The final days

On September 14, 2025, Amzad succumbed to cancer at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati. Just four months earlier, on May 28, 2025, he had been detained and confined in the Matia detention camp, Goalpara. His health rapidly deteriorated inside confinement, but despite medical advice recommending palliative care outside, he remained in custody until his last breath.

The Gauhati High Court was due to hear his pending case, WP(C) 5297/2025, on September 15, 2025 — just a day after his death.

A villager turned “D-Voter”

Amzad was a resident of Rowmari Pathar, a village on the banks of the Brahmaputra in Barpeta district. In 1997, his name was marked as a “D-voter” in the electoral rolls of Chenga constituency. His wife, Maymala Begum, and his mother were similarly marked.

Poverty and illiteracy meant that Amzad could not afford to fight the label. “Our family’s legacy is recorded since the 1951 NRC. His father, Hajo Sekh, and forefathers were registered voters even in 1966,” said Abdul Jalil, Amzad’s cousin.

The Tribunal’s verdict

In 2017, Amzad’s case was referred to the 7th Foreigner Tribunal, Barpeta (Case No. 998/17). He appeared through years of hearings, even during the pandemic. On December 9, 2022, the Tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

But the family says they were never informed. “Our lawyer kept telling us there were just two more hearings left. We didn’t even know the judgment had already come,” recalled Maymala.

Unaware of the decision, Amzad continued his work as a daily wager — until police abruptly detained him in May 2025.

Fear and helplessness

Amzad and Maymala have seven children — three sons and four daughters. Yet in his final months, his wife dared not visit him in detention or hospital. Branded a “D-voter” herself, with her case still pending in the High Court, she lived in constant dread of being seized too.

Maymala hold up a tiny photo of Amzad

“What if I was also caught and locked in Goalpara Camp?” she asked, torn between grief and fear. Despite her parents’ names being recorded in the 1951, 1971 and 2019 NRCs, she alone was excluded.

Ignored appeals

Amzad’s condition worsened after his cancer diagnosis on August 11, 2025. The Superintendent of the detention camp even advised the family to seek his release for treatment. Jalil, his cousin, wrote a formal plea to the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner on September 1, 2025, requesting that Amzad be freed for medical care.

But no response ever came. Instead, officials summoned the gaon bura (village headman) to inform the family that Amzad’s health was failing. By the time they reached Guwahati Medical College, it was too late.

Doctors’ reports clearly stated that “no treatment modality was left” and only palliative chemotherapy was possible — yet the authorities refused to act.

The final farewell

After two days of official formalities, on September 16, 2025, Amzad’s body was handed over to his family. That evening, he was buried in Rowmari Pathar, just 1.5 km from where he had been detained months earlier.

He was buried as an Indian, in the very soil that had disowned him. His two sons working as migrant labourers in Chennai could not even return to attend the funeral.

A cry for justice

Assam CJP Team visits the grieving family at their home 

A delegation from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), including state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, advocate Abhijeet Choudhury, DVM of Barpeta Jafar Ali, and local volunteers, visited the grieving family. Jalil showed them the unanswered letter he had sent to the Deputy Commissioner.

“I begged the authorities to release him for treatment. But they kept him locked up until he died. And then, they gave us his body,” Jalil told them.

The cruel paradox

Amzad Ali’s story is not just a personal tragedy; it reflects a wider, systemic cruelty. For decades, thousands have lived under the burden of being branded “doubtful” or “foreigners.” Amzad lived that stigma, died in custody, and was finally buried in the land he always called home.

A citizen in life, denied recognition by the state. A foreigner in papers, but an Indian in death.

Amzad’s death is the second in Matia detention camp this year. On April 17, 2025, Abdul Matleb also died under similar circumstances. Both men were declared “foreigners” during their lifetime, only to be buried in their native villages in Assam. 

The story of Abdul Matleb may be read here.

Separate report on Ali’s death may be read here.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

The post From Assam’s Soil to Detention and Back: The tragic death of Amzad Ali appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukumar Baishya, outside his home, holding up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

Born in 1963 in Patkata No. 1, Sukumar is the son of Lt. Sahadeb Baishya, who migrated from Binnati, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam in 1952–53 due to religious persecution. His father obtained a Certificate of Registration as a Citizen of India on December 24, 1956.

Sukumar’s life story is deeply intertwined with Assam’s turbulent political history. Sukumar’s life was further scarred during the 1983 Assam Movement, when his house was burnt down and all his possessions destroyed. Despite his indisputable roots in India, he found himself accused of being a foreigner who had entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

The case and the State’s allegations

The case against Sukumar arose from a reference under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. He was alleged to be a “foreigner from a specified territory” who entered Assam post-1971.

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

• He is Indian by birth, with a father who was a registered Indian citizen since 1956.
• The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited his home, never examined him or his witnesses, and filed a false, baseless, and unverified inquiry report.
• The case was registered in 2004 but he received notice only in February 2021 — a delay of 17 years, which he argued should render the case barred by limitation.

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

With CJP’s legal support, Sukumar placed on record ten key documents establishing both his own Indian citizenship and his linkage to his father, including:

1. Certificate of Registration (24/12/1956) for his father, issued under Section 5(1)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Voter List of 1966 – Father’s name recorded under 41 No. Bijni L.A.C.
3. Voter List of 1971 – Father’s name recorded again before the 1971 cut-off.
4. Original Sale Deed (02/07/1956) in his father’s name.
5. Jamabandi Records showing land mutation in 1988 in the names of Sukumar and his brothers after their father’s death.
6. Voter List of 1997 – Sukumar and his wife Renu Bala Baishya recorded at the same address.
7. Voter List of 2005 – Sukumar and both wives (Renu Bala and Anjali Bala) recorded.
8. Ration Card with Sukumar’s and his father’s names.
9. Link Certificate from the President of Palengbari Gaon Panchayat.
10. Additional Jamabandi Records linking the family to the land since the 1950s.

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

1. Whether Sahadeb Baishya was a citizen of India.
2. Whether Sukumar Baishya was his son.

On paternity (Issue 2):

• Jamabandi records, the 1997 voter list, and testimony from Sukumar’s younger brother Manindra Baishya and the Land Records Assistant (Manikpur Revenue Circle) proved beyond doubt that Sukumar was the son of Sahadeb Baishya.
• The Ration Card was not accepted as it was not formally proved, but other documentary and oral evidence were sufficient.

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

• The Certificate of Registration (1956) and pre-1971 voter lists established Sahadeb as a registered Indian citizen residing in Assam since at least 1956.
• The 1956 sale deed and continuous land records corroborated long-standing residence and ownership.

Final determination: The Tribunal held that Sukumar had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, proving he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen by birth. He was absolved of all allegations.

Human impact and community reaction

When the CJP legal team — Dewan Abdur Rahim (Legal Team Member), Nanda Ghosh (State In-Charge), Sudrasan Das (Community Volunteer), Tapash Chakraborty, and Asikul Hussain (Driver) — visited Sukumar to hand over the judgment copy, he broke down in emotion, thanking CJP for restoring his dignity and security.

Neighbour Dulal Baishya, 80, who has witnessed the horrors of the Assam Movement and decades of communal tensions, expressed gratitude for CJP’s intervention. He also voiced his fears: “I’ve witnessed the Assam movement and its horrors, and I’ve seen communal clashes in Assam over the years. Despite all this, I’ve never considered leaving. Recently, one of my relatives moved to North Bengal. But with the government’s citizenship, eviction, and land rules, I’m worried about my own future. As a common person, I’m scared about how I’ll be able to live in this state.”

A wider pattern of injustice

Sukumar’s case is not isolated. Even 78 years after independence, Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims in Assam, especially those from poor and marginalised backgrounds, are still being compelled to prove their citizenship, often decades after their families settled in India.

This case underscores the urgent need for:

• Transparent and fair citizenship determination processes.
• Protection from arbitrary investigations and false reports.
• Recognition that bureaucratic processes should not become tools of exclusion against vulnerable communities.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Liberty under Siege: Reclaiming the right to speedy trial from the grip of special laws

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post After years of delay, justice at last for Sukumar Baishya as Foreigners’ Tribunal declares him an Indian citizen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report, titled ‘Unmaking Citizens: The Architecture of Rights Violations and Exclusion in India’s Citizenship Trials’, the report has been authored by Mohsin Alam Bhat of Queen Mary University, Arushi Gupta, and Shardul Gopujkar, with the support of researchers and law students from the NLSIU, and members of Parichay Legal Aid Clinic. The event took place at the Teen Murti Bhavan, Teen Murti Marg, New Delhi.

“As of 2025, Assam’s tribunals have declared nearly 166,000 people as ‘foreigners’. In addition to more than 85,000 pending cases, these tribunals may also soon hear more than a million appeals from those excluded from the NRC,” one of the speakers said at the release.

Among the speakers at the release were Hon’ble Mr Justice Madan Lokur (Retired), former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Human Rights Activist and Independent Researcher, Mr. HRA Choudhary, Senior Advocate, Gauhati High Court, Dr. Mohsin Alam Bhat, Assistant Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London and Ms. Darshana Mitra, Assistant Professor of Law and Director-Clinics, NLSIU.

In 2020, in the Statelessness & Citizenship Review, a paper by Talha Abdul Rahman[1] titled, Identifying the Outsider: An Assessment of Foreigner Tribunals in the Indian State of Assam, also interrogates the constitutional validity of the very institution of Foreigners Tribunals in Assam.

What the report says

The analysis, based on 1,193 High Court cases, landmark Supreme Court rulings, and in-depth field interviews, this report offers the most comprehensive study yet of Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals. It reveals a legal system in deep crisis: over 165,000 people have already been declared “foreigners,” with 85,000+ cases pending and more than 1 million NRC appeals potentially headed to these opaque tribunals. The report documents widespread arbitrariness in decision-making, including the wholesale rejection of documentary and oral evidence, and the absence of legal norms to protect individuals from wrongful targeting. These are not isolated failures—they reflect an institutionalised machinery of exclusion, with severe regional and national implications, says a statement released by the NLSU.

“Citizenship adjudication engages constitutionally significant questions with profound consequences, including the risk of statelessness. Such determinations require bodies that are legally constituted, independent, impartial, and composed of competent legal officers,” the study summarises in a chapter on “institutionalised arbitrariness”.

The report argued that the FT system fails on all these counts. “It lacks a secure legal foundation, is vulnerable to executive interference, and is staffed by inadequately qualified adjudicators. It thus stands in stark violation of the rule of law and the right to an effective remedy under both domestic and international law,” it said, adding that the FTs have become routine instruments of exclusion and violate the right to a fair trial.

‘Lowering standards’

At present, Assam has 100 FTs, each headed by a judge-like member, which were formed after the Supreme Court scrapped the controversial Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 in 2005. Of these 100 tribunals, 36 are permanent and 54 require periodic extension of terms from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Foreigners Tribunals, unlike Tribunals that have a constitutional validity (established under Part XIVA of the Constitution), specifically Articles 323A and 323B, which are under the higher judiciary, are solely appointed by the state executive. Tribunals that have a constitutional legitimacy were introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Article 323A deals with administrative tribunals, while Article 323B pertains to tribunals for other matters. Contrary to this, the sole adjudicator –in appointment and renumeration –is the state executive—in a sense blurring the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. [2]

Figure 1: Structure of Indian tribunal system 

Source: PRS

NLSU Study: Assam’s Foreigner Tribunals

The study further highlights that the appointment process for Foreigner Tribunal (FT) members is opaque, with no guaranteed tenure. Advertisements by the Gauhati High Court and notifications from the Assam Government’s Political Department specify terms of one or two years, varying by executive whim, and extendable at the State’s discretion, it says.

“This tenure is governed by no legislation or by-laws and depends entirely on executive whim, despite being an essential legislative function. Moreover, it is violative of the Supreme Court’s judgments holding that a tenure of less than 5 years threatens to compromise the quality of adjudication by tribunals,” it said.

“The qualifications for FT members have progressively weakened. In 2011, only retired judicial officers from the Assam Judicial Service, experienced in procedural law, were eligible. They could serve until age 67, with salaries based on last drawn pay plus allowances. This ensured appointments of individuals with judicial expertise. By 2015, eligibility expanded to include advocates with at least 10 years of practice, lowering the standard,” the report said.

Appointments became two-year contracts with fixed monthly pay, enabling lawyers without judicial experience to decide critical citizenship matters. The 2019 revisions diluted requirements further; minimum practice dropped to seven years, minimum age to 35, and appointments became more flexible, allowing less experienced candidates to adjudicate complex citizenship issues, thereby compromising the quality of justice,” it stated.

A Gauhati High Court notification added criteria of “fair knowledge of the official language of Assam” and “Assam’s historical background giving rise to foreigners’ issues.” Yet, no requirement exists for expertise in immigration or citizenship law, the report pointed out.

The authors noted with concern that citizenship determination under the FTs has remained unchanged even after Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act of 2025. “The stakes for legal violations have become unprecedented, with the prospects of a nationwide NRC exercise and the recent spree of ‘pushback’ deportations in Assam,” they said, calling for an overhaul of the legal structures governing citizenship in India.

[1] Talha Abdul Rahman (BA, LLB (Hons) (NALSAR, India), BCL (Oxon), Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Visiting Fellow (2020), Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. The author acknowledges that this work has immensely benefited from the Visiting Fellowship and support from Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne.

[2] The tribunal system has developed as a parallel to the traditional court system over the last eighty years.  The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was created in 1941 to reduce pendency of cases in courts.¹  After the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B, several tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as sector specific tribunals were set up from the 1980s to 2010s.  The Finance Act, 2017 consolidated several tribunals.  In 2021, a Bill has been introduced that abolishes nine tribunals and transfers the matters to courts.

Related

Citizenship Dilemma in Assam

Foreigners’ Tribunals: Why were they established and how do they operate?

EXCLUSIVE: Foreigners’ Tribunal notices pasted on electricity poles in Assam!

Proceedings before Foreigners’ Tribunals are really the issue: Teesta Setalvad

The post Assam’s Foreigners’ Tribunals bypass constitutional safeguards: Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the hearing, the petitioners strongly contested the justification for re-detention, calling the State’s affidavit “vague” and insufficient, particularly in light of the fact that no bail cancellation was ever sought. The Court, signalling its concern, directed that the Union Government’s May 2, 2025 notification on deportation procedures, cited by the State as the basis for renewed custody, must be placed on record before any further hearing. The matter is now listed for July 25. CJP has been providing legal aid for these two cases.

Petitioner’s Counsel: Detention is illegal, affidavit vague

Appearing for both petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta argued that the State’s latest affidavit, submitted pursuant to earlier directions, was “as vague as it can be”, particularly pointing to paragraph 7, which failed to provide any specific grounds or documentation justifying why the two men were re-detained.

Dutta submitted that the issue was not verification, but detention; that factual or documentary verification for deportation could easily have been undertaken without arresting and detaining individuals who were already on court-sanctioned bail. He stressed that the men had been released not merely due to COVID, but on the explicit ground of prolonged detention and that the Supreme Court order under which they were released was still binding.

“The SC order is not just a COVID-related release, it applies to those who have completed more than 2 or 3 years in detention. That order has not been recalled. This is a clear violation of that binding direction,” Dutta submitted before the division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund.

State Counsel: COVID-era bail was temporary, deportation now underway

Opposing the petitioners’ challenge, the FT counsel reiterated the State’s position that the detainees were previously released while they awaited deportation, but deportation was stalled due to the pandemic. With the situation having now changed, the Government of India and Assam are “initiating deportations”, and for that, verification of identity and nationality is underway.

He claimed that the individuals were “not in detention centres but in holding centres”, and that such custody was merely to complete verification before deportation could be effected.

However, the Court appeared unconvinced.

Bench seeks clarity: “Where is the notification?”

The Division pressed the State on its failure to produce any official notification along with the affidavit that would justify treating these detentions as part of a lawful deportation process.

“Where is the notification? You’ve not annexed anything to support this position,” the Court remarked during the hearing.

The Bench observed that as per UN Conventions and principles of international law, some form of verification may be necessary before deportation. However, the counsel for the petitioners emphasised that verification alone does not authorise detention, especially when the person is on standing bail under a court order.

The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) May 2, 2025 notification on deportation to be brought on record. Advocate Dutta was also asked to prepare submissions specifically addressing the State’s claim that deportation proceedings justify the detention of bail-compliant individuals. The matter is now listed for July 25, 2025.

Previous hearings may be referred here.

Background

Both Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by FTs in Assam and detained for more than two years. In 2021, they were released under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 directions, which permitted conditional release of detainees who had completed prolonged detention terms and were not facing imminent deportation.

From the time of their release, both men had been consistently appearing before their respective police stations, as required by the bail conditions. Their last attendance was recorded in May 2025, shortly before they were suddenly picked up again by police and transferred to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre — without any order cancelling their bail or citing violation of its terms.

The ongoing hearings raise a serious constitutional question — can individuals, released on binding bail orders, be re-detained without cancellation of bail, merely because the State has decided to restart deportation processes?

In earlier hearings on June 25 and June 26, the Court had already recorded the State’s admission that both Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman had been fully compliant with their bail conditions. Despite this, the State continued to defend its action on the ground that deportation is now feasible, and detention is part of the “preparatory process”.

The petitioners have argued that such detentions, without any recall of prior judicial orders, are a direct breach of Article 21, and threaten to render the judicial system meaningless if State agencies can override court orders without due process.

Related:

Confusion over identity clouds ‘pushback case’ of Doyjan Bibi, Gauhati High Court directs state to verify true identity and whereabouts

Gauhati HC closes writ petition in Bakkar Ali case after his detained father, Samsul Ali, was recovered and not rearrested

India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

The post Gauhati High Court demands Centre’s deportation order amid mounting legal questions over re-detention of bail-compliant individuals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protest, conspiracy, and the mechanics of delay

In February 2020, as nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) intensified (see detailed ground report by Sabrang India), Delhi found itself engulfed not merely in political dissent, but in targeted violent communal conflagration. What began as vibrant rights’ based protests to assert constitutional rights and freedoms through parallel sit-ins and road blockades soon deteriorated –with the active election-driven hate campaigns of the right-wing – into three days of bloodshed across North-East Delhi, leaving 53 people dead, hundreds injured, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes. The human toll was staggering—but what followed, in parallel, in the courts, was, in many ways, just as consequential. Two and a half years after the violence, a Citizens Inquiry Committee Consisting of Retired Judges severely indicted right-wing driven hate speeches and their amplification by an uncritical electronic media for the escalation.[1]

On March 6, 2020, (18 days before the NDA regime declared a nationwide lockdown on March 24) the Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59/2020, alleging a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots. The charge sheet, filed on September 16, 2020, stretched over 17,000 pages, and wove together disparate acts of protest, civil disobedience, WhatsApp conversations, speeches, and financial transactions as the basis of an expansive narrative of terror conspiracy. Key provisions invoked included Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 153A (promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The UAPA designation was not incidental. It allowed the prosecution to sidestep conventional bail safeguards and extend pre-trial detention far beyond the thresholds permissible under the ordinary Criminal Law and Procedure. Over time, the 18 accused (mostly student leaders and activists), including Dr Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, and Sharjeel Imam were arrested under the FIR. While some were already in custody in related cases, FIR 59/2020 became the prosecution’s keystone, binding together the politics of protest with the law’s harshest instruments. Khalid had been granted bail by ASJ Yadav on April 15, 2021, the order noting that he cannot be incarcerated on the basis of sketchy material. However, he remains in jail –after being arrested on September 14, 2020 under stringent UAPA charges for ‘being part of a larger conspiracy in the north east Delhi violence case of 2020.’

For rights activists, advocates and academics too, it is crucial to note that that the initial FIR (which speaks of the conspiracy by Umar Khalid and his ‘speeches’) did not even contain non-bailable offences let alone offences under the draconian UAPA. It is only after the initial set of arrested accused were released by the Magistrate on bail –were a set of non bailable offences were added.  At that point of time there already existed 750 FIRs for the different instances of violence and destruction of property and this FIR 59 was in addition to the same.  Safoora Zargar was arrested in one of the 751 FIRs and was granted bail within a day of two in the earlier offences. Before she could actually be even released from jail –the Delhi Police –in what a clear case of over reach and malice—arrested Safoora (who as mentioned above did not even find mention in FIR 59) by adding offences under the stringent UAPA.  This demonstrates that the purpose of the executive (prosecution) was to simply keep the student activists in jail, no matter what. Given that these were initial developments that had been called out by the defence in Court, the judiciary itself ought to have called this substantive and procedural injustice out.

As of mid-2025, not a single charge has been framed. The trial has remained frozen in its pre-charge phase for nearly five years. This extended inertia cannot be explained solely by the complexity of evidence. A significant part of the delay stems from what can only be described as judicial instability. The case has passed through multiple benches, with judges being reassigned, transferred, or rotated mid-way through critical proceedings. This institutional churn, as much as the statute books themselves, has shaped the case’s glacial pace and rendered a timely trial ever more elusive.

The calumny of calling out ‘delays’ by the defence

While at every bail hearing, virtually, accused rights defenders and their counsel have called out how the prosecution has (in a bid to bias the court and public opinion) sought to blame the defence for “delay”, even this tactic has been called out in court. Student activist, Khalid Safi has presented a detailed analysis of the delay in which he has demonstrated to the court that the delay is and has been only on account of a) the Prosecution; b)Judicial officers being unable to devote time and, c) the prosecution itself having sought and obtained a stay on the proceedings in order to contend that they would not make available the physical copy of the Final Reports / Charge sheets to the incarcerated accused, a contention which flies in the face of basic principles of natural justice.  How are incarcerated accused supposed to read 17000 pages in a charge sheet, without reasonable time to study these once they are provided, is the question asked?  Even if some time (and adjournments) by defence counsel are sought in the course of five long years, how can the plea for bail be ever resisted on that ground? Especially when the incarcerated accused have not in any manner gained from such delay. The delay has only prolonged their jail custody!

High cost of exercising fundamental freedoms

Of the total accused in the case, one, Tahir Hussain, is a politician and a former corporator. The rest, student activists and leaders protesting the anti-constitutional CAA 2019-NRC: Dr. Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal. Of the 18 named in the FIR, only six have been released on bail. Those are: Ishrat Jahan, Mohammad Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Even qua their (alleged) role in protests, a study of the charges reveals that there is no distinction that can be made between the roles of those human rights defenders (accused) who are in custody and those (already) granted bail.  What is more important is, that not a single act of violence, recovery of weapons, speech resulting in incitement, or call for violence can be attributed to them. This obvious lacunae is sought to be inserted or peppered in by belated third party statements which do not lead to recoveries (of such weapons) or connection to the rest of the 751 FIRS. Significantly, by the time the violence erupted in Delhi, Sharjeel Imam was in custody already (having been arrested on January 28, 2020 and Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the violence took place.

Hence, ten Muslim student activists/human rights defenders—one woman and eight men, many of them bright youth leaders–are facing “charges of terrorism” in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case are enduring serious and questionable systemic failures in their judicial quest for bail. Judgements have been reserved while and after Judges have been transferred and hearings inexplicably delayed. Several of the petitions have been pending for several months in the Delhi high court.

One woman, Gulfisha Fatima and nine men– Dr Umar Khalid, Saleem, Sharjeel Imam, Abdul Khali Saifi, Meeran Haider, Salim Malik, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Athar Khan – are those so unjustly incarcerated. Although a special bench consisting of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar listed the nine bail petitions for hearing between 34 and 60 times since April 2022 and even concluded hearings and reserved judgements in six between January and March 2023 – petitions of Saifi, Fatima, Haider, Malik, Rehman, and Saleem – it failed to deliver a final judgement.

Gulfisha Fatima who was arrested in April 2020 – two months after the Delhi riots has had an excruciatingly gruelling challenge to get bail. The bench comprising Justices Mridul and Bhatnagar had reserved its order on her bail application on February 13, 2023—a good nine months after she filed an appeal against a Delhi court’s refusal to grant her bail in March 2022! As if this were not enough, then came the double whammy when, on July 5, 2023, the Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Mridul’s transfer to the Manipur high court as its chief justice – which the Union government cleared three months later on October 16 – and a little more than a month later, Justice Bhatnagar’s transfer to the Rajasthan high court. A new bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur was then scheduled to hear the nine cases afresh, further prolonging incarceration. On November 1, 2023, Justices Kait and Kaur fixed dates for re-hearings thereafter in January and February the next year, 2024. Barely had this happened was the announcement of the judicial elevation of one of the judges, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait as Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with effect from September 2024!! Now, the matters lie before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur.

The Amitabh Rawat phase: bail, paperwork, but no charge hearings

In the initial years of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat became closely associated with the 2020 riot-related UAPA matters. Sitting at the Karkardooma District Court, ASJ Rawat presided over several procedural applications and bail hearings, including the rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail under the Delhi Riots Conspiracy FIR in March 2022, in an order running over 40 pages that leaned heavily and only on the prosecution’s narrative. Khalid had put up a rigorous and detailed defence through advocate Trideep Pais arguing that  there were 750 FIRs registered before February 28, 2020 and the FIR 59/2020 (UAPA conspiracy case), that implicates Umar was registered on March 6, 2020. He argued that there was no occasion or event to register FIR 59/2020 and nobody should have been arrested under it. “The charge sheet filed before conclusively shows that there was no crime disclosed when the complaint was made”, he said. Secondly, Adv Pais had pointed out that the police relied on the speech from a YouTube clip used by news agencies (News 18 and Republic TV), and not the entire speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra. He added that when the news channels were asked by the police to provide the source of the speech, they said that they relied on a tweet made by Amit Malaviya. More details of the previous hearings may be read in this SabrangIndia report. (Amit Malviya heads the Bharatiya Janata Party’s notorious IT cell and dubs himself National In-charge of BJP’s Information & technology division).

What is crucial to iterate –is how arguments on charge—i.e., whether there exists sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in FIR 59/2020– had not even begun during the period that ASJ Rawat was hearing the case. Between 2020 and 2023, the case lingered in a kind of procedural purgatory. Defence counsel frequently complained of non-supply of documents, prosecution delays, and the overwhelming volume of evidence. In reality, much of the delay was structural.

In 2023, ASJ Rawat was transferred. That transfer, like many others in the Delhi judiciary, was part of an administrative reshuffle ordered by the Delhi High Court—routine, unremarkable, and yet, in this case, consequential.

The Bajpai phase: a brief flicker of momentum

Judge Rawat’s successor, ASJ Sameer Bajpai, took over and finally initiated arguments on charge in FIR 59/2020 in September 2023. It was the first real procedural movement in over three years. The prosecution, led by the Special Public Prosecutor, opened with oral arguments on the alleged chain of events, the documentary and electronic evidence, and the roles ascribed to each accused. These arguments spanned several months and were concluded by early 2024.

Between October 2023 and March 2024, five defence teams also completed their arguments on charge, contesting the admissibility, interpretation, and weight of the evidence. Some submissions focused on the unreliability of protected witness statements, while others attacked the temporal inconsistencies in the police narrative. At last, it seemed that the case was approaching the critical moment when the court would decide whether to frame charges and commit the accused to trial.In the period when the matter was before Bajpai, on May 28, 2024, he had declined bail to Dr Umar Khalid on the ground noting that “no ‘deep analysis’ of the facts of the case can be undertaken at this stage.[2] Then, just as the matter appeared to turn a procedural corner, it slipped back.

May 2025: Bajpai’s transfer

On May 30, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued a routine transfer order affecting 135 judicial officers, including ASJ Bajpai. He was posted out of Shahdara, where the UAPA-designated court was situated, and reassigned to a fast-track court in Saket. In his place came ASJ Lalit Kumar.

ASJ Kumar, upon assuming charge, directed on June 2 that arguments on charge must begin afresh. The logic, presumably, was that he had not heard the earlier submissions, and a judge cannot rely on oral arguments presented to another. That may be legally sound, but it placed defence lawyers, many of whose clients had already spent four to five years in pre-trial detention, back at square one. Their submissions, objections, and detailed rebuttals would now need to be repeated. While the prosecution, too, would have to reargue a 17,000-page brief.

This reset triggered public outrage. A few lawyers remarked, off the record, that the process resembled “litigating in a loop.” The wheel was being reinvented, they said, just as it had begun to move.

A rare act of introspection: The High Court reverses course

In an unusual gesture that revealed both institutional awareness and tacit acknowledgment of error, the Delhi High Court revoked Bajpai’s transfer on June 19, directing that he return to the UAPA-designated court from July 1. The order stated that in view of the advanced stage of arguments, and the complexity of the material involved, judicial continuity was paramount.

This reversal was not merely administrative, but a quiet admission that the justice system had come perilously close to collapsing under its own bureaucracy. While defence and prosecution lawyers alike welcomed ASJ Bajpai’s return, they also knew that the damage could not be entirely undone.

At any rate, the institutional volatility on display in FIR 59/2020 has not been unique to this case, but its consequences here are particularly acute. The accused are not free on bail, as many remain in custody under a preventive detention regime that forecloses easy release. The charges involve allegations of terrorism, which, under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, make bail nearly impossible unless the court can prima facie reject the prosecution’s theory—a standard that demands more than mere reasonable doubt. In such a context, delays are not procedural inconveniences, but become carceral sentences in and of themselves. However, despite these stringent legal hurdles, it needs recall, that the same Delhi high court that has refused bail in ten cases (11 including Tahir Hussain) did grant bail to three student activists, Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in June 2021, a year after their incarceration, looking at the same evidence under UAPA charges and making conclusive and creative interpretations on definitions of how legitimate protest cannot be interpreted, under a stringent anti-terror law as ‘act/acts of terrorism’.

Disruptions, duration, and separate interventions

Nearly 1,825 days have elapsed since FIR 59/2020 was lodged. The charge sheet was filed within six months (Sept 2020), but the trial court did not begin substantive charge‑arguments until September 2023, a gap of three years. Between then and the May 2024 transfer, roughly 40 sessions saw prosecution and defence arguments but those efforts were effectively nullified by judicial transfers and reshuffle.

Alongside trial delays, bail hearings have languished in similar fashion. A subset of eight accused — Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa‑ur‑Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, and Mohammad Saleem Khan have their bail pleas pending before the Delhi High Court since mid‑2022. Analysis and reporting by Scroll and CourtPractice shows:

These pleas have been listed, on average, 60–70 times each. Despite multiple benches finishing oral arguments, no orders have been delivered in most cases. Many listings were cancelled because:

• The special benches failed to assemble (44 occasions for Imam alone).
• Judges were unavailable due to workload or roster conflicts.
• Local administrative notes commonly record “bench did not assemble”.

Haider’s plea was listed 60 times, but heard only 9 times; similar lags affected others.

Justice Mridul & Bhatnagar bench’s involvement in several cases (Haider, Fatima, Saifi, Meeran, Ahmed, Athar) with orders reserved only to be derailed when Justice Mridul was transferred (Nov 2023); the pleas were withdrawn and re‑heard from scratch by a new bench.

The net effect: accused who had been in custody for over four years found themselves awaiting bail hearings under the same substantive arguments reargued all over again.

Several accused have sought higher‑court recourse. For instance:

• Sharjeel Imam filed a writ plea under Article 32 in the Supreme Court (Oct 2024), asking for expedited hearing of his Delhi High Court bail petition pending since April 2022. The SC directed the HC to act expeditiously. Clearly however, the matters have still stagnated.
• Gulfisha Fatima similarly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in Nov 2024 to expedite her HC bail plea; the SC politely declined interim relief but instructed the HC to decide swiftly. Here again, the matter languishes while Gulsfisha remains in jail.
• In May 2023, the SC dismissed the state’s appeal against bail granted to Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha, declaring that other accused could seek bail on parity grounds.

Several petitions request speedy trial direction or time-bound adherence to statutory limits. Yet to date, no constitutional court has set firm timelines, and the trial remains in procedural deep freeze.

Bail under UAPA: the framework

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by design, constructs a space where bail is not the rule but the exception. This inversion of the ‘bail, not jail’ standard presumption in criminal law is orchestrated through Section 43D(5). The provision stipulates that:

“…no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.”

In practice, this replaces judicial discretion with a form of prosecutorial veto. It empowers the State to, effectively, keep an accused in jail until the court is prepared to rule (not on their innocence, but) on whether the State’s accusations might be believable on their face.

This presumption becomes crucial in cases such as FIR 59/2020, where the “offence” is not an overt act but a constructed chain of intent, coordination, and alleged incitement, which is, in essence, an interpretive and inferential exercise. UAPA thus raises the evidentiary burden at the bail stage and lowers the threshold for incarceration.

Key Supreme Court decisions: The shifting ground

1. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)

The Watali judgment remains the doctrinal cornerstone for bail under UAPA. The Court held that:

• At the bail stage, courts must not engage in a “detailed analysis of evidence.”
• If the materials prima facie support the allegations, bail should be refused.

This judgment placed extraordinary weight on the accusatory narrative of the police and practically barred trial courts from engaging in critical evaluation of the evidence. Bail became contingent not on the likelihood of conviction, but on the superficial cogency of the State’s documents.

In the years since Watali, multiple High Courts have invoked its ratio to deny bail in UAPA cases involving students, journalists, and civil society members. It became a script, prosecution affidavits were rarely interrogated; the court would peruse the material and affirm its prima facie acceptability.

2. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

This case marked a modest pushback. The Court granted bail despite the UAPA bar, on the grounds that the accused had spent five years in custody without trial commencing. The court held that the five and half years Najeeb spent as an undertrial prisoner became a crucial factor. The Court invoked Shaheen Welfare Association v Union of India to hold that ‘gross delay’ in trial violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. A fundamental right violation could be used as a ground for granting bail. Even if the case is under stringent criminal legislation including anti-terror laws, prolonged delay in a trial necessitates granting of bail. Citizens for Justice and Peace has undertaken a comparative analysis of both judgements that may be read here

However, the judgement remains sparse and highly case-specific. In FIR 59/2020, for example, most High Court benches have not invoked Najeeb, despite similar facts.

3. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency: The Bombay High Court, on November 18, 2022, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him. The 72-year-old scholar had been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA. While the NIA challenged this in appeal, the Supreme Court of India upheld the bail given by the Bombay High Court.

4.Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

In legal and academic circles, Vernon Gonsalves is seen as a vital course correction. The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and subtly recalibrated the UAPA bail standard set in Watali. While not explicitly overruling Watali, the Court held that a “surface-level analysis of the probative value of evidence” is essential when assessing whether the case is prima facie true under Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

This marked a departure from the mechanical, deferential reading of Watali that discouraged scrutiny of prosecution material. By requiring courts to assess some believability in the evidence and not merely its existence, the Vernon ruling offered a doctrinal opening for more meaningful judicial engagement at the bail stage. Yet, because both rulings came from benches of equal strength, the ambiguity remains to persist, leaving lower courts and prosecutors free to selectively rely on either approach unless the Supreme Court resolves the interpretive conflict explicitly.

The Delhi High Court’s continued deferral of bail orders in FIR 59/2020, despite the arguments being complete and the accused having spent 4+ years in custody, suggests that the inertia from Watali remains dominant.

High Court jurisprudence: Delhi’s reluctance and reticence

The Delhi High Court has had multiple opportunities to apply Vernon Gonsalves and Najeeb, especially in the context of FIR 59/2020. But the pattern reveals caution verging on abstention.

In Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi) and related cases involving Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the court (bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Mridul) in 2021 granted bail on the ground that protest cannot be conflated with terrorism. The judgment examined the contours of what amounts to a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of UAPA and found that the State had overstretched the charge.  They also in almost a prophetic manner stated that though at that point of time, the accused had spent a year in custody, the principle of a constitutional court taking into consideration the right to speedy trial as an aspect of the right to life should apply.  This was irrespective of the stringent and restrictive bail provisions following the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.A Najeeb.  The court held so because, there was no movement whatsoever (in the trial) for a year. Given the volumes of witnesses and documents, further delay was inevitable, making the accused’s right to life through speedy trial otiose (obsolete) if bail was not granted. This prophecy –and the principles enunciated in those judgements—have come true because five years later, the case has not moved forward at all!

These judgments were subsequently challenged by the State in the Supreme Court, which stayed their precedential value, though not the actual bail orders. As a result, other UAPA accused, despite similar charges and material, could not invoke those bail precedents as binding except for seeking to invite the Courts’ attention to factual parity. It is however quite clear after the Judgments in Ranjitsing Brahmajeet Sing Sharma, Vernon Gonsalves, Shoma Kanti Sen and Sudesh Kedia, that the prosecution’s ipse dixit in the chargesheet is just not sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case be it simpliciter reading of statements, documents produced along with or the report itself for the courts are (i) required to go through all material and (ii) do a surface analysis of the material to see if the charge of terror is even made out.  The Judgment in Watali had been read and interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India to mean that the allegations in the Final Report and the statements had to be read as they are.  That interpretation is completely flawed for the reason that if that were so, where is the need for the Judiciary?  In fact Watali itself says, the material should ‘good and sufficient on the face of it’ such a finding would require some analysis of the material on record.    Despite these  Judgments in Ranjitsing, Shoma, Vernon and Kedia, Umar Khalid’s bail at every stage has simply been rejected only on the basis of the prosecution’s say so with absolutely no application of mind.  It is interesting that Justice Mridul has granted bail to Devangana, Natasha and Asif and in the same chargesheet with lesser allegations and lack of even presence has denied bail to Umar Khalid

In the case of Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, the Delhi High Court has heard arguments multiple times since mid-2022 but has withheld orders. The reasoning is neither public nor transparent. At times, it has appeared that judicial reassignment, rather than doctrinal difficulty, is to blame.

Even when Justice Siddharth Mridul’s bench heard and reserved judgment on some of these bail applications, his transfer derailed the outcome. Despite re-hearings, no decisions have been delivered. Judges who completed hearings have either been reassigned or replaced, returning the pleas to procedural limbo.

UAPA, delay and the punishment of process

Perhaps the most profound tension between bail jurisprudence and the structure of UAPA is the conceptual separation between trial delay and the statutory bar on bail. The prosecution consistently argues that the material is complex, the conspiracy vast, and the trial long. Yet, they simultaneously resist bail even when the accused have been in custody for four to five years.

In Siddique Kappan v. State (2022 Supreme Court), the courts reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial may violate Article 21, and bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the UAPA bar exists. Still, the use of these cases remains sporadic.

In theory, Section 436A CrPC allows bail for undertrial prisoners who have undergone half of the maximum sentence (in non-capital offences). But UAPA offences often carry life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, making the threshold meaningless in practice.

The absence of time-bound charge framing, combined with the absence of mandatory periodic bail reviews, transforms UAPA into a tool of preventive detention without having to declare it as such.

Some other judgements in which the Supreme Court has, under UAPA, granted bail, may be read here. On April 6, 2024, the court reversed an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to grant academic Shoma Sen bail. Sen had argued that her prolonged detention since 2018 (six years) lacked prima facie evidence under UAPA and had also highlighted her advanced age and health issues. Though the bail conditions were stringent, the apex court, emphasised the necessity of prima facie evidence under Section 43D (5) of UAPA and underscored the importance of constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-trial detention. Several judgements have been cited by the Supreme Court in support of its reasoning.

The path forward

What emerges from this study is a judiciary that is simultaneously constrained by precedent and unwilling to revise it. Despite Supreme Court signals in Vernon Gonsalves, Najeeb, and Kalita, many courts persist with the Watali-era conservatism.

To break the impasse:

1. Trial courts must critically evaluate “prima facie truth.” If the material is tenuous or contradictory, Watali must not apply. A “surface-level assessment” should become a routine part of bail hearings.
2. High Courts should expedite decisions in long-pending bail pleas. That some pleas are heard for 70 sessions without an order erodes public confidence in judicial efficacy.
3. Legislative reform may be necessary. A statutory amendment mandating bail review after two years in UAPA cases (much like TADA’s sunset clause) should be considered.
4. Judicial continuity should be prioritised. If a bench hears a bail application in full, it should be obligated to deliver an order, or the matter must be reassigned immediately with transcripts provided.

The evolution of UAPA bail jurisprudence is not merely a matter of law, it is a record of how fear, caution, and institutional deference have increasingly replaced scrutiny and principle. When a court does not rule for two years on a bail plea already argued in full, it is not the law that is failing, but the infrastructure around it.

In cases like FIR 59/2020, the punishment is the process. With trials yet to start, charges unframed, and pleas unheard, the UAPA becomes a penal sentence administered without conviction.

The law may say prima facie, but the effect is indefinite detention dressed in the robes of legality. A system that is so allergic to finality may well ask whether it is in the business of justice, or of deferral.

Image Courtesy: Burned shops in North East Delhi. Photo: Banswalhemant / Wikimedia Commons

Related:

UAPA: Delhi HC denies bail, Umar Khalid’s Incarceration to Continue

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

[1] The Citizens Commission of Inquiry commented upon the unbalanced (read biased) non-application of provisions of the Indian penal Code (IPC) against powerful hate offenders on the one hand (these include the notorious Kapil Mishra, Ragini Tiwari and Yati Narsinghanand among others) and failure to prosecute was matched by the unfair and selective application of the dreaded UA(P)A against young protesters, concludes the report. The absence of setting up of an independent Commission of Inquiry has also been commented upon. The report that may be read here was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court (chairperson); Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts and former Chairman, Law Commission; Justice R.S. Sodhi, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; and G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), former Home Secretary, Government of India.

[2] The judge had also observed that Khalid’s bail plea had been earlier rejected by the Sessions Court and his appeal against the order was further dismissed by the Delhi High Court as the latter found the case against the accused prima facie true. Notably, Umar Khalid had filed second bail plea with the Sessions Court after he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances” to try  his “luck” in trial court. Pertinent, before Khalid withdrew his bail petition from the SC, the case had already witnessed 14 adjournments. Earlier, the Session Court had rejected his first bail application on March 24, 2022, following which he moved to the Delhi High Court, which again rejected his appeal on October 18, 2022. As the Sessions Court rejects his latest bail petition on 28 May, Khalid continues to remain in jail for more than three and half years (this period is now close to five years!) even as some of the co-accused in the case have secured bail, including Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal. Khalid’s counsel pointed out this fact and argued that his client should be granted bail on parity, but the court rejected his arguments.

The post How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is the story of resilience, legal perseverance, and an unjust system that continues to persecute the marginalised on the basis of ‘doubt’.

Background: Suspicion cast on a woman born in independent India

Alijon Bibi, a Muslim woman born on February 25, 1955 in Gopalerkuti village, Coochbehar district, West Bengal, was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) in Assam in 2004 under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. She had moved to Assam after marrying Rahman Ali from Boromera village, Dhubri district, approximately 53 years ago. Despite having lived, voted, and raised five children in Assam, she was labelled a “doubtful voter” and suspected of being an illegal Bangladeshi migrant. The reference continued even after the IMDT Act was struck down in 2005 and was re-registered as FT-10/AGM/2297/2020 under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Tribunal notice sent to Alijon Bibi tore through her family’s life. Sheikh Alimuddin, father of Alijon, was 31 years old when India gained independence, yet decades later, his daughter was being persecuted as an illegal foreigner. She had voted in Assam since 1985, yet the stigma of being suspected as a foreigner was unbearable. The social repercussions were equally severe—her son, a respected Mufti at the local mosque, began facing questions. The family requested CJP not to disclose the case to their neighbours for fear of social ostracisation. Their dignity had come under attack.

For a woman whose father had voted in Indian elections in 1966 and owned ancestral land in West Bengal, it was a cruel irony to be forced to prove her belonging in her own country.

CJP Assam Team with Alijon Bibi

Mounting the Defence: CJP’s tireless efforts

From the moment CJP took on her case, it became a meticulous process of documentation, field visits, and advocacy. CJP’s para-legal team, especially Dhubri’s District Volunteer Motivator (DVM) Habibul Bepari, tracked down her family history and vital records in both Assam and West Bengal. CJP’s advocate, Mr. Iskandar Azad, and team conducted extensive follow-ups with government offices to collect original documents and arrange witnesses.

One of the biggest hurdles was securing witnesses from West Bengal—an entirely different state—to testify in an Assam court. Repeated visits were made to the Pradhan’s house in Balabhut Gram Panchayat to convince him to appear before the Tribunal. This logistical nightmare illustrates how citizenship battles can be stacked against the poor and marginalised.

Legal arguments and documentary evidence presented

In her written statement and oral testimony, Alijon asserted that she was a citizen of India by birth. She supported her claim with the following:

Primary legal evidence:

1. Voter list of 1966 (Ext A): Proved her father Sekh Alimuddin was a registered voter under Tufanganj constituency, West Bengal. This document was authenticated by the Director of the Directorate of State Archives, Government of West Bengal, who confirmed it was genuine.
2. Land records (Ext C): Certified copy of land in her father and uncles’ names—prepared in 1955—proving their residence and landholding before January 1, 1966.
3. Multiple voter lists (Ext D, E, M, N): Her name appeared in Assam voter rolls from 1985, 1997, 2010, and 2022 alongside her husband and children, showing continued residence.
4. Identity documents (Ext G, H, I): Voter ID, Aadhaar card, PAN card—supporting evidence of Indian identity and address.
5. Brother’s testimony (DW-2): Mojammel Hoque corroborated her family background and origin. He submitted his own verified voter ID, Aadhaar, and PAN details as additional linkage evidence.
6. Official witnesses:

1. • DW-3: Head Clerk of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tufanganj, who authenticated Ext C.
   • DW-4: Gram Pradhan from Balabhut Gram Panchayat confirmed earlier issuance of linkage certificate (though it was ultimately not relied upon due to documentation gaps).

Tribunal’s Finding: Not a foreigner

After reviewing all documents and depositions, the Tribunal noted:

• The 1966 voter list and 1955 land records proved her father’s Indian citizenship.
• Her own presence in voter rolls since 1985 confirmed continuous residence and civic participation.
• No rebuttal evidence was offered by the state; the referral authority itself had noted that she did not appear to be a foreigner.

The Tribunal concluded by holding Alijon Bibi to be a citizen of India.

Broader Implications: Citizenship trials and structural injustice

Alijon’s case is emblematic of the deeply flawed citizenship determination process in Assam. Despite clear documentary proof and a history of voting in Indian elections, she was forced to prove her “Indianness” in a quasi-judicial proceeding lasting nearly two decades.

This process places an unfair evidentiary burden on the accused, often the poor, rural, and marginalised, while the state is not required to prove its claims. Women like Alijon, who move to another state after marriage and often lack birth certificates, are especially vulnerable.

Despite societal stigma and bureaucratic hurdles, Alijon and her family now speak openly, hoping their story will inspire others to resist. On April 8, when CJP state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, Dhubri’s DVM Habibul Bepari and office driver Asikul Hussain went to Alijon’s house to handover the FT order, she told the CJP team:

“Allah gives you strength to be with poor people. I’ll pray to Allah.”

Alijon Bibi sits holding the order that proves her citizenship along with her husband out their home

Her recognition as an Indian citizen is not just a personal triumph, but a powerful indictment of a system that continues to cast suspicion on its most vulnerable. It is a reminder that legal advocacy, community support, and collective resolve can still defeat institutional injustice.

The order may be read here.

Related:

CJP Triumph: Bipul Karmakar wins citizenship battle after a two-year struggle

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

The post Alijon Bibi’s 20-year battle ends in justice, CJP helps secure her citizenship after 2-year legal battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shh…don’t make jokes. The jesters are thrown into the sea if the king feels bad. Don’t insult the king, or his deputy or his deputy’s deputy’s deputy’s deputy, or any of the men on the throne. Don’t talk about the demolition, the houses being turned to rubble, the bulldozers and their power. They are hunting voices. They are finding the loudest and clearest and the fearless and they are stringing them up on the market square so everyone shall see them and shut their tiny mouths. Quell the dissent. They don’t like art, oh no it makes them very angry. They don’t understand it, they don’t enjoy it and they’ll tolerate it if they have to unless it’s about them. It’s not easy being the butt of every joke, you know. It hurts.

Shh…don’t hurt their feelings. They don’t like it and they don’t know how to cry properly so they’ll pick you up, yes you, the young students, the trannies, the women, the Muslims, the Dalits, the artists, the reporters, and the dissenters. The question-askers and the answer-tellers and those who listen to them. You are only excluded and marginalised and untouchable until it is time to throw you into jail. Then they will grab you however required and shove you in a box.

Shh…don’t wake the people. They want to discuss the temples in the sea and the temples underground and the temples in the mosque and the comedians and the actors and actresses and their divorces and the gods and the goddesses and which one is sad and hurt and how one god is better than the rest. The people are sleeping, the people are gossiping, the people cannot see how the thieves have entered their houses to steal their food and take away their freedom but do not wake the people. They want to be asleep. If you wake them they will still ask about the temples and sad orange men and about which flag is better and who wore what when and they will watch the thieves take everything and they will let them. They will let their children be snatched and their houses be broken and all their money taken away and they will wake up and ask where the temple is, where the temples went and where new temples shall be built.

Shh…don’t ask questions. They will ask you to keep your mouth shut and they will turn you against one another and the blue will fight the green and then the orange wins. But this is a democracy after all so the only king you can question is the one who died more than 300 years ago, and the one that died 61 years ago, and all their children because there is a statute of limitations on these things. You can uproot their graves and celebrate your festivals in their houses of worship and say whatever you want about them.

Shh…don’t talk about Palestine. Of the hungry children, or the missing children, or even the parts of the children, the ones severed from their little bodies. Don’t talk about Palestine, because don-don and Mr. X and all their friends will get very sad and then they’ll get very mad and then they’ll lock you right up where all the naughty children go. Is that where the children of Gaza went? If yes then I want to go there, I want to play with them and I want to eat with them and roll around in the mud with them and race them to see who’s faster but it’s always them because hiding from guns and running from bombs gives you speed like no other. No they won’t send you where the children of Palestine went because even in confinement even in death they will not let you be together.

Shh…enjoy your freedom. You can break the rooms where the people are heard, where songs are sung, where poetry is recited. You can kill your neighbours, you can rape their women, and rape your wives, you can hate the colour green, vandalise their property, break their shops. You can bring back untouchability, be proud of your superior identity, eat your cow dung, beat the farmers, kill the students, send those with a voice to jail and abandon your wife. But you cannot love. You cannot love your wife and you cannot love your neighbour and you cannot love art and poetry and you must cheer when the jester is beheaded and you must bow to the king and celebrate his wars. You can criticise kings of the past and disrupt their graves but the kings that sit today on their throne of lies must not be hurt.

Shh…for silence is golden and violence is platinum and cow dung is a treasure and if you fall in line, keep the gold, wield the platinum then they will stuff your mouth with the treasure and it will replace all the love, all the freedom, all the art you’ve ever wanted.

(The author is a student of law in Mumbai and can be contacted at parulekarpriyanka02@gmail.com)

Related:

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

D*ck or fist

A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’

The post Shh..Silence is golden and violence is platinum…shh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sahid’s story is emblematic of the struggles faced by many in Assam, where allegations of being a foreigner often arise from cursory investigations and inadequate verification of records. For Sahid, the intervention of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), a human rights organisation, proved to be a lifeline. Their relentless advocacy and legal support not only secured his release but also brought hope to others fighting similar battles. This case sheds light on the human cost of flawed systems and the power of collective efforts in ensuring justice and restoring dignity.

Sahid Ali’s ordeal: a citizen branded a foreigner  

Sahid Ali, also known as Shwahid Ali, has lived his entire life in Assam, a state his family has called home for generations. Born and raised in Tupar village under Nagarbera Mouza, Boko police station in Kamrup district, Sahid’s citizenship seemed unquestionable. His grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed land records from 1957-64, and his name was also listed in the 1966 voter list. Furthermore, Sahid’s father, Basir Ali (also known as Bashiruddin Ali), appeared on the 1971 voter list for Tupamari village under Nagarbera Mouza.  

Despite this strong documentary evidence, Sahid found himself ensnared in a legal battle when he was accused of being a foreigner by the Assam government. The case against Sahid Ali was initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang, based on allegations of foreign nationality, without conducting proper verification. This led the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) to register a case against him and issue a notice, further intensifying his ordeal. Notably, Sahid’s family had been actively participating in the electoral process, casting their votes in the village of Fuhuratali under the No. 66 Sipajhar Legislative Assembly Constituency, a fact that should have supported his claim of Indian citizenship.

Sahid’s grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed certified land records from village Tupamari in Pachim Samariya Mouza, dating back to 1957-64 (Dag No. 580 New, Dag No. 480 Old). These documents, coupled with Sahid’s other evidence, clearly demonstrated his citizenship. However, on September 29, 2023, the Darrang Tribunal declared him a foreigner. This decision turned Sahid’s life upside down, leaving him in constant fear and severely impacting his health. With the looming threat of detention in a camp, Sahid faced an unimaginable future filled with uncertainty and despair.

The struggles following the Tribunal’s decision  

The tribunal’s ruling shattered Sahid Ali and his family, plunging them into a nightmare of uncertainty and despair. Despite possessing substantial documentary evidence that firmly established his Indian citizenship—documents spanning generations that tied his family to Assam—Sahid was declared a foreigner. The tribunal’s decision not only stripped him of his identity but also left him facing the grim prospect of being sent to a detention camp, a fate that loomed like a dark shadow over his life. The thought of losing his freedom and being confined to such a camp deeply affected his mental well-being, causing his health to deteriorate as he struggled with relentless fear and anxiety. For Sahid, every passing day was marked by anguish and a sense of helplessness.  

Just as Sahid’s hopes seemed to be slipping away, a ray of hope emerged in the form of the CJP Assam legal team. Senior legal member Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, recognising the glaring injustice, took up Sahid’s case with determination and compassion. Filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court, Dutta contested the tribunal’s ruling and sought to overturn the judgment that had upended Sahid’s life. This intervention not only brought hope to Sahid but also shed light on the broader systemic failures that plague many similar cases in Assam. Allegations of being a foreigner often arise from flawed investigations and cursory scrutiny of documents, leaving countless individuals like Sahid to bear the brunt of administrative oversight. His case is a stark reminder of the immense human suffering caused by these failings and the urgent need for fairness and due diligence in such matters.  

CJP steps in- a fight for justice  

Recognising the glaring injustice in Sahid Ali’s case, the legal team from CJP, under the leadership of Senior Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, stepped in to provide crucial support. With unwavering dedication, they challenged the Foreigners’ Tribunal’s decision by filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court. Building a strong case grounded in documentary evidence—records spanning decades and proving Sahid’s Indian citizenship—they sought to overturn the ruling that had upended his life. Their efforts bore fruit when, on November 6, 2024, the High Court granted Sahid bail. This decision brought a wave of relief to Sahid and his family, marking a turning point in their ordeal and reaffirming their faith in the judicial system.  

However, the battle was far from over. Securing bail was just the beginning of yet another formidable challenge—finding a bailor and completing the procedural formalities within a rigid timeline of ten days. Despite the urgency and limited time, the team at CJP demonstrated remarkable resolve. When their search for a bailor initially yielded no results, the organisation’s Darrang District Volunteer Motivator (DVM), Joinal Abedin, took it upon himself to ensure justice prevailed. Stepping forward as the bailor, Joinal’s selfless act underscored the essence of solidarity and commitment within the CJP team. His gesture not only expedited the process but also highlighted the collective effort required to combat systemic injustices. This critical milestone ensured that Sahid’s bail bond was submitted on time, symbolising hope and resilience in the face of adversity.  

Formalities completed; freedom restored  

On 13 November 2024, CJP’s Assam state in-charge, Nanda Ghosh, accompanied by Darrang DVM Joinal Abedin and Sahid Ali, submitted the bail bond at the Border Branch of Darrang. This crucial step marked significant progress in Sahid’s case. The following day, the formalities were completed at the local Border Branch under the Sipajhar police station, bringing a sense of closure to a process fraught with hurdles and urgency. The dedication and efficiency demonstrated by CJP’s team ensured that Sahid’s release was not delayed further, a testament to their commitment to justice and humanity.  

When Sahid learned that his bail had been granted, his emotions overflowed with gratitude. “Now at least I can go out freely and work to feed my family. It’s because of you (CJP) that this became possible. Thank you, thank you so much,” he said, his voice trembling with relief and hope. These heartfelt words revealed the profound weight of the ordeal he had endured. Stripped of his identity, living under the constant threat of detention, and fearing for his family’s future, Sahid had been pushed to the brink. For him, the High Court’s decision was not merely legal relief—it was a lifeline, restoring a sense of dignity and freedom he thought he had lost forever.  

However, the grant of bail is only a temporary reprieve. The fight to secure Sahid’s citizenship remains a daunting challenge. CJP has pledged to continue supporting him, determined to ensure that his identity as a legitimate Indian citizen is restored. This commitment extends beyond Sahid’s case, reflecting CJP’s unwavering resolve to stand by all those who face similar injustices. Their efforts underscore the critical need for systemic reforms to address the deeply flawed processes that brand individuals as foreigners, often without fair scrutiny or due process.  

Sahid’s story is a microcosm of the broader crisis in Assam, where countless individuals are trapped in a web of suspicion and procedural failures. Despite having lived in India for generations, many are unjustly accused of being foreigners, with devastating consequences for their lives and livelihoods. His ordeal highlights the human cost of these systemic flaws, exposing the urgent need for a fair, transparent, and humane approach to resolving citizenship disputes. Sahid’s resilience, combined with the steadfast efforts of CJP, serves as a powerful reminder that justice is not a privilege—it is a right, and it must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable.

A testament to perseverance and advocacy  

Sahid’s journey, from being unjustly branded a foreigner to finally securing bail, is a profound testament to the strength and resilience of individuals fighting for justice in a system that often fails to protect the most vulnerable. For Sahid, the process was not just a legal battle; it was a deeply personal fight for his dignity, his identity, and his right to live as a citizen in the land of his ancestors. The terror of being labelled an outsider, despite generations of living in Assam, compounded by the looming threat of detention, created a reality where every moment was filled with uncertainty and fear. Yet, throughout this tumultuous ordeal, Sahid’s perseverance and determination to prove his rightful place in India never wavered. 

Behind Sahid’s victory stands the unwavering support of organisations like CJP, whose commitment to social justice and human rights played a pivotal role in challenging the flawed system that nearly robbed him of his citizenship. The collective advocacy, led by CJP’s legal team, helped bring the necessary legal pressure to secure his temporary relief. This victory, however, is not just about one man’s case—it represents a broader fight for fairness, dignity, and the recognition of rights for all individuals, particularly those marginalised by systemic failures. CJP’s work underscores the critical role that organisations committed to social justice play in challenging injustice and empowering individuals to reclaim their lives and rights.  

As Sahid begins to breathe easier with his newfound freedom, his story is a powerful reminder of the importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights of every individual, especially those whose voices are most often silenced. His case illustrates the vulnerability of individuals caught in a web of bureaucratic oversight and legal ambiguities, and how vital it is for society to rise to their defence. For Sahid, the road ahead is still fraught with challenges, but the grant of bail represents a significant first step in a long and arduous journey towards reclaiming his full rights as an Indian citizen. His story is a call to action—to ensure that no one, regardless of their background or status, is denied justice or the fundamental right to live free from fear. It is a powerful reminder that, no matter how insurmountable the odds may seem, justice must always prevail, and the fight for it is worth every step.

Related:

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

The post Victory for Sahid Ali: CJP’s legal battle brings relief in Ali’s citizenship crisis, bail granted by High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Facts of the Case:

In 2022, B.K. Polimex India Private Limited (the Petitioner) purchased three drawings by Akbar Padamsee and four by F.N. Souza from auction houses in London. These artworks, depicting nudity in some instances, were imported into India and declared as “nude drawings” on the customs invoices. Upon arrival, Customs officials, under the Airport Special Cargo Commissionerate, threatened to confiscate and possibly destroy the artworks!

Fearful of the potential loss of these valuable pieces, the Petitioner, following advice from FedEx, requested the re-exportation of the artworks. Despite this, the Customs officials seized the seven artworks on April 20, 2023, deeming them “obscene material.”

The Petitioner contested this seizure, submitting certificates from art galleries, expert opinions, and even prints from the National Gallery of Modern Art’s virtual tour to demonstrate that the artworks were not obscene. Despite a personal hearing on June 22, 2023, where the Petitioner further argued its case, the ACC issued an order on July 1, 2024, confiscating the artworks and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000.

Reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs:

The ACC based his decision on Notification No.1/1964-Customs dated January 18, 1964, which prohibits importing “obscene” materials. He contended that since the artworks portrayed nudity and, in some cases, “sexual intercourse positions,” they inherently fell under the category of “obscene” and were thus prohibited.

The ACC’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• Reliance on personal interpretation: He relied solely on his understanding of obscenity, dismissing expert opinions and the context of the artwork.
• Anything depicting nudity is obscene: He adopted a rigid stance, equating any form of nudity with obscenity.
• Disregard for artistic merit and expertise: He failed to consider the acclaim and recognition these artists had received globally and the artworks’ artistic value.
• Ignoring judicial precedents: He disregarded established legal principles on obscenity, attempting to distinguish relevant Supreme Court judgments on flimsy grounds.

Reasoning of the Bombay High Court:

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, found the ACC’s order perverse, unreasonable, and unsustainable. They quashed the order and directed the immediate release of the artworks to the Petitioner.

The court’s reasoning was grounded in the following:

• Not every nude painting is obscene: The court stated that nudity in art does not automatically equate to obscenity. A nuanced approach considering artistic merit, context, and community standards is necessary.
• Rejection of the ACC’s “ipse dixit” approach: The court criticised the ACC’s reliance solely on his assertion without substantiating it with evidence or considering expert opinions and legal precedents.
• Contemporary community standards: The court emphasized that the determination of obscenity must consider the evolving social norms and values of the present-day community.
• Artistic merit and expertise: The court acknowledged the global recognition of both artists and considered their expertise a relevant factor. The ACC’s disregard for this aspect was deemed a critical flaw in his judgment.
• Importance of legal precedents: The court upheld the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments that provided guidelines for determining obscenity. They highlighted that personal opinions cannot supersede established legal principles.

Cases Cited and Their Application:

The Bombay High Court cited several landmark cases to support its decision:

• Ranjit D. Udheshi vs. State of Maharashtra (1964): This case established that mere depiction of sex and nudity in art does not constitute obscenity. The focus should be on whether the material would corrupt those exposed to it.[2]
• Aveek Sarkar and another Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2014): The court in this case rejected the outdated Hicklin test, which judged obscenity based on isolated passages taken out of context. It emphasized the importance of contemporary community standards in determining obscenity.[3]
• Ajay Goswami vs. Union of India and others (2007): This case established that nudity alone does not constitute obscenity. The court must consider the artistic, literary, or social merit of a work alongside its potentially obscene content.[4]
• Indibily Creative Private Limited and others vs. Government of West Bengal and others (2020): The Supreme Court, in this case, underscored the freedom of expression and criticized authorities acting as self-proclaimed guardians of public morality.[5]
• Kavita Phumbhra Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court, in this case, overturned the customs authorities’ confiscation of glass objects depicting an unclothed female form. They criticised the imposition of vague individual moral standards and highlighted the evolving nature of societal norms.[6]

Judgment and the Court’s stand on the core issue:

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment, quashed and set aside the impugned order of the ACC, directing the release of the confiscated artworks to the Petitioner. The court emphasized that customs laws do not empower an ACC to impose his personal views on obscenity and dictate artistic standards. They stressed that legal principles and contemporary community standards, as laid down in judicial precedents, must guide such decisions.

The core issue, whether the artworks were “obscene,” was addressed by the court in light of the evolving understanding of the term and the context of artistic expression. The court maintained that “sex and obscenity are not always synonymous” and that merely depicting nudity does not automatically render an artwork obscene. They held that the ACC’s failure to consider expert opinions, artistic merit, and community standards demonstrated a perverse and unreasonable approach.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in B.K. Polimex India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India serves as a crucial reminder that individual biases and moral judgments cannot supersede established legal principles and due process. The court’s emphasis on context, artistic merit, expert opinions, and contemporary community standards provides a robust framework for determining obscenity in the realm of art. This judgment protects artistic freedom and ensures that bureaucratic overreach based on personal preferences does not stifle creative expression.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] WRIT PETITION NO. 14437 OF 2024

[2] 1965 AIR 881

[3] (2014) 4 SCC 257

[4] (2007) 1 SCC 143

[5] AIR 2019 SC 1918

[6]  GA No. 2284 of 2009

Related:

Bombay HC: Rapping customs department for dubbing F N Souza and Akbar Padamsee’s nudes ‘obscene’, orders release of artworks

The post Art v/s Obscenity: Bombay High Court overturns seizure of Padamsee & Souza artworks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench consisting of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta granted Kappan’s application to modify this bail condition. As per LiveLaw, the bench stated, “The order dated September 9, 2022, is modified, and it shall no longer be necessary for the petitioner to report to the local police station. The other requests made in the present application can be addressed separately.”

The official copy of the order has not yet been uploaded to the court’s website. This bail condition was initially imposed by the Supreme Court when it granted Kappan bail after nearly two years of detention in September 2022.

Details of the Supreme Court order granting Kappan bail:

On September 9, 2022, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan, who has been under the custody of the Uttar Pradesh Police since October 6, 2020. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Kappan was arrested while he was on his way to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh where a Dalit woman had died after allegedly being gang-raped. The police had claimed that the accused was trying to disturb the law and order in Hathras, and also alleged that the accused had links with the Popular Front of India (PFI).

Kappan was kept under custody for alleged offences under Sections 17/18 of UAPA, Sections 120B 153A/295A IPC, 65/72 IT Act for alleged conspiracy to incite riots following the gangrape-murder of a Dalit minor girl in Hathras. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had in August, 2022 rejected the bail application of Kappan,

On September 9, a bench comprising of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat granted him bail, directing Kappan to remain in Delhi for the next six weeks after the release from an Uttar Pradesh prison and also mark his presence with local police station every week. There were other conditions too.

“The appeal challenges Allahabad High Court order. The appellant was taken in custody on 6 October 2020 and since then has been in custody in connection with Section 17/18 UAPA, 124A, 153A 295A IPC, 65/72 IT Act. It appears that chargesheet has already been filed on April 2, 2021, however the matter has not been taken on consideration on whether charges need to be framed or not. The application for bail having been rejected by High Court, the instant appeal has been preferred. We have heard Kapil Sibal for appellant and Mahesh Jethmalani for the State. We have been taken through some documents on record. At this stage, we refrain from dealing with and commenting on the progress of investigation and the materials collected by prosecution as the matter is at framing of charge.”

The Supreme Court had granted him bail stating that “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court within three days from today; and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure presence and participation of the appellant in the matter pending before it.”

The order further said, “Upon release, the appellant shall stay in the 3 city of Delhi and within the jurisdiction of Nizamuddin police Station and shall not leave the city of Delhi without express permission of the trial court; that the appellant shall record his presence in the concerned police station every Monday in a register maintained for the purpose; that this condition shall be applicable for first six weeks from the date of release.” It added, “After six weeks, the appellant shall be at liberty to go back to his native place and stay at Mallapuram in Kerala but shall report at the local police station in similar fashion that is to say on every Monday and mark his presence in the register maintained in that behalf.”

Thus, the Supreme Court had levied the following conditions on the bail granted to Kappan considering the length of custody undergone by the appellant and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case:

1. The appellant shall be taken to the trial court within 3 days and shall be released on bail on conditions as deemed fit by the trial court.
2. It shall be the condition of bail that the appellant shall stay within the jurisdiction of Jangpura in Delhi.
3. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Delhi without the express permission of trial court.
4. The appellant shall record his presence in local police station every Monday. This condition shall apply for first 6 weeks. After 6 weeks, the appellant shall be at liberty to go to Kerala but shall report to the local police station in similar fashion, that is every Monday, and mark his presence in the register kept on that behalf.
5. The appellant shall either in person or through lawyer shall attend the trial court on every single day.
6. The appellant shall deposit his passport with the investigative machinery. The appellant shall not misuse the liberty and shall not get in touch with any of the person connected with the controversy. 

With the order issued by the Supreme Court on November 4, condition 4 has been relaxed.

Background

Kerala based journalist Siddique Kappan has been lodged in Mathura Jail for over 300 days. The Uttar Pradesh Police have filed a 5,000-page chargesheet against him and 3 others who were arrested along with him, and have accused them of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs from financial institutions in Doha and Muscat to create unrest in the state.

Kappan, who is also the secretary of Kerala Union of Working Journalists Delhi unit (KUWJ), and a senior reporter had gone to cover the Hathras horror of the alleged gangrape, and murder of the 19-year-old Dalit woman that had made headlines all around the world. Soon after his arrest, the KUWJ issued a statement expressing that they could not get in touch with Siddique and that neither the Hathras Police Station nor the State Police department could provide any information on taking him into custody. 

The Uttar Pradesh government had submitted in its affidavit that they found “suspicious literature, one that could have an adverse impact on peace,” from their electronic devices. Police have also claimed that the four including Kappan were linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its student body Campus Front of India and that they were going to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste divide and disturb law and order situation.”

Over the two years of incarceration, he had reportedly been tortured and harassed by jail authorities, denied legal assistance and medicines (he is diabetic), taken a fall in the jail bathroom, contracted Covid-19, has been chained to a hospital bed preventing him from moving or even using the washroom, forced to urinate in a bottle, and has also lost his mother. Kappan had been granted bail twice by the Supreme Court for visiting his ailing mother and for being treated for COVID-19. On both times, there had not been any allegations that he tried to jump bail or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

As per a BBC News report, Kappan was “dragged and beaten with sticks on thighs, slapped on face, forced to stay awake from 6pm to 6am on the pretext of questioning and subjected to serious mental torture”. According to his wife Raihanath Kappan, the police repeatedly asked Siddique if he ate beef (many Hindus revere cows, and in recent years Muslims have been lynched for eating beef or transporting cattle), and also asked him why Muslims have an affinity to Dalits.

Related:

Journalist Siddique Kappan’s release after 28 months in a UP jail, where a black hole with opaque procedures affected release

Siddique Kappan to finally walk out of Jail!

Siddique Kappan directed to furnish 2 sureties of Rs 1 lakh each for Bail Proceedings under PMLA

Ex-LU VC, Roop Rekha Verma stands as bail surety for journalist, Siddique Kappan

SC grants journalist Siddique Kappan bail in Hathras conspiracy case

The post Supreme Court eases bail conditions for Kerala Journalist Siddique Kappan appeared first on SabrangIndia.