Breaking: Apex Court Grants Custody Parole To AIMIM Candidate Tahir Hussain For Campaign; Imposes Strict Conditions
The Supreme Court directed Tahir Hussain to deposit the required amount for expenses two days in advance.

The Supreme Court today granted custody parole to Tahir Hussain, an AIMIM candidate and accused in multiple cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots, to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections from the Mustafabad constituency from January 29 to February 3, 2025.
The order was passed by a three-judge bench after a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict on January 22.
While the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju opposed the petition, the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta permitted Hussain’s request under strict conditions, ensuring that no precedent would be set by the order.
Key Conditions Imposed by the Court
1. Custody Parole Timings: Hussain will be released daily for 12 hours in accordance with jail manual timings. He must return to custody each evening.
2. Financial Undertaking: The petitioner will bear all expenses for his parole period, including costs for jail and police escorts. The expenses are set at Rs. 2,07,429 for every two days, which must be deposited in advance.
3. Restrictions on Movements: Hussain will not be permitted to visit his residence and must primarily stay at the designated location or make alternative arrangements, such as at a hotel like Crowne Plaza.
4. Public Engagements: He is allowed to visit his party office and attend meetings but is barred from addressing press conferences or making comments on the ongoing cases.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, in the post-lunch session, the Bench questioned the practicality of opposing custody parole when Hussain had previously been granted parole to file his nomination without issues. Justice Mehta emphasized that requiring the petitioner to return to jail every evening was impractical due to operational constraints.
The Bench also dismissed concerns raised by the Delhi Police about managing crowds during election rallies, stating that Hussain’s safety and logistical arrangements are primarily his responsibility.
Opposition by Delhi Police
The Delhi Police strongly opposed the parole, citing the severity of the charges and logistical challenges. ASG Raju highlighted the daily cost of deploying staff, escort vehicles, and jail vans, estimating expenses at approximately Rs. 4 lakh per day.
Final Directions
The Court directed Hussain to deposit the required amount for expenses two days in advance. It clarified that the bail plea pending before the High Court would be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order.
Hussain’s parole is restricted to 12 hours daily, with strict adherence to jail rules, and the Court emphasized that this arrangement is specific to the case's peculiar facts and circumstances.
Pre-Lunch Proceedings
In the morning session, when the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal for Hussain argued for interim bail, citing the limited time left before polling. "Even if I get bail today, I will have only 4-5 days to connect with the electorate," Aggarwal submitted, proposing an alternative custody parole arrangement to enable him to campaign.
Aggarwal assured the Bench that Hussain would avoid his house, the alleged epicentre of the 2020 Delhi riots, and instead stay in a hotel, sharing details with authorities. Highlighting Hussain’s detention since March 2020, Aggarwal argued that his client faced multiple cases, including UAPA and PMLA charges, but sought custody parole specifically for election-related activities.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju emphasized the gravity of the allegations against Hussain, noting that his house was considered central to the riots. "His role is serious... his house was the epicentre. Many people died and suffered injuries," Raju argued, adding that granting such relief could set a problematic precedent, with other jail inmates potentially filing similar requests.
The ASG also raised concerns about the logistical challenges and security risks associated with Hussain’s custody parole, questioning the feasibility of such an arrangement.
Three-Judge Bench's Observations
The Bench questioned the practicality of custody parole when Hussain remained in custody in other cases. Justice Nath observed, "Your prayer relates to only one FIR. Even if granted, you won’t be released in other cases." However, the Court acknowledged that Hussain had narrowed his relief to minimize broader implications.
The Bench directed the ASG to gather instructions on the costs and security arrangements required for such custody parole. It also asked Aggarwal to specify the undertakings Hussain was willing to provide to ensure compliance.
The Court remarked that any relief granted would be limited in scope, with Justice Nath noting, "We are not laying down law here; this is a case-specific decision." The Court then posted the matter for hearing at 2 pm.
Split Verdict
Pertinently, on January 22, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a split verdict in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Tahir Hussain, an AIMIM candidate and accused in multiple cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots, seeking interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi Assembly elections from the Mustafabad constituency.
Justice Pankaj Mithal had denied interim bail to Hussain and ruled that he had not made a sufficient case for interim bail, emphasizing the serious allegations against him, including charges of rioting and murder.
However, Justice Amanullah, dissenting from the view of his colleague on the Bench, had observed that Hussain’s prolonged incarceration of nearly five years warranted judicial scrutiny, especially in light of delays in trial proceedings. Justice Amanullah emphasized that the petitioner’s right to participate in elections as a citizen of India would be seriously prejudiced if he were not permitted to canvass.
Previous Hearings
Pertinently, on January 21, the Court had expressed reservations about granting interim bail. Justice Mithal had however, pointed out that the chargesheet places Hussain at the scene and includes witness statements accusing him of instigating violence. “Your involvement is very much there,” Justice Mithal had observed, questioning the necessity of interim bail over regular bail.
On, January 20, the Bench had remarked, "All such persons should be barred from contesting elections," as it deferred to January 21 the hearing on a plea filed by former councillor and Delhi riots accused Tahir Hussain, who has sought interim bail to campaign for the upcoming Delhi assembly polls.
The Court had adjourned the hearing due to paucity of time, but just as it was rising for the day, Hussain's lawyer mentioned the matter and requested a hearing on January 21. "It is easy to win elections sitting in jail. All such persons should be barred from contesting the elections," the Bench had remarked in response. His lawyer had submitted Hussain's nomination was accepted.
Proceedings Before Delhi High Court
It is to be noted that on January 14, the High Court had granted custody parole to Hussain to file nomination papers from the Mustafabad constituency on an AIMIM ticket. It, however, had refused his plea for interim bail from January 14 to February 9 to fight the polls, saying the gravity of allegations against Hussain, being the main perpetrator in the violence, resulting in the death of several persons, could not be overlooked.
The High Court had said about 11 FIRs were registered against him in connection with the riots and he was admittedly in custody in a related money laundering case and UAPA case.
Arguments Before High Court
The Senior Counsel appearing for Hussain argued fighting elections was a complicated process, which required him to not only file his nomination by January 17 but also open a bank account and campaign.
Maintaining that contesting elections was not a fundamental right, the police had alleged that Hussain who was the "main conspirator" and "funder" of the February 2020 riots could complete formalities and fight polls on custody parole.
Background
Violence broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, leaving 53 dead and several injured. According to the prosecution, on February 26, 2020, complainant Ravinder Kumar informed the Dayalpur Police Station that his son Ankit Sharma, posted in the Intelligence Bureau, was missing since February 25, 2020. Sharma's mortal remains were reportedly recovered from Khajuri Khas nullah in the riot-affected area and his body bore 51 injuries.
Hussain, in the bail plea, said he spent 4.9 years in jail and though the trial started in the case, only 20 of the 114 prosecution witnesses were examined so far. Pleading he had suffered a long incarceration, Hussain said the fact that several witnesses were still left to be examined meant the trial wouldn't be over soon.
The co-accused, his plea said, allegedly involved in the riotous mob and committing the offence of murder, were granted bail by the High Court.
Cause Title: Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi [SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025]