ARTICLE 21 vs. STATUTORY EMBARGO: BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE UAPA
In the Supreme Court's sensational verdict in the case of Umar Khalid [1] on 5 th January, 2026, the Court, among other things, has dealt with …
ARTICLE 21 vs. STATUTORY EMBARGO: BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE UAPA
In the Supreme Court's sensational verdict in the case of Umar Khalid [1] on 5 th January, 2026, the Court, among other things, has dealt with a very critical question of law- can prolonged incarceration embedded in the mandate of Article 21 be a ground for bail? If dissected further, this question branches out into other underlying contentions, such as "the Constitutional guarantee of life and liberty versus statutory embargo on bail," and, in case one of them prevails over the other, will it apply mechanically to all other cases, in which similar contentions are raised? I. Article 21 versus Section 43D(5): The Constitutional–Statutory Tension The SC demystified this area of indeterminacy: although prolonged incarceration violates the mandate of Article 21 [2] , the same cannot be the sole ground to grant bail. In light of the statutory bar set by Section 43 D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) [3] , an inordinate period of custody has to b...
