The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Mohd. Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail to campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections. The petitioner, in custody since 2020 for charges related to rioting, murder, and other serious offenses, was denied interim bail on the grounds that such relief would contravene public policy, risk witness tampering, and conflict with the Representation of People Act, 1951.

• Interim Bail Application Purpose: The petitioner sought bail solely to campaign and canvass for the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections after having already been granted custody parole for filing nomination papers.
• Rejection Basis: The Court noted that electoral campaigning is not a fundamental or statutory right and allowing such bail would set a precedent for misuse by incarcerated candidates across the nation.
• Key Observations: Interim bail cannot be granted for electoral canvassing, especially when the accused faces serious charges, including murder and rioting.

1. Background of the Case

• Para 2-3: The petitioner is in custody for charges under FIR No. 65 of 2020 related to rioting and the murder of Ankit Sharma, an Intelligence Bureau officer. He has been implicated in multiple cases arising from the 2020 Delhi riots, along with a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

2. Application for Interim Bail

• Para 4-6: Hussain sought interim bail from the High Court to contest the Delhi Assembly elections. The High Court granted only custody parole for nomination filing. Dissatisfied, he approached the Supreme Court.

3. Rights and Legal Framework

• Para 6-8: The Court examined whether contesting elections and campaigning is a constitutional right. It concluded that campaigning is not a fundamental, statutory, or human right.

4. Evidence Against the Petitioner

• Para 7: Allegations include rioting, the murder of Ankit Sharma, and evidence of the petitioner’s house being used as a hub for rioters (recovery of petrol bombs, acid drums, and bricks).

5. Observations on Interim Bail

• Para 9-12: Granting bail for campaigning would open a "Pandora's box," allowing undertrials to misuse elections as a reason for temporary release.

6. Legal Restrictions

• Para 13: Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, restricts prisoners from voting, indicating that those in lawful custody should not be permitted to participate freely in elections.

7. Alternative Means for Campaigning

• Para 16: The Court highlighted that modern tools such as social media and printed materials could be used for campaigning, without physical presence being necessary.

8. Public Interest Consideration

• Para 21: The Court emphasized the need for clean politics, restricting undertrials with serious criminal charges from actively participating in elections.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections related to rioting and murder.
2. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Ongoing investigation and case against the petitioner.
3. Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 62(5) restricts prisoners from voting, indicating broader limitations on electoral rights for those in custody.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Legal Precedent: Campaigning is neither a constitutional right nor protected under statutory provisions. Interim bail for such purposes risks misuse and dilutes public confidence in the judiciary.
• Public Interest: Granting interim bail in cases involving grave charges like rioting and murder undermines public trust and poses a threat to witnesses.
• Electoral Integrity: The Court underscored the principle that incarcerated individuals, especially those accused of serious offenses, should not be granted privileges that could disrupt justice.

Subjects:

Electoral rights of incarcerated individuals, public interest in judicial decisions, and balancing fundamental rights with statutory limitations.

#InterimBail #SupremeCourtJudgment #ElectoralRights #RepresentationOfPeopleAct #PublicInterest #JudicialPrecedent