NEW DELHI — Attempting to re-establish judicial discipline, the Supreme Court has issued a sweeping defense of civil liberties, reiterating the foundational principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" for individuals currently facing prolonged, indefinite incarceration under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The recent ruling openly questioned 2024 judgments that sidestepped the 2021 K.A. Najeeb precedent. In Najeeb, a three-judge bench ruled that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 overrides UAPA's strict bail restrictions. However, smaller two-judge benches have repeatedly bypassed this binding precedent, successfully keeping prominent activists incarcerated by cautioning against the "mechanical" invocation of constitutional rights while accepting the State's case without examining its merits.

"The procedural hierarchy is functioning seamlessly," said a prosecution official, reviewing files of politically sensitive cases where bail has been consistently denied. "First, a three-judge bench sets a binding precedent protecting liberty. Smaller two-judge benches subsequently ignore that precedent to keep the accused in prison. Finally, a new two-judge bench writes a strongly worded judgment noting that the previous bench shouldn't have done that."

The State welcomed the court's robust defense of civil liberties, noting that as long as the judiciary continues to spend years debating exactly which bench has the authority to grant a speedy trial, the prosecution's goal of ensuring no trial takes place is proceeding exactly on schedule.