The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on an interim bail plea filed by former councillor and Delhi riots accused Tahir Hussain. The former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, now with Asaduddin Owaisi's All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), had sought temporary release to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.
Hussain was arrested on March 5, 2020 and faces multiple charges including allegations of money laundering and inciting violence during the 2020 Delhi riots.
In the split verdict, Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed Hussain’s plea saying no case was made out. “I am of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of interim bail. Accordingly, SLP is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to pursue regular bail,” Justice Mithal said.
However, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah favoured his plea and said that Hussain could be released on interim bail.
The matter would now be placed before Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for the constitution of a new bench to decide the issue.
The case has attracted considerable attention, with Hussain’s counsel arguing that his continued detention for over five years, despite the lack of significant progress in the trial, violated his fundamental rights.
Senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing Hussain, pointed out that the prosecution had failed to examine key witnesses in the case, including two eyewitnesses who had turned hostile. He also noted that the police had yet to question a critical fifth witness, whose whereabouts remained unknown.
“Five years in jail without charges being framed. I am only asking for 15 days’ bail,” Aggarwal argued, emphasising the delay in the investigation and the ongoing reliance on an anti-terror law (UAPA) complaint to detain his client.
During the hearing, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, one of the judges on the bench, took a firm stance against the delay in the investigation. He questioned why the Delhi Police had failed to examine crucial witnesses for the past five years, including in the high-profile case of the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the riots.
“This is a matter of life and liberty... Why have you not completed the trial over the past five years?” Justice Amanullah remarked, adding that the police had examined only four witnesses out of the many in the case. He expressed concerns about the continued detention of Hussain, who has been in jail for over five years without bail, and referenced his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Hussain’s counsel also drew parallels to the case of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was granted interim bail to campaign for the April-June federal elections after being arrested in the alleged liquor policy scam. Senior advocate Aggarwal argued that if Kejriwal was allowed to campaign, a similar consideration should apply to Hussain.
However, the Delhi Police’s lawyer, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, opposed the plea, insisting that Hussain's case could not be compared to that of Kejriwal. Raju argued that Kejriwal was the National Convenor of a major political party, while Hussain was merely a councillor. He also warned that granting bail for election campaigning could set a troubling precedent for other prisoners seeking release for similar reasons.
Despite the pointed questions from Justice Amanullah, the bench was divided on the issue. Justice Mithal disagreed with the plea for interim bail stating that there was no fundamental right for a prisoner to campaign in an election and that Hussain’s involvement in multiple criminal cases weakened his standing as a bona fide citizen.
He further warned that granting such a release would open the floodgates for similar requests from other prisoners.
