The Supreme Court of India is currently grappling with significant questions concerning the nation’s anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as the case of Umar Khalid highlights ongoing legal complexities. Khalid, a former student activist from Jawaharlal Nehru University, has been detained in Delhi’s Tihar jail since September 2020, without trial. This prolonged detention starkly contrasts with the constitutional right to personal liberty, as he [enters his sixth year in custody](https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/05/india-dispatch-supreme-court-weighs-anti-terror-law-as-activist-enters-sixth-year-jailed-without-trial/).
The Supreme Court recently referred crucial questions to a larger bench, following discrepancies in judicial interpretations regarding the application of bail under the UAPA. A two-judge bench, comprised of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, acknowledged the need for clarity in light of conflicting judgments that emerged from different benches. The legal drama unfolded with various bail applications, including Khalid’s, being denied on the grounds of UAPA’s stringent Section 43D(5), which requires courts to deny bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the charges are prima facie true.
This challenge was strikingly addressed in the 2021 ruling of Union of India v. KA Najeeb, where the Supreme Court introduced a significant consideration—bail could be granted in cases where pre-trial detention had become unreasonably prolonged. However, differing interpretations among subsequent benches, such as the one led by Justice Kumar in January 2026, refused to mechanically apply this precedent, creating a rift in jurisprudence. Meanwhile, another bench criticized this approach in a separate case, granting bail under similar conditions, ultimately leading the court to aim for a decisive judgment from a larger bench.
The broader implications of this judicial conundrum extend well beyond individual cases, touching upon the contentious application of UAPA over the past decade. Critically, it has been utilized in cases involving journalists, human rights defenders, and political activists, drawing significant international scrutiny. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, alongside global human rights organizations, has repeatedly questioned India’s extensive use of UAPA, emphasizing the need for aligning domestic practices with international pre-trial detention standards.
This ongoing legal discourse is expected to reach a turning point, as the Chief Justice of India prepares to assemble a suitably robust bench to address these pivotal issues. Legal professionals and civil liberties advocates closely monitor developments, especially considering the interim relief granted to some of Khalid’s co-accused, Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, albeit temporarily. The looming decision promises to either foster tangible change for hundreds of detainees languishing without trial or cement further legal hurdles, reminding all that justice must walk in lockstep with liberty.