SC criticises its January verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam
The Supreme Court has criticized its January ruling that denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, emphasizing that bail should be the norm rather than imprisonment. The court highlighted that the earlier verdict did not properly apply established legal principles regarding bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This decision marks a significant judicial critique of the application of anti-terror laws in India.
- ▪The Supreme Court held that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' even under the UAPA.
- ▪The court expressed serious reservations about the reasoning of the January 5 verdict that denied bail to Khalid and Imam.
- ▪The January ruling restricted the ability of Khalid and Imam to renew their bail pleas, which the current bench found to be a violation of constitutional rights.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
SC criticises its January verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel ImamThe court held that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) ActPublished on: May 18, 2026 11:28 AM ISTBy Utkarsh AnandShare viaCopy link The Supreme Court on Monday criticised its January 5 judgment denying bail to former JNU student Umar Khalid and activist Sharjeel Imam in the alleged larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, and emphatically held that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” even in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The court underlined that the January 5 verdict failed to correctly apply the binding principles laid down by a larger three-judge bench.A bench of justices BV…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Hindustan Times — Top.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Hindustan Times — Top
