India, Jan. 6 -- The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to five people accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case but refuse relief to student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam creates a new touchstone to evaluate bail applications under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), but may have further narrowed the window for liberty in what is already a draconian law. One, by drawing a distinction between the seven people seeking bail in the same case, the court avoided a collective approach. Instead, it found that Khalid and Imam were "qualitatively on a different footing" by observing that the material placed on record prima facie indicated their "central and formative roles" in the planning and strategic direction of the alleged offence. Two, the court said that section 43D(5) of UAPA - which restricts bail - does not exclude judicial scrutiny or mandate denial of bail in default. Again, the court has laid down guidelines for a structured inquiry on whether bail can be granted, including deciding on whether enquiry discloses prima facie offences or if the role of the accused has a reasonable nexus to the offence. And three, the court rejected the argument that prolonged incarceration can justify bail under UAPA, holding that the gravity of the offence, the statutory framework, the role of each accused and the prima facie evidentiary value of the prosecution's case must be assessed. The court has offered the duo a glimmer of hope by saying that they can apply for bail again after a year or after protected witnesses - who are yet to testify five-and-a-half-years later - are examined. It also found that "continued detention has not crossed constitutional impermissibility to override the statutory embargo". Is there a limit to this impermissibility? Can serious charges alone be used as a lever to ensure prolonged incarceration? No republic can let terror or its sponsors go unpunished. But the Delhi riots case is part of a larger recent pattern where grave charges are levelled against activists, only for the trial to hang fire, creating the perception that a politicised process is using stringent provisions to keep people jailed. In case after case, lower courts have found the prosecution wanting and shorn of evidentiary value. Against this backdrop, the prolonged pre-trial detention in high-profile cases is both jarring and violative of the top court's own championing of personal liberty. The court may have attempted to strike a balance in what is no doubt a sensitive case, but unfortunately, the process has already become the punishment....