PrepDosePrepDose
DailyPrelims CAFree PDF
DailyPrelims CAFree PDF
PrepDosePrepDose

AI-curated current affairs for competitive exams. Your daily dose of exam-ready news.

contact@prepdose.in

Quick Links

  • Today's Dose
  • Prelims 2026 PDF
  • Browse
  • Archive
  • About

Exams Covered

  • UPSC CSE
  • TNPSC
  • UPPSC
  • BPSC
  • MPSC
  • KPSC
  • RPSC
  • WBCS
  • APPSC
  • TSPSC
  • GPSC

Subjects

  • Polity & Governance
  • Economy
  • Environment & Ecology
  • Science & Technology
  • International Relations
  • History & Culture

© 2026 PrepDose. All rights reserved.

Powered by AIMade in India
HomeDictionary

UPSC Dictionary

Did you know?

Article 32 was called the 'heart and soul of the Constitution' by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Generating explanation with verified sources...

HomeDictionary

UPSC Dictionary

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb

The case Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on February 1, 2021, concerning the grant of bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The judgment originated from an appeal by the Union of India against the Kerala High Court's decision to grant bail to K.A. Najeeb, who was an accused in a 2010 case involving the assault on a professor and had been in custody since 2015.

The core problem the judgment addressed was the conflict between the strict bail condition in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 43D(5) prohibits the release of an accused on bail if the court believes the accusation is prima facie true.

The judgment's ratio decidendi is that the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA do not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts (High Courts and the Supreme Court) to grant bail on the grounds of violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court held that the rigours of Section 43D(5) must "melt down" where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. In Najeeb's case, he had spent over five years in custody with 276 witnesses yet to be examined, which the Court deemed a violation of his right to a speedy trial.

This judgment connects directly to the broader concept of personal liberty and the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," even in cases under special anti-terror laws like the UAPA. It harmonises the special law's restrictions with the constitutional mandate of Article 21, ensuring that prolonged pre-trial detention does not become a substitute for punishment. The judgment has not been replaced, but its principle has been reaffirmed by subsequent Supreme Court benches, which have cautioned against its dilution by smaller benches.

References

  • recordoflaw.in
  • indiankanoon.org
  • livelaw.in
  • verdictum.in
  • lawyerenews.com
Back to Dictionary