constitutional limits*
_“Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration and must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22.”_
*Translation*: The UAPA’s stringent bail bar – _no bail if court thinks accusation “prima facie true”_ – can’t override fundamental rights. Right to life/liberty + protection against arbitrary arrest still apply. If trial drags for years, S.43D(5) can’t keep you in jail forever.

*2. Bail is the rule, even under UAPA*
_“Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under the UAPA._
This directly rejects _Gurwinder Singh’s_ Feb 2024 line: _“jail is the rule, bail the exception under UAPA”_. SC says normal criminal law principle applies – UAPA doesn’t create a reverse presumption.

*3. “Twin-prong test” from Gurminder Singh has no legal basis*
_“The ‘twin-prong test’ evolved in Gurminder Singh flows neither from Section 43D(5) nor from K.A. Najeeb.”_
*What was the test?* _Gurwinder_ said bail under UAPA must be rejected if: 1) _prima facie case exists_, and 2) _mere delay can’t be ground_. SC now says that test was invented – it’s not in statute, and _Najeeb_ never laid it down.

*4. Pre-trial detention can’t become punishment*
_“Treating prima facie satisfaction as the sole basis to deny bail risks giving pre-trial detention a ‘post-trial punitive character’.”_
*Meaning*: Courts can’t say _“charges look true, so you stay in jail 8 years before trial ends”_. If you deny bail only because allegations seem strong, without looking at delay, personal liberty, stage of trial – you’re punishing before conviction. Violates Art 21.

*How this changes UAPA bail law*
**Issue** **Gurwinder Singh 2-judge view** **SC May 2026 view**
Default rule Jail is rule, bail exception Bail is rule, jail exception
S.43D(5) scope Near-absolute bar if prima facie true Subject to Art 21/22, can’t justify indefinite jail
Delay in trial Not a ground for bail Prolonged delay + unlikely completion = bail ground
Test for bail Twin-prong: prima facie + no delay excuse *Najeeb* test: balance gravity, role, delay, Art 21
*Immediate impact*
1. *Gulfisha Fatima, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam cases*: Trial courts/HCs that denied bail citing _Gurwinder_ must reconsider. _Najeeb_ + this order bind them.
2. *Trial courts*: Can’t mechanically reject bail by writing _“prima facie true, hence S.43D(5) attracted”_. Must examine _how long in jail, how many witnesses left, likely time to conclude_.
3. *NIA/Prosecution*: _“Case is serious”_ alone won’t work if accused has spent 4-5 years with 200+ witnesses pending.

*Bottom line*: SC is dismantling the _“UAPA = no bail”_ approach. _K.A. Najeeb_ 3-judge bench remains law. S.43D(5) is a _“guiding factor, not a constitutional wall”_. If State wants to keep someone in jail, prosecute fast – you don’t get to use UAPA to bypass Art 21.

Want the case name/cause title of this latest order, or how it affects specific Delhi riots/Bhima Koregaon undertrials?