Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106; SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025
Background
Mohd. Tahir Hussain, a former AAP councillor and later AIMIM candidate, was in custody facing multiple charges, including murder and rioting during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, as well as offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He sought interim bail to contest and campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections from the Mustafabad constituency. The Delhi High Court had earlier denied him interim bail but allowed custody parole solely for completing nomination formalities.
Supreme Court Proceedings
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court—Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah—heard Hussain’s Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s refusal of interim bail. The bench delivered a split verdict on January 22, 2025:
Justice Pankaj Mithal denied interim bail, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations (including murder and rioting), the seriousness of the charges, and the argument that contesting elections is not a fundamental right. He noted that Hussain had not nurtured his constituency for years due to his incarceration and that short-term campaigning would not suffice for meaningful electoral participation.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah dissented, observing that Hussain had been in custody for nearly five years and had already secured bail in most other cases. He stressed that the seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention, especially given the slow pace of the trial (only 20 out of 114 witnesses examined in nearly five years). Justice Amanullah found that, subject to strict conditions, interim bail could be granted for a limited period, referencing the Supreme Court’s power to grant bail even in cases with statutory restrictions, as established in Union of India v. K.A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713. He clarified that this interim bail would not prejudice the merits of the main case or the pending regular bail application.
Due to the split verdict, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate assignment to a larger bench or a third judge.
Subsequent Developments
A three-judge bench later allowed Hussain custody parole for campaigning from January 29 to February 3, 2025, under strict conditions:
He would be released daily for 12 hours, must return to custody each evening, and was required to bear all expenses for security and escort arrangements.
He was barred from visiting his residence, addressing the press, or commenting on ongoing cases.
The order was case-specific and not to be treated as a precedent. The pending regular bail application would be decided independently of this interim arrangement.
Significance
This case highlights the tension between the rights of undertrial prisoners and the state’s interest in securing justice in serious criminal cases. The Supreme Court’s split verdict reflects differing judicial philosophies on the balance between individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the gravity of criminal charges, particularly in the context of prolonged pre-trial detention and electoral rights.
Key Issues:
Whether interim bail should be granted to an undertrial facing grave charges to contest and campaign in elections.
The impact of prolonged pre-trial detention on the right to personal liberty and political participation.
Outcome:
Split verdict—matter referred to a larger bench; interim custody parole granted later under strict conditions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments