The Hindu Editorial • May 21, 2026 • Read Original

The bail rule: On liberty and the Andrabi ruling

The Andrabi ruling reaffirms liberty over the stringent UAPA bar

Scoreclever

Win Exams Cleverly

The Hindu Read Original

10 min read

Analysis of editorial from The Hindu newspaper on May 21, 2026

The bail rule: On liberty and the Andrabi ruling

The Andrabi ruling reaffirms liberty over the stringent UAPA bar

UAPA Section 43-D(5)Syed Iftikhar Andrabi RulingRight to Personal LibertySpeedy TrialK.A. Najeeb CaseGulfisha Fatima Case

Sentences

Sentence 1 of 13

English Original

Present with Modal S + V + O + Adjunct

The idea of justice should never allow for the indefinite imprisonment of someone without trial.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The idea of justice

The basic principle of fairness and what is right

Part 2

should never allow for

Ought not to permit or accept

Part 3

the indefinite imprisonment of someone

Keeping a person in prison for an unlimited time without a set end date

Part 4

without trial

Without a formal court hearing to decide if they are guilty

Sentence 2 of 13

English Original

Simple Present Adjunct + S + V + Adjunct

However, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), does so, through its stringent Section 43-D(5), which makes bail near impossible once a court is satisfied, on the prosecution’s material, that a prima facie case exists against the accused.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

However

But or nevertheless (introducing a contrast)

Part 2

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

India’s primary anti-terror law enacted to prevent unlawful activities

Part 3

does so

Performs that action (referring to indefinite imprisonment without trial)

Part 4

through its stringent Section 43-D(5), which makes bail near impossible once a court is satisfied, on the prosecution’s material, that a prima facie case exists against the accused

By using a strict rule in the law that blocks bail if the judge thinks the police’s evidence shows the person is likely guilty

Context and Background

UAPA and Section 43-D(5) Bail Provisions

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), enacted in 1967, is India’s primary anti-terror law. Section 43-D(5) of the Act imposes strict conditions on the grant of bail. It states that an accused shall not be released on bail if the court, after examining the case diary or police report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This creates a reverse burden, making bail extremely difficult compared to regular criminal cases.

Sentence 3 of 13

English Original

Simple Past Adjunct + S + V + O

But on May 18, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu, the top court delivered a welcome restatement of the principle that bail should be the rule even in cases related to the UAPA.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

But on May 18, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Introducing a contrast regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on May 18 in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi against the NIA

Part 2

the top court

The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in the country

Part 3

delivered

Gave or announced (in this case, a judgment)

Part 4

a welcome restatement of the principle that bail should be the rule even in cases related to the UAPA

A pleasing reminder of the legal rule that releasing an accused on bail should be the standard practice, even under anti-terror laws

Context and Background

National Investigation Agency (NIA)

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is India’s premier counter-terror law enforcement agency. It was established in 2008 following the Mumbai terror attacks (26/11) under the National Investigation Agency Act. Headquartered in New Delhi, the NIA is empowered to investigate terror-related crimes across states without special permission from state governments, making it a highly centralized federal agency.

Sentence 4 of 13

English Original

Simple Past S + V + O + IO

The Bench granted bail to Andrabi, who had spent over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The group of judges who heard the case and gave the decision

Part 2

granted

Allowed or gave officially

Part 3

bail

Temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial under specific conditions

Part 4

to Andrabi, who had spent over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody

To the accused person Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who was kept in prison for nearly six years before his trial actually began

Sentence 5 of 13

English Original

Simple Past S + V + O

The Bench also clarified the legal position where an undertrial has spent years in custody without any realistic prospect of the trial concluding.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The panel of judges

Part 2

also clarified

Additionally made clear or explained

Part 3

the legal position where an undertrial has spent years in custody without any realistic prospect of the trial concluding

The law regarding cases where a person awaiting trial has been in jail for years with no signs of the trial finishing anytime soon

Sentence 6 of 13

English Original

Simple Past Adjunct + S + V + O

By reiterating that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial cannot be subservient to the provision in Section 43-D(5), the judgment disapproved the reasoning in two two-judge Bench rulings, Gurwinder Singh (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima, decided earlier this year.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

By reiterating that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial cannot be subservient to the provision in Section 43-D(5)

By repeating the legal truth that a person’s freedom and right to a fast court trial are more important than the strict bail block in Section 43-D(5)

Part 2

the judgment

The court’s official decision in the Andrabi case

Part 3

disapproved

Disagreed with or rejected officially

Part 4

the reasoning in two two-judge Bench rulings, Gurwinder Singh (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima, decided earlier this year

The logical arguments used in the earlier cases of Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima by panels of two judges to deny bail

Context and Background

Gurwinder Singh (2024) & Gulfisha Fatima Rulings

In Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima v. State (2026), two-judge benches of the Supreme Court took a restrictive approach to bail under UAPA. In Gurwinder Singh, the Court held that UAPA’s Section 43-D(5) bail bar must be evaluated first, and general factors like prolonged custody can only be considered if the prima facie test is cleared. In Gulfisha Fatima (Delhi Riots case), the Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, ruling that K.A. Najeeb’s precedent of prolonged custody did not create an absolute right to bail. The Andrabi judgment disapproved of this reasoning.

Sentence 7 of 13

English Original

Past Perfect S + V + O

Both had sought to dilute the principle laid down by a three-judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that the “rigours” of Section 43-D(5) would “melt down” where there was no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and the incarceration already undergone was substantial.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Both

Both of the previously mentioned court decisions (Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima)

Part 2

had sought to dilute

Had attempted to weaken or reduce the power of

Part 3

the principle laid down by a three-judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb (2021), which held that the “rigours” of Section 43-D(5) would “melt down” where there was no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time and the incarceration already undergone was substantial

The rule established in the 2021 Najeeb case that strict anti-terror bail laws must weaken when a trial is delayed for too long and the person has spent a long time in jail

Context and Background

K.A. Najeeb (2021) Precedent

In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA do not override the powers of constitutional courts to grant bail in cases of violation of Article 21 (right to a speedy trial). The Court ruled that if an undertrial has undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and the trial is unlikely to finish in a reasonable time, the rigours of Section 43-D(5) would melt down, allowing the court to grant bail.

Sentence 8 of 13

English Original

Simple Past S + V + O

The Bench also held that the two-judge Benches could not have departed from a binding three-judge ruling in the first place.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The Supreme Court panel that decided the Andrabi case

Part 2

also held

Additionally ruled or stated as a matter of law

Part 3

that the two-judge Benches could not have departed from a binding three-judge ruling in the first place

That panels of two judges were legally required to follow the earlier decision made by a larger panel of three judges and should not have ignored it

Sentence 9 of 13

English Original

Simple Past Adjunct + S + V1 + O1 + Conjunction + V2 + O2 + Adjunct

In Gulfisha Fatima, the Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” bail decision, the Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and even foreclosed their right to renew the plea for a full year, despite both having spent over five years in prison.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

In Gulfisha Fatima, the Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” bail decision

Referring to the specific Supreme Court case of Gulfisha Fatima, which dealt with bail for the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy

Part 2

the Court

The Supreme Court panel that heard the Gulfisha Fatima case

Part 3

denied

Refused to grant

Part 4

bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The temporary release of the two jailed activists, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

Part 5

even foreclosed

Went as far as to block or rule out in advance

Part 6

their right to renew the plea for a full year

Their legal right to apply for bail again for a period of twelve months

Part 7

despite both having spent over five years in prison

Even though both of them had already been locked up in jail for more than five years without a completed trial

Context and Background

Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and the Delhi Riots Case

Umar Khalid (former JNU student leader) and Sharjeel Imam (academic and activist) were arrested in 2020 under the UAPA for their alleged roles in a ‘larger conspiracy’ related to the February 2020 Delhi Riots. Both have spent over five years in pre-trial detention. Despite multiple bail applications, courts repeatedly denied them relief, citing the stringent prima facie test under UAPA Section 43-D(5). In the Gulfisha Fatima judgment (early 2026), the Supreme Court denied them bail and barred them from renewing their bail applications for a year, a move that the Andrabi ruling later disapproved of.

Sentence 10 of 13

English Original

Present Perfect Adjunct + S + V + O

Now in Andrabi, the Court has disapproved the Gulfisha Fatima Bench’s reading that Najeeb was confined to its own facts and was not a constitutional limitation on Section 43-D(5).

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Now in Andrabi

Currently, in the latest Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case

Part 2

the Court

The Supreme Court

Part 3

has disapproved

Has officially rejected or disagreed with

Part 4

the Gulfisha Fatima Bench’s reading that Najeeb was confined to its own facts and was not a constitutional limitation on Section 43-D(5)

The interpretation by the two-judge panel in the Gulfisha Fatima case that the Najeeb precedent applied only to that specific person’s situation and was not a general constitutional rule limiting the UAPA bail bar

Sentence 11 of 13

English Original

Past with Modal Adjunct + S + V1 + O1 + Adjunct1 + Conjunction + V2 + O2 + Adjunct2

Consequently, Khalid and Imam should have been granted bail on the basis of the Najeeb ruling, and not denied it on a narrower reading of it.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Consequently

As a result or therefore

Part 2

Khalid and Imam

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

Part 3

should have been granted

Ought to have been given (bail)

Part 4

bail

Temporary release from prison

Part 5

on the basis of the Najeeb ruling

Using the legal guidelines set by the Najeeb case

Part 6

not denied

Should not have been refused

Part 7

The bail

Part 8

on a narrower reading of it

By looking at that case decision in a very limited and restrictive way

Sentence 12 of 13

English Original

Simple Present S + V + C + Adjunct

This is a welcome intervention, provided it is binding in all such cases, even if it is only about the favourable consideration of bail pleas where the accused have been in custody for long periods without trial, and not about a right to bail under the UAPA.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

This

This ruling (in the Andrabi case)

Part 2

Represents or equals

Part 3

a welcome intervention

A helpful and positive step taken by the court to resolve an issue

Part 4

provided it is binding in all such cases, even if it is only about the favourable consideration of bail pleas where the accused have been in custody for long periods without trial, and not about a right to bail under the UAPA

On the condition that other courts must follow this rule in similar situations, even if it only means looking kindly at bail requests for people held for a long time without trial, rather than declaring bail a basic right under the UAPA

Sentence 13 of 13

English Original

Simple Past Adjunct1 + Adjunct2 + S + V + IO + O

Tellingly, a day after Andrabi, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju told another Bench that under the UAPA’s statutory bail bar, “the presumption of innocence takes a backseat” which is precisely the position Andrabi has now set itself against, in line with constitutional principles.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Tellingly

Significantly or revealingly showing the true situation

Part 2

a day after Andrabi

One day after the Supreme Court’s Andrabi ruling was delivered

Part 3

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju

S.V. Raju, the senior law officer representing the Indian government in the Supreme Court

Part 4

told

Stated or communicated

Part 5

another Bench

A different panel of Supreme Court judges

Part 6

that under the UAPA’s statutory bail bar, “the presumption of innocence takes a backseat” which is precisely the position Andrabi has now set itself against, in line with constitutional principles

That under the strict anti-terror law, the standard rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty becomes less important, which is exactly the stance that the Andrabi judgment has rejected in order to protect constitutional rights

Context and Background

Presumption of Innocence & ASG Raju

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, meaning an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. However, in anti-terror laws like the UAPA, Section 43-D(5) reverses this by making bail the exception, requiring the accused to prove they are prima facie innocent to get bail. A day after the Andrabi judgment, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued before the Supreme Court that under the UAPA, the presumption of innocence of the accused takes a backseat due to this mandatory statutory bar. This highlighted the deep conflict between executive prosecution and constitutional courts protecting fundamental rights.

Sentence 1 of 13

The idea of justice should never allow for the indefinite imprisonment of someone without trial.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The idea of justice

The basic principle of fairness and what is right

Part 2

should never allow for

Ought not to permit or accept

Part 3

the indefinite imprisonment of someone

Keeping a person in prison for an unlimited time without a set end date

Part 4

without trial

Without a formal court hearing to decide if they are guilty

Sentence 2 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

However

But or nevertheless (introducing a contrast)

Part 2

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

India’s primary anti-terror law enacted to prevent unlawful activities

Part 3

does so

Performs that action (referring to indefinite imprisonment without trial)

Part 4

through its stringent Section 43-D(5), which makes bail near impossible once a court is satisfied, on the prosecution’s material, that a prima facie case exists against the accused

By using a strict rule in the law that blocks bail if the judge thinks the police’s evidence shows the person is likely guilty

Sentence 3 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

But on May 18, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs National Investigation Agency, Jammu

Introducing a contrast regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on May 18 in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi against the NIA

Part 2

the top court

The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in the country

Part 3

delivered

Gave or announced (in this case, a judgment)

Part 4

a welcome restatement of the principle that bail should be the rule even in cases related to the UAPA

A pleasing reminder of the legal rule that releasing an accused on bail should be the standard practice, even under anti-terror laws

Sentence 4 of 13

The Bench granted bail to Andrabi, who had spent over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The group of judges who heard the case and gave the decision

Part 2

granted

Allowed or gave officially

Part 3

bail

Temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial under specific conditions

Part 4

to Andrabi, who had spent over five years and nine months in pre-trial custody

To the accused person Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who was kept in prison for nearly six years before his trial actually began

Sentence 5 of 13

The Bench also clarified the legal position where an undertrial has spent years in custody without any realistic prospect of the trial concluding.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The panel of judges

Part 2

also clarified

Additionally made clear or explained

Part 3

the legal position where an undertrial has spent years in custody without any realistic prospect of the trial concluding

The law regarding cases where a person awaiting trial has been in jail for years with no signs of the trial finishing anytime soon

Sentence 6 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

By reiterating that the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial cannot be subservient to the provision in Section 43-D(5)

By repeating the legal truth that a person’s freedom and right to a fast court trial are more important than the strict bail block in Section 43-D(5)

Part 2

the judgment

The court’s official decision in the Andrabi case

Part 3

disapproved

Disagreed with or rejected officially

Part 4

the reasoning in two two-judge Bench rulings, Gurwinder Singh (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima, decided earlier this year

The logical arguments used in the earlier cases of Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima by panels of two judges to deny bail

Sentence 7 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Both

Both of the previously mentioned court decisions (Gurwinder Singh and Gulfisha Fatima)

Part 2

had sought to dilute

Had attempted to weaken or reduce the power of

Part 3

The rule established in the 2021 Najeeb case that strict anti-terror bail laws must weaken when a trial is delayed for too long and the person has spent a long time in jail

Sentence 8 of 13

The Bench also held that the two-judge Benches could not have departed from a binding three-judge ruling in the first place.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

The Bench

The Supreme Court panel that decided the Andrabi case

Part 2

also held

Additionally ruled or stated as a matter of law

Part 3

that the two-judge Benches could not have departed from a binding three-judge ruling in the first place

That panels of two judges were legally required to follow the earlier decision made by a larger panel of three judges and should not have ignored it

Sentence 9 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

In Gulfisha Fatima, the Delhi Riots “larger conspiracy” bail decision

Referring to the specific Supreme Court case of Gulfisha Fatima, which dealt with bail for the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy

Part 2

the Court

The Supreme Court panel that heard the Gulfisha Fatima case

Part 3

denied

Refused to grant

Part 4

bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

The temporary release of the two jailed activists, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

Part 5

even foreclosed

Went as far as to block or rule out in advance

Part 6

their right to renew the plea for a full year

Their legal right to apply for bail again for a period of twelve months

Part 7

despite both having spent over five years in prison

Even though both of them had already been locked up in jail for more than five years without a completed trial

Sentence 10 of 13

Now in Andrabi, the Court has disapproved the Gulfisha Fatima Bench’s reading that Najeeb was confined to its own facts and was not a constitutional limitation on Section 43-D(5).

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Now in Andrabi

Currently, in the latest Syed Iftikhar Andrabi case

Part 2

the Court

The Supreme Court

Part 3

has disapproved

Has officially rejected or disagreed with

Part 4

the Gulfisha Fatima Bench’s reading that Najeeb was confined to its own facts and was not a constitutional limitation on Section 43-D(5)

Sentence 11 of 13

Consequently, Khalid and Imam should have been granted bail on the basis of the Najeeb ruling, and not denied it on a narrower reading of it.

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Consequently

As a result or therefore

Part 2

Khalid and Imam

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam

Part 3

should have been granted

Ought to have been given (bail)

Part 4

bail

Temporary release from prison

Part 5

on the basis of the Najeeb ruling

Using the legal guidelines set by the Najeeb case

Part 6

not denied

Should not have been refused

Part 7

The bail

Part 8

on a narrower reading of it

By looking at that case decision in a very limited and restrictive way

Sentence 12 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

This

This ruling (in the Andrabi case)

Part 2

Represents or equals

Part 3

a welcome intervention

A helpful and positive step taken by the court to resolve an issue

Part 4

Sentence 13 of 13

Sentence Breakdown

Part 1

Tellingly

Significantly or revealingly showing the true situation

Part 2

a day after Andrabi

One day after the Supreme Court’s Andrabi ruling was delivered

Part 3

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju

S.V. Raju, the senior law officer representing the Indian government in the Supreme Court

Part 4

told

Stated or communicated

Part 5

another Bench

A different panel of Supreme Court judges

Part 6

Reading Comprehension

Practice questions based on this editorial

Reading Comprehension - The Bail Rule

Practice reading comprehension questions based on the editorial about the Syed Iftikhar Andrabi ruling and bail under UAPA.

5 Questions Passing: 70%

About Scoreclever

Your Complete Learning Ecosystem

Scoreclever helps you master Current Affairs, English Language, and General Awareness for all Banking, SSC, Railway, and Defence exams. The Scoreclever app has innovative learning techniques that make memorization and revision effortless.

Explore Scoreclever

Anything wrong in this content?

Give feedback

Request a feature?

Contact support

Looking to contribute?

Contact our team

The bail rule: On liberty and the Andrabi ruling

Reading Comprehension

Reading Comprehension - The Bail Rule

Share this editorial

About Scoreclever

Anything wrong in this content?

Request a feature?

Looking to contribute?