New Delhi: A Division Bench of the Supreme Court was divided on the question of granting former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain interim bail in a case related to the Delhi riots, which would allow him to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections as a candidate for the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM).

The Bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered a split verdict. While Justice Mithal rejected Hussain's plea, Justice Amanullah expressed the view that Hussain should be granted interim bail.

"Since our opinions differ, the Registry will refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a third judge or to a three-judge Bench," Justice Amanullah said, after dissenting from Justice Mithal’s stance.

Justice Mithal argued that granting interim bail would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for other prisoners to request similar bail in order to participate in elections. "Allowing interim bail for election campaigning would open a Pandora’s box, as elections are held year-round, and every prisoner may seek bail for this reason. This would flood the courts with petitions, which cannot be permitted," he stated. He also pointed out that such bail requests could extend to prisoners seeking permission to vote, despite restrictions under the Representation of the People Act.

The judge also noted the serious allegations against Hussain, suggesting that releasing him on bail could allow him to influence witnesses or disrupt the ongoing investigation. He emphasized that the right to campaign in elections is not a fundamental right, and it is at the court’s discretion to decide on interim bail.

In contrast, Justice Amanullah believed that Hussain could be granted interim bail, subject to certain conditions. "It is well-established law that the magnitude of the offence is not the only criterion for bail. I believe that, under appropriate conditions, the petitioner should be granted interim bail until February 4, 2025," he said.

Justice Amanullah specified that Hussain should not address the Delhi riots cases he faces while campaigning and must surrender to jail authorities once his bail period expires.

Hussain had previously sought interim bail from the Delhi High Court, arguing that his physical presence was necessary for election procedures and campaigning. While the High Court refused to grant interim bail, it allowed him custody parole. This led Hussain to approach the Supreme Court for further relief.