The Supreme Court of India is currently addressing a conflict between different judicial benches concerning the application of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

印度最高法院目前正在處理不同司法分庭之間，關於《非法活動（防止）法》（UAPA）保釋適用情況的衝突。

The central legal tension involves the interpretation of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail if accusations are deemed 'prima facie true.' Historically, the 2019 Watali precedent established a high threshold for release by limiting the judicial examination of evidence. However, the 2021 KA Najeeb ruling by a three-judge bench asserted that prolonged incarceration violating Article 21 of the Constitution justifies bail despite statutory barriers. A May 18 judgment by Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan reaffirmed this priority, asserting that the principle of 'bail as the rule and jail as the exception' is a constitutional doctrine rooted in the presumption of innocence and Articles 21 and 22.

核心的法律緊張局勢涉及對 UAPA 第 43D(5) 條的解釋，該條文規定若指控被視為「初步屬實」則限制保釋。從歷史上看，2019 年的 Watali 判例透過限制對證據的司法審查，為獲釋設定了高門檻。然而，2021 年由三名法官組成的分庭在 KA Najeeb 裁決中主張，違反憲法第 21 條的長期監禁，即便存在法定障礙，亦足以證明保釋的正當性。Nagarathna 與 Bhuyan 法官於 5 月 18 日的判決再次肯定此優先順序，主張「保釋為原則，監禁為例外」是植根於無罪推定及憲法第 21 與 22 條的憲法教義。

This recent ruling explicitly criticized the reasoning of a January 5 decision led by Justice Aravind Kumar, which had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The May 18 bench rejected the 'twin-prong test' utilized in other cases, arguing that such a framework risks converting pre-trial detention into punitive incarceration. Furthermore, the court emphasized the hierarchy of precedent, noting that the three-judge Najeeb decision is binding upon smaller benches. The court also cited National Crime Records Bureau data indicating low conviction rates under the UAPA, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir, as a factor necessitating the protection of personal liberty against indefinite detention.

這項最近的裁決明確批評了由 Aravind Kumar 法官主導、於 1 月 5 日拒絕 Umar Khalid 與 Sharjeel Imam 保釋的決定理由。5 月 18 日的分庭拒絕採用其他案件中的「雙管測試」，認為此類框架有將審前拘留轉變為懲罰性監禁的風險。此外，法院強調了判例的層級，指出三名法官參與的 Najeeb 決定對較小規模的分庭具有約束力。法院還引用國家犯罪紀錄局的數據，指出 UAPA 下的定罪率較低，特別是在查謨-克什米爾地區，認為這是必須保護個人自由以防止無限期拘留的因素。

In response to these conflicting interpretations, the Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, has petitioned for the matter to be referred to a larger bench. The state contends that the UAPA represents a conscious legislative departure from ordinary criminal jurisprudence, arguing that national security imperatives should supersede the standard presumption of innocence during the bail phase.

針對這些衝突的解釋，德里警方由額外檢察長 SV Raju 代表，已請願要求將此案提交至更大規模的分庭。政府主張 UAPA 代表了立法上刻意脫離一般刑事法理的決定，並認為在保釋階段，國家安全的緊迫性應優先於標準的無罪推定。

The Supreme Court must now determine whether a larger bench is required to resolve the contradiction between statutory anti-terror restrictions and constitutional guarantees of liberty.

最高法院現在必須決定，是否需要一個更大規模的分庭來解決法定反恐限制與憲法自由保障之間的矛盾。