The Centre on Friday strongly opposed the idea that accused persons booked under anti-terror laws should automatically get bail because of delays in trial proceedings. During a hearing in the Supreme Court, the government argued that cases related to terrorism and national security cannot be treated in the same way as ordinary criminal matters.

Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general S V Raju raised tough questions before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale while discussing bail under stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Stressing that delay alone cannot become the basis for bail, Raju referred to convicted terrorist Ajmal Kasab and Pakistan-based terror accused Hafiz Saeed during the arguments.

Raju asked the court, “In the Ajmal Kasab case, there was a delay as there were a large number of witnesses in the case. Will you grant him bail on the ground of delay? If Hafiz Saeed is brought from Pakistan, will you grant him bail on the ground of delay?”

The remarks came during an ongoing debate within different benches of the Supreme Court over whether prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can outweigh the strict bail conditions imposed under special laws. In recent years, several courts have examined whether keeping accused persons in jail for long periods without completion of trial violates constitutional rights.

The bench hearing the matter had earlier refused bail to Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 violence in Delhi. At the same time, the court had granted relief to five other accused persons in the same matter. This has once again brought attention to how courts are approaching bail in cases involving serious allegations under UAPA.

The Centre argued that courts cannot apply a fixed formula while deciding bail pleas in such sensitive matters. According to the government, the seriousness of the accusations, the specific role of the accused and the reasons behind delays in the trial must all be examined carefully before granting any relief.

Advocate Rajat Nair, who appeared alongside the Centre, also maintained that the nature of the offence should remain one of the most important factors while hearing bail pleas in terror-related cases. The Centre’s submissions focused on the argument that national security cases require a stricter legal approach because of the larger impact such offences can have on society.

During the hearing, the Centre also referred to an earlier Supreme Court judgment related to the now-repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The government said that Parliament had intentionally created tougher bail provisions in cases linked to terrorism and disruptive activities. According to the Centre, these laws are designed to maintain a balance between protecting individual liberty and ensuring the safety of the nation and society.

“The proper course is to identify from the nature of the role played by each accused person the real hardcore terrorists or criminals from others who do not belong to that category,” the ASG argued.

The Centre further stated that courts should strictly apply bail conditions in cases involving serious offenders and hardcore accused persons. However, it also suggested that a more liberal approach can be considered in cases where the accused may have played a smaller or less direct role.

The issue of prolonged incarceration without completion of trial has become a major legal concern in recent years, especially in cases filed under UAPA and PMLA. Bail under these laws is far more difficult compared to ordinary criminal cases because of the strict legal conditions attached to them.

In several earlier rulings, some benches of the Supreme Court have granted bail by citing long delays in trial and the constitutional right to personal liberty. However, the Centre has consistently maintained that such relief should not become automatic in cases involving allegations of terrorism, terror funding or threats to national security.

The hearing once again highlighted the growing legal debate over how courts should balance personal liberty with national security concerns. While one side argues that indefinite imprisonment without trial is unfair and unconstitutional, the Centre insists that the gravity of terror-related offences cannot be ignored simply because trials take time to conclude.