In the present case, the Supreme Court addressed a Special Leave Petition filed by the accused in multiple cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots, including the murder of an Intelligence Bureau officer and charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ("PMLA"). The petitioner sought interim bail to campaign for the Delhi Assembly Elections. The case raised critical questions about the scope of statutory rights, interim bail provisions, and public interest.
The petitioner had been in custody since March 2020 and contended that denial of interim bail to campaign for elections infringed upon his rights, particularly given the prolonged duration of his detention. The High Court had earlier allowed custody parole for filing nomination papers but refused interim bail for campaigning. The petitioner’s appeal led to a split verdict by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Justice Mithal dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the right to campaign for elections is not a fundamental or statutory right. He noted that the petitioner’s rights were adequately protected through custody parole, which allowed him to file his nomination papers. The Court underscored that granting interim bail for campaigning would set an undesirable precedent, opening the door for numerous undertrial prisoners to seek similar relief. The judgment highlighted that under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, incarcerated individuals are prohibited from voting, and extending the right to campaign would conflict with this statutory restriction. Furthermore, Justice Mithal expressed concerns over the potential for witness tampering, given the serious allegations against the petitioner, including the use of his premises as an "epicenter" for riots.
In a dissenting judgment, Justice Amanullah allowed the petitioner interim bail until February 4, 2025, subject to strict conditions. While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, he emphasized that they remained unproven, and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration without trial violated principles of personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Justice Amanullah observed that the petitioner had secured bail in several related cases and noted systemic delays in the trial process. He highlighted that meaningful participation in elections requires direct engagement with the electorate, which could not be achieved solely through indirect means like social media. The dissenting opinion framed the denial of interim bail as a disproportionate restriction on the petitioner’s statutory and constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s split verdict reflects the complexity of balancing individual liberties with public interest in cases involving severe allegations. Justice Mithal’s opinion prioritized legislative intent and public safety, while Justice Amanullah’s dissent underscored constitutional guarantees and the presumption of innocence. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for final resolution, highlighting its significance in evolving election and criminal law jurisprudence.