The Supreme Court of India today delivered a split verdict on a plea filed by Tahir Hussain, an All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) candidate and Delhi riots accused, seeking interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued divergent opinions on Hussain's appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's denial of interim bail while granting him custody parole for election-related formalities. Justice Mithal rejected Hussain’s plea, while Justice Amanullah allowed interim bail, resulting in the matter being referred to the Chief Justice of India for further consideration or possible referral to a larger bench.

Justice Pankaj Mithal underscored the gravity of the charges against Hussain, particularly his alleged role in the murder of Intelligence Bureau official Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. He noted that Hussain’s house was allegedly used as the hub for organizing violence, with weapons, stones, and other materials recovered from the premises.

Cautioning against setting a precedent, Justice Mithal observed that granting interim bail to an accused for election campaigns could open the floodgates for similar requests from undertrial prisoners, potentially overburdening the judiciary.

“Permitting interim bail would imply door-to-door campaigning and public meetings in the same locality where the alleged crime occurred, raising the risk of witness tampering,” he remarked.

In contrast, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah highlighted the need to balance the seriousness of allegations with the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration. Acknowledging that Hussain has been in custody for nearly five years, Justice Amanullah opined that denying him the opportunity to campaign would undermine the democratic process.

“While the allegations are serious, the gravity of the offense cannot be the sole criterion for denying bail. Subject to strict conditions, the petitioner should be allowed to campaign for the remaining days,” Justice Amanullah stated.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, opposed Hussain’s plea, describing it as a ploy to secure release. “This will set a dangerous precedent, enabling accused individuals—including rapists and murderers—to misuse the system during elections,” Raju argued.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Hussain, countered that the petitioner had already secured bail in 8 out of 11 related cases and sought a fair opportunity to present himself to the electorate.

On January 15, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted Hussain custody parole to file his nomination papers for the Assembly elections from the Mustafabad constituency. However, the High Court denied interim bail, asserting that his prior role as a municipal councilor did not warrant special consideration.

The High Court also emphasized the incriminating evidence recovered from Hussain’s residence, including petrol bombs, stones, and acid drums, allegedly used during the 2020 riots. Custody parole was granted under stringent conditions, including restrictions on communication, media interaction, and social media activity by Hussain’s family.

The Supreme Court had previously sought the Delhi Police’s response to Hussain’s interim bail plea and deferred hearings multiple times, citing time constraints.

The split verdict now places the matter before the Chief Justice for resolution.

Case Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi