Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a government employee and political activist associated with the Jammu & Kashmir People's Conference, was initially taken into preventive detention on 07.08.2019 under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 following the abrogation of Article 370. The detention was revoked on 25.04.2020, and the High Court subsequently quashed the detention order on 26.06.2020, noting that the 'other incriminating material' relied upon was not disclosed to the appellant, denying him effective representation. Shortly after his release, on 11.06.2020, FIR No. 183/2020 was registered at Handwara Police Station under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), involving interception of a vehicle and seizure of cash and narcotics. The appellant was arrested on the same day. The Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over investigation, leading to re-registration of the case as RC-03/2020/NIA/JMU. The NIA chargesheet dated 05.12.2020 arrayed the appellant as accused No. 2, alleging his involvement in heroin smuggling, association with Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen operatives, and acting as an overground worker. He was charged under Sections 8, 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act, Sections 17, 38, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was granted interim bail on medical grounds from 04.01.2022 to 10.03.2022, after which he surrendered. Charge was framed on 15.11.2023. The Special NIA Court rejected his regular bail application on 10.08.2024, and the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissed his appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 on 19.08.2025. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Court identified two core legal issues: the interface between Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA (which imposes stringent bail restrictions) and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the propriety of smaller Benches of the Supreme Court progressively diluting the binding force of a larger Bench decision on bail without expressly overruling it. The appellant's senior counsel argued that the trial court and High Court erred in denying bail. The matter was heard on 11.03.2026 and 13.04.2026, and written submissions were filed. The provided excerpt of the judgment does not include the Court's analysis, reasoning, or final decision.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Bail under UAPA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 43-D(5); Constitution of India, Article 21 - The appeal raised the question whether the strict bail provisions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and whether a smaller Bench decision could dilute a larger Bench's binding ratio on bail without express disagreement - The Court examined the interface between statutory restrictions and fundamental rights (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether smaller Benches of the Supreme Court can progressively hollow out the constitutional force of a larger Bench decision without expressly disagreeing with it.
Law Points
- Interface between Section 43-D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967 and Article 21 of Constitution of India
- Propriety of smaller Benches undermining larger Bench decisions without express disagreement
