{"id":384721,"date":"2026-05-20T16:30:25","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T11:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=384721"},"modified":"2026-05-20T16:33:30","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T11:03:30","slug":"sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/","title":{"rendered":"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering this matter revolving around interface between Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554070\" target=\"_blank\">43-D(5)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967<\/a> (UAPA) and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> and the propriety of smaller Benches hollowing out constitutional force of a larger Bench decision without expressly disagreeing with it; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ujjal Bhuyan*<\/span>, JJ., expressed serious reservations on several aspects of the judgment rendered by a co-equal Bench in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha Fatima<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9003082190\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 10<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court clarified that the often-invoked principle &#8220;bail is the rule and jail is the exception&#8221; flows from the constitutional primacy of personal liberty under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> and, therefore, cannot be displaced by legislation. The Court further clarified that three-Judge Bench decision in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Union of India<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000801819\" target=\"_blank\">(2021) 3 SCC 713<\/a> is binding law entitled to the protection of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">stare decisis<\/span>. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">It cannot be diluted, circumvented, or disregarded by trial courts, High Courts or even by Benches of lower strength of Supreme Court<\/span>. It was reiterated that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> was not warning courts against treating incarceration as the sole factor favouring bail. Instead, it was warning against treating the statutory embargo as the sole factor justifying continued detention by ignoring constitutional principles. Therefore, the subsequent reading that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> does not create an automatic entitlement to bail on account of delay answers a proposition that Najeeb itself never advanced.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Also Read:<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/05\/2020-delhi-riots-case-no-bail-for-umar-khalid-and-sharjeel-imam\/\" target=\"_blank\">No Bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam; 5 Accused get bail: Inside Supreme Court&#8217;s Big Verdict in 2020 Delhi Riots Case<\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant was a government employee in the Rural Development Department, serving at Kupwara. He was taken into preventive detention on 7 August 2019 under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9002050292\" target=\"_blank\">Jammu &amp; Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978<\/a>, after abrogation of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575208\" target=\"_blank\">370<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the dossier and the grounds of detention, it was mentioned that the appellant was also a political activist associated with People&#8217;s Conference with close connection to the people. It was further stated in the dossier that his preventive detention was recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Handwara, to ensure that there was no law-and-order problem in view of the fragile law and order situation following abrogation of Article 370.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant challenged his detention before Jammu &amp; Kashmir and Ladakh High Court; his case was heard and judgment was reserved. Meanwhile the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">appellant&#8217;s detention was revoked in April 2020 and he was released from custody<\/span>. The High Court also delivered its verdict on 26 June 2020 quashing the detention order.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">An FIR was lodged by the police at Handwara Police Station on 11 June 2020 under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570401\" target=\"_blank\">8<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570293\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002802179\" target=\"_blank\">Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/a> (NDPS Act). The appellant was arrested again. Thereafter, on 22 June 2020, the Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take charge of the case. In the charge-sheet filed by NIA, it was stated that cash and drugs were recovered from him and the phone numbers appearing in his mobile phones establish his linkage with Pakistan based terrorist groups. Thus, the appellant was accused of committing offences under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554030\" target=\"_blank\">17<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554060\" target=\"_blank\">38<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554063\" target=\"_blank\">40<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">UAPA<\/a> read with Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570401\" target=\"_blank\">8<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570293\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570297\" target=\"_blank\">25<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001570304\" target=\"_blank\">29<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002802179\" target=\"_blank\">NDPS Act<\/a> read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561375\" target=\"_blank\">120-B<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant&#8217;s regular bail application was rejected by third Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu designated as the Special NIA Court in August 2024. Subsequently, Jammu &amp; Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 19 August 2025, upheld the aforesaid bail rejection, which was thereafter challenged before the Supreme Court in this present appeal.<\/p>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Assessment<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Perusing the matter, the Court deliberated over the statutory provisions under which the appellant was charged and relevant case laws having bearing on the present case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Examining Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554070\" target=\"_blank\">43-D(5)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">UAPA<\/a>, the Court stated that provision engrafts a restriction on the ordinary power of courts to grant bail in cases involving offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, which concern mainly terrorist activities and membership or support of terrorist organisations. The section begins with a non obstante clause overriding the ordinary bail framework under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> (CrPC) and mandates that no accused person in custody shall be released on bail without first affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard. The proviso to the section imposes a further limitation; it states that bail shall not be granted if, upon a perusal of the case diary or the police report submitted under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519414\" target=\"_blank\">173<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a>, the court is of the opinion that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> wherein <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court<\/span> had stated that liberty granted by Part III of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and speedy trial. Undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the court would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While analysing the case laws dealing with the issues related bail under UAPA, the Court specifically emphasised on 2 cases, namely, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder Singh<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Punjab<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9002079511\" target=\"_blank\">(2024) 5 SCC 403<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha Fatima<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9003082190\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 10<\/a>. It was pointed out that these cases took somewhat divergent view from the clear distinctive trajectory taken by the Court qua grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA, UAPA and NDPS Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span> the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Division Bench<\/span> of the Court had held that Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554070\" target=\"_blank\">43-D(5)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">UAPA<\/a> creates a standalone and rigorous limitation upon the ordinary power of courts to grant bail and observed that, unlike the conventional approach under criminal law where &#8220;bail is the rule and jail the exception&#8221;, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline; text-underline-style: solid; text-underline-mode: continuous;\">the legislative intent underlying the UAPA was the reverse, namely, that &#8220;bail must be rejected as a rule&#8221;<\/span>, and that the courts must give full effect thereto. This decision formulated a &#8220;two-pronged test&#8221; of bail under UAPA. Interpreting <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A.<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Najeeb<\/span>, the Court had observed that the decision could not be read as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha<\/span> the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Division Bench<\/span> of the Court observed that the constitutional promise under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> is not that liberty will be unregulated, but that deprivation of liberty will not be arbitrary, unconscionable or unfair. Therein the Court held that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> must be understood as a principled safeguard against unconscionable detention. Though prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern and carries great weight, it is not, however, the sole determinant. The court must consider in totality whether continued detention has become constitutionally unjustifiable, having regard to the role attributed, the statutory context, the limited prima facie material, the trajectory of the trial, the causes of delay and the availability of intermediate remedies. The Bench had further held that to read <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> as mandating bail solely on account of prolonged incarceration, irrespective of the statutory context or the nature of the allegations, would be to attribute to the decision a consequence it neither intended nor supports. Therefore, <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> cannot be used as a mathematical formula of universal application.<\/p>\n<h3>Reservations Expressed and Precedential Force of K.A. Najeeb case<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Taking note of the divergent approach taken in the aforesaid Division Bench decision vis-a-vis a three-Judge Bench ruling, the Court expressed serious reservations on various aspects of the judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha Fatima<\/span>, including foreclosing the right of the two accused persons therein, to seek bail for a period of 1 year. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The judgment in Gulfisha Fatima would have us believe that Najeeb is only a narrow and exceptional departure from Section 43-D(5) justified in extreme factual situations. It is this hollowing out of the import of the observations in Najeeb that we are concerned with.<\/span>&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court explained that<span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"> no reading of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> suggests that the mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, mechanically entitles an accused to release<\/span>. Therein the Court was concerned over the manner in which Section 43-D(5) was, in practice, being deployed as an almost conclusive basis for denial of bail notwithstanding extraordinary delay in trial and prolonged incarceration. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">It is precisely for that reason that this Court observed that the &#8216;rigours&#8217; of Section 43-D(5) would &#8216;melt down&#8217; where there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and where the period of incarceration undergone has already exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.<\/span>&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">In <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span>, the Court was clear and unequivocal in holding that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge the accused on bail<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Expressing doubts over reasonings given in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha<\/span> the Court stated that the emphasis in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> was constitutional in nature. It was directed towards preventing Section 43-D(5) from overpowering Article 21 considerations in cases of gross delay and prolonged incarceration. The constitutional force of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> lies in its restoration of the hierarchy between the UAPA, and the Constitution. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554070\" target=\"_blank\">43-D(5)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">UAPA<\/a> remains subordinate to Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> at all times<\/span> and a Constitutional Court need not hold back bail to the accused in the garb of Section 43-D(5).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The often-invoked phrase &#8220;bail is the rule and jail is the exception&#8221; is not merely an empty statutory slogan flowing from the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> as <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span> has stated. It is a constitutional principle flowing from Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574961\" target=\"_blank\">22<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> and the presumption of innocence which is the cornerstone of any civilised society governed by the rule of law. Statutes may undoubtedly calibrate the manner in which that principle is applied, particularly in cases involving national security or terrorist offences for which the UAPA is meant, but those cannot altogether invert the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention. The <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">statutory embargo of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001554070\" target=\"_blank\">43-D(5)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002808781\" target=\"_blank\">UAPA<\/a> must remain a circumscribed restriction that operates subject to the guarantee of Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574961\" target=\"_blank\">22<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">As to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span>, the Court stated that it is difficult to be followed as precedent as it refuses to be bound by the precedent in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h3>Judicial Discipline<\/h3>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt;\">&#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">It is plain that a judgment rendered by a Bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a Bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such binding precedent must either be followed or, in case of doubt, be referred to a larger Bench. A smaller Bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger Bench.<\/span>&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Given the divergent views in Division Bench decisions of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha<\/span>,<span style=\"font-style: italic;\"><\/span> the Court pointed out that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> was a three-Judge Bench decision. It was further pointed out that the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Division Benches in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gurwinder<\/span> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gulfisha<\/span>, made a clear departure from the ratio laid down in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span><\/span>. The Court explained that judicial discipline and certainty demands that Benches of smaller strength are mindful of the decisions rendered by larger Benches and are bound to follow the same. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">If the smaller Benches are unable to agree with the ratio laid down by the larger Bench then the proper and the only course of action open is to make a reference to the Chief Justice of India<\/span> for placing the matter for consideration by a still larger Bench. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Being in a combination of two Judges, we are bound by the ratio laid down by the three-Judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb. We say this and no more<\/span>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<h3>Decision and Concluding Remarks<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">With the aforementioned assessment and clarifications, the Court pointed out that the core allegation against the appellant was that he was involved in narco-terrorism activities, which was strongly refuted by him.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Perusing the facts of the case, the Court stated that the charge of terror cannot stand independent of the charge under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002802179\" target=\"_blank\">NDPS Act<\/a>. When there is no evidence of sale or purchase of narcotics nor is there any admissible evidence of recovery of narcotics or funds from the appellant, not having found the appellant in conscious possession of any narcotic; the whole premise of terror funding charges against the appellant under the UAPA collapses.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court explained that at the stage of considering the prayer for appellant&#8217;s bail, it is neither desirable nor permissible to analyse and consider the merits of the accusations made against the appellant. The prosecution will have to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in the trial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court upon due consideration, opined that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">appellant has made out a case for grant of bail during pendency of the trial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Therefore, the Court directed that the appellant should be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Special NIA Court may deem fit and proper.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While concluding the judgment, Ujjal Bhuyan, J., acknowledged the invaluable inputs of B.V. Nagarathna, J., and once again emphasised the requirement of reiterating and clarifying the legal position following <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">K.A. Najeeb<\/span> lest there be any confusion in this regard.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Syed Iftikhar Andrabi<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">NIA<\/span>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9003468600\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 881<\/a>, decided on 18-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-indent: 18pt; border: 2px solid black; border-radius: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: #DCDCDC;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/know-thy-judge-justice-ujjal-bhuyan-judge-of-supreme-court-career-notable-judgments\/\" target=\"_blank\">Justice Ujjal Bhuyan<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span> Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Umair Andrabi, Adv. Ms. Tanisha, Adv. Mr. Naseer H. Jafri, Adv. Mr. Dilwar H. Barlaskar, Adv. Mr. Uzair, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Kasana, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span> Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv. Mr. Aman Jha, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sriniva Udupa, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">Emphasising judicial discipline, the Court expressed serious reservations about Division Bench decisions in Gulfisha Fatima, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9003082190\" target=\"_blank\">2026 SCC OnLine SC 10<\/a> and Gurwinder Singh, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9002079511\" target=\"_blank\">(2024) 5 SCC 403<\/a> for making a clear departure from ratio laid down by the three-Judge Bench in K.A. Najeeb, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000801819\" target=\"_blank\">(2021) 3 SCC 713<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":384725,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[13681,94826,72303,46696,37644,88018,23734,42043,3013,3017,30397,45699],"class_list":["post-384721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-article-21","tag-bail-in-uapa-cases","tag-bail-is-rule","tag-judicial-discipline","tag-justice-ujjal-bhuyan","tag-narco-terrorism","tag-right-to-liberty","tag-sharjeel-imam","tag-Stare_Decisis","tag-Terrorist_activities","tag-uapa","tag-umar-khalid"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule &amp; Gulfisha Fatima Concerns | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2303,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/blog-39-3.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Article 21\",\"bail in UAPA cases\",\"bail is rule\",\"Judicial Discipline\",\"Justice Ujjal Bhuyan\",\"narco-terrorism\",\"Right to liberty\",\"Sharjeel Imam\",\"Stare Decisis\",\"Terrorist activities\",\"UAPA\",\"Umar Khalid\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule & Gulfisha Fatima Concerns | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/blog-39-3.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/blog-39-3.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/blog-39-3.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"bail is rule UAPA\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/20\\\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule & Gulfisha Fatima Concerns | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases","og_description":"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases","datePublished":"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/"},"wordCount":2303,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.webp","keywords":["Article 21","bail in UAPA cases","bail is rule","Judicial Discipline","Justice Ujjal Bhuyan","narco-terrorism","Right to liberty","Sharjeel Imam","Stare Decisis","Terrorist activities","UAPA","Umar Khalid"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/","name":"SC UAPA Verdict Decoded: Bail is Rule & Gulfisha Fatima Concerns | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-20T11:00:25+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-20T11:03:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Supreme Court holds that Bail is Rule in UAPA cases and raises serious concerns over non-adherence of judicial discipline in Gulfisha Fatima case.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"bail is rule UAPA"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/20\/sc-verdict-decoded-bail-is-rule-uapa-gulfisha-fatima-concerns\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Smaller Bench Cannot Hollow Out a Larger Bench Decision Without Expressly Disagreeing: Supreme Court on Judicial Discipline in UAPA Bail Cases"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/blog-39-3.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384721"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":384723,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384721\/revisions\/384723"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/384725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}