Conditional bail for Delhi Riots accused ahead of elections; Supreme Court divided on Tahir Hussain case

The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench failed to reach a unanimous decision on granting interim bail to Tahir Hussain, accused of masterminding the Delhi riots, for campaigning in the Delhi elections. Justice Ahansuddin Amanullah supported granting interim bail, while Justice Pankaj Mittal opposed it. Consequently, the matter will now be referred to a larger bench for further hearing.

Hussain, a former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor, has been fielded by the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), led by Asaduddin Owaisi, as their candidate from Mustafabad. He sought interim bail to file his nomination and campaign for the upcoming Delhi assembly elections. This plea was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s deliberations.

Justice Mittal rejected Hussain’s plea outright, emphasizing the broader implications of such a decision. He argued, “If interim bail is granted for contesting elections, it would open Pandora’s box. Since elections occur throughout the year in this country, every prisoner could demand interim bail to participate, leading to an unmanageable surge in litigation. This cannot be allowed.”

Additionally, Justice Mittal cited the serious allegations against Hussain and highlighted the risk of him influencing witnesses if allowed to campaign. He stressed that campaigning for elections is not a fundamental right, and the decision to grant interim bail remains at the court’s discretion. “Even if interim bail were granted in this case, Hussain would still remain in custody, as he has not been granted bail in a separate money laundering case. This makes the current plea effectively moot,” he remarked.

In contrast, Justice Amanullah advocated for granting interim bail under strict conditions. He stated, “The severity of the crime should not be the sole criterion for bail. The petitioner could be granted interim bail until noon on February 4, 2025, with appropriate restrictions.” Justice Amanullah proposed that Hussain be strictly barred from discussing the Delhi riots cases during his campaign and should surrender immediately after the stipulated period.

He also raised concerns about the slow pace of the trial against Hussain. “In four years, only four or five eyewitnesses have been examined. If this case is so critical, why has the trial not progressed? Hussain has not been granted a single day’s release. This prolonged detention raises questions about the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution,” Justice Amanullah observed.

Justice Mittal strongly countered this argument, underscoring the seriousness of the charges against Hussain, including his alleged involvement in the death of an intelligence officer. He reiterated that granting interim bail for election campaigning could set a dangerous precedent in India’s legal landscape.

Disagreeing with Justice Amanullah’s stance, Justice Mittal remarked, “This entire exercise is academic. Without bail in other cases, this interim bail would not lead to his release.” He also dismissed Justice Amanullah’s suggestion that the Supreme Court should not wait for the trial court’s decisions, stating that such a move could undermine judicial hierarchy.

Justice Amanullah, however, argued, “The Supreme Court should not assume that the trial court will deny bail. Delaying the decision would imply that the Supreme Court is subordinate to the trial court.”