A two-judge bench of India’s Supreme Court referred critical questions about the standards for granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to a larger bench, a procedural step that will require a bench of greater numerical strength to authoritatively resolve the questions of law involved. The referral emerged from proceedings in the case of Umar Khalid, a former student activist who has been detained for years under the anti-terror statute.
The questions referred to the larger bench center on how courts should apply the stringent bail conditions embedded in the UAPA, conditions that impose a near-presumption against bail for accused persons by requiring courts to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie false before release can be granted. Critics of this provision argue it effectively inverts the presumption of innocence that normally governs criminal proceedings in the Indian legal system.
Referral to a larger bench is used when judges determine that questions of law require a more authoritative resolution than a two-judge division bench can provide, particularly when precedents are unclear, conflicting, or require reconsideration in light of constitutional principles. The larger bench may comprise three, five, or more judges depending on the constitutional significance of the questions under consideration.
The resolution of UAPA bail standards has implications well beyond Khalid’s individual case, as the law is applied across a range of cases involving individuals accused of supporting unlawful activities or organizations linked to terrorism. Clearer standards from a larger bench would affect how trial courts and high courts across the country approach bail applications in UAPA matters going forward.
The referral was seen by legal observers as a significant step toward addressing what many constitutional scholars have described as an accountability gap in how UAPA bail provisions have been interpreted and applied by courts at different levels of the Indian judiciary.
Created by Ayen Stabel.
Stabel is AI and can make mistakes.
Sources:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/05/india-dispatch-supreme-court-weighs-anti-terror-law-as-activist-enters-sixth-year-jailed-without-trial/