Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed his journalistic work on displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged state excesses, which many believe led to his prosecution as an act of state repression against dissenting voices.

Singh was initially not named in the FIR but was later implicated based on alleged digital evidence obtained from co-accused individuals. His previous encounters with the authorities include a 2019 arrest under similar charges, where he was eventually released on default bail due to the failure of the police to file a chargesheet in time. His arrest came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, raising concerns over state surveillance and retaliation against critical journalism.

His case mirrors a broader crackdown on journalists, activists, and human rights defenders under UAPA. Notably, student leader Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi and Gulfishan Fatima remain behind bars as under trials and Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist, died in jail while facing questionable UAPA charges. These instances reflect a growing trend of using stringent anti-terror laws to silence dissent.

The United Nations Human Rights Office has also expressed concern over the misuse of UAPA in India, urging the government to review its application and ensure that it is not being used to target dissenting voices. The UN specifically called for the dropping of charges against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who were prosecuted under UAPA for their comments on Kashmir.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The order may be read here:

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in such sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Application of UAPA’s stringent bail provisions:

• The High Court and Supreme Court relied on Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true.” The threshold for bail under UAPA is significantly higher than in regular criminal cases
• The courts have interpreted “prima facie true” broadly, often placing the burden of proof on the accused, rather than requiring the prosecution to demonstrate substantial evidence at the bail stage.

2. Lack of independent evidence against Singh:

The primary evidence against Singh appears to be electronic data allegedly recovered from an SSD card seized from a co-accused. His defence argues that:

• No direct incriminating evidence was found from Singh’s residence or personal devices.
• The alleged videos and photographs are inconclusive in proving any criminal intent or Maoist affiliation.
• Digital evidence can be easily manipulated, and its authenticity should be scrutinized before being treated as conclusive proof.

Violation of fundamental rights:

• Singh’s arrest and prolonged detention raise concerns under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have highlighted Singh’s case as an example of state-led suppression of press freedom
• His prosecution under UAPA fits a pattern of using anti-terror laws to target activists, journalists, and dissidents.

A slew of judgements of the constitutional courts analysed by our team below illustrate how bail under this draconian counter-terror law has been addressed. Before this, in 2020, our team had analysed how various courts dealt with the issue of bail under the stringent UAPA. That legal resource may be read here.

Precedents

Observations of the Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) clarified the necessity of an independent judicial assessment in bail matters under the UAPA. The Court observed that:

1. Mere membership in a banned organisation does not amount to criminal activity: The Court ruled that the prosecution must establish a direct and substantial connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities. A person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of association.

On plain reading of Section 38, the offence punishable therein will be attracted if the accused associates himself or professes to associate himself with a terrorist organisation included in First Schedule with intention to further its activities. In such a case, he commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation covered by Section 38. The person committing an offence under Section 38 may be a member of a terrorist organization or he may not be a member. If the accused is a member of terrorist organisation which indulges in terrorist act covered by Section 15, stringent offence under Section 20 may be attracted. If the accused is associated with a terrorist organisation, the offence punishable under Section 38 relating to membership of a terrorist organisation is attracted only if he associates with terrorist organisation or professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The association must be with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. The activity has to be in connection with terrorist act as defined in Section 15. Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that if a person charged with the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 proves that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation during the period in which the name of the organisation is included in the First Schedule, the offence relating to the membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) of Section 38 will not be attracted. The aforesaid clause (b) can be a defence of the accused. However, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, we are not concerned with the defence of the accused. (Para 13)

2. Independent judicial scrutiny is essential: Courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s claims under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA. The judiciary must conduct a thorough review of the material evidence before concluding that the allegations are “prima facie true.”

“..By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise..” (Para 21)

3. The Court emphasised that the offences under Sections 38 and 39 require mens rea (guilty intent). Mere association or possession of Maoist literature does not satisfy the requirement of intention unless there is active participation or acts showing furtherance of terrorist activities.

“Thus, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of associating or  professing to be associated with the terrorist organisation and the offence relating to supporting a terrorist organisation under Section 39 will not be attracted unless the acts specified in both the Sections are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. To that extent, the requirement of mens rea is involved. Thus, mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.” (Para 15)

4. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite the strict conditions in UAPA, especially when prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights. The accused had already been in custody for over 570 days, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court restored the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused.

“As held in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the stringent restrictions imposed by sub-section(5) of Section 43D, do not negate the power of Constitutional Court to grant bail keeping in mind violation of Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the accused no. 1 is taking treatment for a psychological disorder. The accused no. 1 is a student of law. Moreover, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Even assuming that some of the witnesses may be dropped at the time of trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time as even charges have not been framed. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act and the punishment can extend to 10 years or only fine or with both. Hence, depending upon the evidence on record and after consideration of relevant factors, the accused can be let off even on fine. As regards the offence under Section 13 alleged against accused no. 2, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment of 5 years or with fine or with both. The accused no. 2 has been in custody for more than 570 days.” (Para 42)

The judgement in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) may be read here:

Observations in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

1. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. The prosecution intends to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial uncertain.

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: 

(i)  The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; 

(ii)  Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and 

(iii)  As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.” (Para 7)

2. The court emphasized that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”  (Para 8)

3. The appellant remains an accused, not a convict.  The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be ignored.

“We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” (Para 20)

4. The court noted that jails are overcrowded, and undertrial prisoners suffer due to delayed trials. It referred to Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 311), highlighting that prolonged incarceration has severe social and psychological consequences. (Para 14)

5. The court referred to Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which mandates that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

“The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.” (Para 15)

6. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the court held that statutory restrictions on bail (like UAPA’s Section 43-D (5)) cannot override constitutional rights. The court reiterated that when trials are excessively delayed, bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence. (Para 16)

7. The judgment noted that criminals are made, not born, and the criminal justice system should consider social and economic factors that may influence crime. The court emphasized that justice should be tempered with humanity, quoting the principle that “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.”

“Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” (Para 18)

The judgement in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022)

1. The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial for almost 8 years (since 08.05.2014). Only 6 out of 109 witnesses had been examined so far, indicating an unreasonably delayed trial. The trial court estimated that the case might take 2-3 more years for completion.
2. The Supreme Court had directed priority examination of three prosecution witnesses who had raised concerns about threats to their lives.

Among these witnesses: One (Devendra Patel) was declared hostile. The other two (Hemant and Pappuram) did not provide any deposition implicating the appellant. The State’s case was largely based on the appellant’s alleged communication (31 conversations) with a co-villager, who was accused of being a sleeper cell module head of the Indian Mujahideen.
“We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis.” (Para 8)

3. The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration. It noted that UAPA’s bail restrictions (Section 43D (5)) are comparatively less stringent than NDPS Act provisions, which demand a prima facie case of innocence before granting bail. (Para 12)

4. One co-accused, Adil Ansari, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2020. The State argued that the role of the appellant was different, but the court acknowledged this factor in deciding bail.

“No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said accused is different.” (Para 13)

5. The impugned High Court order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The judgment made it clear that these observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.

The judgement in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022) may be read here:

Observations in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

1. The Court noted that 12 out of 14 accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The number of prosecution witnesses had been reduced from 114 to 100, and only 40 witnesses had been examined so far.

Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020. (Para 5)

This ruling highlights the importance of parity in bail matters, considering that a majority of the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged trial delay was a factor in the decision.

The judgement in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024)

1. The charge sheet did not contain specific material proving that the appellant participated in, abetted, or incited unlawful activities or terrorist acts. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organization under the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA.

“We may note here that, assuming that the appellant knew that co- accused Athar Parvez was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Moreover, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show any connection of the appellant with PFI before letting out first floor premises to accused no.1.” (Para 6)

2. The Court found that the statement of a protected witness (Z) had been misrepresented in the charge sheet, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

“Thus, paragraph 17.16 purports to reproduce the statement of protected witness Z. In terms of our earlier order, the translated version of the statement of protected witness Z, recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has been produced in a sealed envelope. We find that the statement substantially differs from what is narrated in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet.” (Para 10)

3. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, emphasizing that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, bail should not be denied when statutory conditions are met.

“…when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail..”  (Para 21)

4. The Court held that unjustly denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.” (Para 21)

The judgement in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Yedala v. State (2024)

The case was related to the murder of two politicians by members of the CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against 79 accused. The appellants had been in custody for over four years and seven months without the framing of charges.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. After analysing the entire prosecution case, the court concluded that there was no strong material linking the accused to the crime. Since the prima facie case was weak, the statutory bar on bail under UAPA did not apply.

“…Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to sub section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations.” (Para 21)  

The judgement in Yedala v. State (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an accused is not entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. However, upon scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it was found that the primary accusation against the appellant was that he paid levy/extortion money to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court held that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding.

A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization ((Para 11 (A))

2. The Court noted that the charge sheet alleged that other accused persons, who were members of the terrorist organization, had been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in the Amrapali and Magadh areas. The appellant was in the business of coal transportation in that region and had made payments under duress. It could not be said prima facie that the appellant conspired with the other members of TPC or raised funds to promote the organization.

“…It is alleged in the second supplementary charge- sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization.” ((Para 11 (A))

3. The prosecution argued that the appellant had been in constant touch with members of the terrorist group. The Court noted that the appellant had stated in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he was summoned to meet A-14 and other members in connection with the payments. The Court held that merely meeting the members of TPC, without further evidence of conspiracy, does not establish a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy.

“Another factor taken into account by the Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation of the Appellant meeting the members of the terror organization. It has been held by the High Court that the Appellant has been in constant touch with the other accused. The Appellant has revealed in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.”((Para 11 (B)))

4. The Court referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, which set the parameters for granting bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. The Court held that while prima facie satisfaction of allegations is sufficient to deny bail under UAPA, in this case, the material did not meet the threshold to establish a clear case against the appellant.

“After a detailed examination of the contentions of the parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial.” ((Para 12))

The judgement in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021may be read here:

Singh’s case underscores the precarious state of press freedom and the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA matters. While national security concerns must be addressed, an overbroad application of UAPA risks eroding fundamental rights. The denial of bail in Singh’s case, despite the legal precedents favouring a more balanced approach, raises significant questions about the selective and inconsistent application of UAPA laws. The courts must ensure that stringent bail conditions do not serve as a mechanism for prolonged incarceration without trial, which contradicts the very principles of justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related: 

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

Petitions challenging stringent provisions of UAPA to be heard by the SC

The post SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While 38-year-old Rupesh is put in jail and the family needs more financial support, Ipsa was asked to quit the job. Apart from the family needs, she has to pay for the education of six-year-old son, Agrim. Amid this financial crisis, she has to offer private tuition. From pursuing the legal battle to fighting for the release of her husband, she works as a brave woman. Even in this difficult time, she is pursuing law and doing a course in journalism through the distance mode. Earlier she did B.Com and M.Com and earned a degree in Bachelor of Education. During an interaction, she is optimistic and firmly believes that Rupesh would be released soon. Her political conviction keeps her resolute and unwavering. 

At present, Ipsa lives in Ramgarh (Jharkhand) while his husband is imprisoned in Patna’s Beur Jail. When Rupesh was earlier kept in Ranchi Jail, it was much easier for her to meet him because of the relative proximity of the jail to her home. Not many people know that Rupesh and Ipsa became friends through social media. She has been very active on social media platforms and Rupesh first noticed her there. Her father Vishad Kumar is a journalist and politically left-oriented person. Rupesh has also been associated with the left organisations since his student days. Their shared political worldviews brought them closer. In 2016, they finally got married. 

In an online interview with the writer, 38-year-old Ipsa recalled that a few colleagues at her school were quite helpful. But later the school authority decided to fire her. The authority did not say it bluntly but employed an excuse: “I was being advised that I should focus more on my husband by leaving the job. Perhaps, the school authority was under pressure not to keep me further. I was given unsolicited advice that earning money should be less important for me than focusing on my husband’s case.” When she lost her job, her life became ever more difficult. Later, she had to offer private tuition to feed her family. Moreover, she had to pay the tuition fee for her young child’s education.  

Remember that one year ago on July 17, 2022, Rupesh was arrested from his hometown Ramgarh by Jharkhand police. Since he was relentlessly writing against the exploitation of natural resources in Adivasi areas and raising voices against the attacks on their lives and liberty through his pen, he became a thorn in the eye of the establishment. As an exercise of silencing him, he was first arrested in 2019 under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Since the Bihar police failed to file the charge sheet, he got bail in December 2019. But again he was arrested last year and charged with several provisions of the IPC. So far, he has been charged with four cases including draconian UAPA. At present, he has been incarcerated in Beur Jail.  

Earlier, Rupesh alleged that his phone was put under surveillance by Pegasus (spyware). To substantiate his claim, he said that whenever he reached any Adivasi area for reporting, he noticed that some unidentified people were already present there to persuade the local people against him. According to him, this was an indicator that his movement was being monitored. Against this regime of surveillance, he, along with some other journalists, moved to the Supreme Court.  

While Rupesh has been brought up in Bhagalpur, he has reported extensively from both Jharkhand and Bihar. For the last seven years, his stories were windows for the outside world to the ongoing system of exploitation of Adivasis and the resources owned by them. His writings have exposed the nexus between the State and the corporate forces. He wrote on topics which hardly figure in the mainstream media. He has been unambiguously eloquent against the ongoing militarization process in the Adivasi areas and in the name of combating “left-wing extremists”. He wrote with substantive evidence that such an exercise has resulted in the gross human rights violation of a large number of Adivasis. He has provided a valid critique of the developmental model that the ruling classes are forcing upon the people. He has also argued that the areas inhabited by the Adivasi community are bereft of the basic amenities including the safe drinking water, while, at the same time, the localities occupied by the outsiders and business classes have every facility.  

As a journalist, he wrote several stories against the ongoing plunder by the corporate forces. He even highlighted the violation of the special provisions enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the Adivasi lands. He wrote that regimes, irrespective of their ideologies and social base, were busy robbing the Adivasi communities of their lands and resources and passing them to the rich and the corporate forces. These concerns raised by independent journalist Rupesh have made him a special target of the ruling elites.  

Much of the writings and speeches of Rupesh are available online. He has mostly written for Hindi newspapers and news portals. His concerns have largely been ignored by the mainstream media as well as a large chunk of the alternative media. He could only express himself at a few alternative media sites. Even though he has got little space, he could raise serious questions about the model of development and the plight of the Adivasi community. Environmental degradation in Adivasi areas, the lack of basic facilities such as safe drinking water, electricity, schools and hospitals, the looting of natural resources, the illegal occupation of Adivasi lands, their human rights violations and the increasing militarization are some of his central concerns.  

The strength of Rupesh has been his ability to reach the spot and report from the conflict zones. Slowly, he got admiration from the Adivasi community. He is seen as a people’s journalist. His substantive writing and his growing credibility among the Adivasi communities made him an ire of the establishment. Even the Hemant Soren Government, which claims to be a champion of the Adivasi rights to which Rupesh has dedicated his journalism, remains silent about his suffering. 

In January this year, Ipsa sent a letter to chief minister Soren and sought justice for him. The letter was later published by the media and was quite debated. However, she has not received any acknowledgement from Soren so far, not to talk of any formal reply from him or his assurance to address her grievances. In her letter, she asked the chief minister to spell out what wrong Rupesh had committed. She claimed that Rupesh was doing exactly what Hemant Soren spoke as an opposition leader. Both spoke against the exploitation of the Adivasi community. But when he, she alleged, came to power, he had forgotten his promises to the Adivasi community. 

Having said this, she explained the reason behind the two-contradictory approaches of the ruling classes. She said that when leaders were in the opposition, they would speak about the suffering of the people; but when they came to power, they would forget their promises. “This is the real character of the power. Greed and profit are their major motives” said Ipsa. While the so-called government has disappointed her, she appreciated the efforts made by the progressive forces in supporting the campaign for the release of Rupesh.  

Giving the details about his case, Ipsa said that Rupesh is currently charged with four cases including the UAPA. Out of four, he has got bail in two cases. In jail, Rupesh has waged several struggles for the rights of prisoners. Even during his stay in jail, he was hit by chicken pox. Despite all these difficulties, he is pursuing M.A. in History from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and has recently appeared for the first-year exam. He is also going to appear for another exam for a journalism course in December. She recalled that during her last meeting, Rupesh assured her that she should focus on the education of his son and be less concerned about him. She said that even in jail, his study and struggles are going on: “Rupesh continues to struggle for his rights and he keeps his study on.” 

Despite facing a lot of hardship, Ipsa believes that the struggles of Rupesh are much bigger than her own struggles. She emphasised that even the State repression did not deter his spirit to continue his work. She said that Rupesh had done nothing wrong but just carried out his task of being a journalist: “Rupesh has been kept in jail because the establishment does not want him to write about the issues of Adivasi. That is why a new case has been slapped on him recently.”   

Ipsa Shatakshi is not off the mark when she says that the journalism of Rupesh has created discomfort for the ruling establishment. In the process of the plunder of the natural resources in the Adivasi areas, his journalism is seen as an impediment. But what is the way out? Her answer is the need to forge wider solidarity and gather the courage to speak for the free press. She, therefore, makes an appeal that all journalists should raise their voices against the attack on the media by expressing their solidarity with all political prisoners.   

Watch the full interview here: 

 (Dr Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. He has also taught political science at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University.) 

The post Journalist in jail, wife wages battle outside appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His spouse, activist Ipsa Shatakshi, has been a vocal advocate of her husband, and has spoken about the targeting that Rupesh has faced since 2019 for exploiting the violations of human rights faced by the Adivasis (tribals) in Jharkhand, some of which were state-sanctioned. Shatakshi worked against great odds to bring the truth before the public. In a recent interview, Ipsa spoke to Prajakta Joshi, Indie Journalist, about her husband’s arrest, life and the challenges she and their son have faced since.

Pajakta says, “For the last 11 months, nearly a year, I have spent speaking about Rupesh and his work. I understand the way and why Rupesh was arrested and I want people to know, become aware. The  motive behind his arrest was to create fear in the minds of the people. …. in the so-called Naxal (dominated) areas, the CRPF personnel and also army officials deployed by the State stake claims on Adivasi lands; they behave oppressively, they want to silence the voices among Adivasis speaking up against insjustice and a denial of basic rights. This is happening in Jharkhand. Even when the army admits to have killed an innocent man in the false belief or pretext that he is a Naxalite, they face no consequences. Rupesh was targeted because he was bringing this reality to the forefront in Jharkhand.”

The arrest:

Ipsa also spoke about the last report that Rupesh Kumar had released before his arrest, about a girl who had been affected by pollution and had a tumour growing on her face.

Ipsa further spoke about how Rupesh Kumar was kept in jail for 6 months in this 2019 case and was released on default bail after 6 months, due to the non-filling of charge sheet. She also spoke how at least three more cases have been slapped on his after his July arrest last year.

Recalling the traumatic moments during the house search (read raid) that had happened in May, 2023, Ipsa said, “When the team reached our house, we first thought it would be the Patna police or the NIA team. The search kept on going for 10 hours, they were checking all the papers and books present in our house. It was only after the raid ended, when we asked them to show their paper, we got to know that the search team was from NIA, Ranchi. They did not tell me what the matter against Rupesh was in reference to Ranchi, but I know that, sooner than later, they will be putting another charge on some case and keeping him in jail.”

Ipsa told Prajakta that even during Rupesh’s interrogation, he had been told by the police in the current case that “they are not going to stop, they will not let him be released.”

Ipsa spoke about the frequent use of UAPA nowadays. Comparing it to how the school authorities would gift pens to their students to motivate them to excel, the state authorities are now charging people under UAPA to instil fear in their minds.

Challenges and anxieties that came with Rupesh’s arrest:

Ipsa spoke about the hard time that Rupesh Kumar had to face in jail too. She stated that during the beginning of his incarceration, he was kept with kept with other detainees who had serious ailments including Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, etc., and it was only after the outcry of the people outside that Rupesh’s jail was changed. But, as provided by Ipsa, they changed Rupesh’s jail only to keep him in isolation; the cell had a broken roof, which leaked when it rained. In addition to this, Rupesh was also being interrogated every day! Ipsa then provided that Rupesh went on a hunger strike for one day and wrote letters to the higher authorities to demand basic and dignified facilities to be made available to all the prisoners in jail.

Anxiety of detainees and families

In this interview, Ipsa also emphasised the anxiety the family of the incarcerated individuals face when they are not kept updated about their whereabouts, for example, when the person is shifted from one jail to another without any information or when the person is put in isolation. When Prajakta inquired about Pegasus, Ipsa spoke about the fear and confusion she had felt when she got to know that there were some talks about people being under surveillance. She also said that it all felt wrong to her, a violation of her privacy and rights, to be kept under surveillance without any knowledge or known fault.

Was UAPA necessary?

On the slapping of UAPA, and the continuous attempts to suppress the work done by Rupesh, Ipsa said that it feels as if both the Centre and the state are angry with him for speaking out against police brutality and the other state-sanctioned human rights violations going on in Jharkhand. She further said that all the political parties who have been governing India have only catered to the rich, and do not really care about the common man, and the same system has worsened under the governance of the BJP party.

Expressing her anger over the inclusion on UAPA charges in the causes against Rupesh, Ipsa said that people who are working for the welfare of the socially and economically backward and demanding are being termed as individuals working against the country, while people who are demanding for the declaration of India as a Hindu nation, which is against the secular essence enriched in our Constitution, are getting y-level security.

How free and tolerant is our democracy now?

The essential element of our democracy is tolerance, and the current party is not tolerating anything at all, Ipsa said. According to her, this raises the question whether it the activists and journalists who are performing “unlawful activities”, or is it the government that is performing the said unlawful activities?

Ipsa then mentions the recent statement released by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s White House state visit, wherein they have asked the United States government to urge the PM to end, what it called, “a crackdown on media” as it demanded the release of six journalists “arbitrarily detained in retaliation for their work”, which included journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh. In the said statement, CPJ stated that the journalists critical of the Indian government and the ruling BJP government have been jailed, harassed and surveilled. The other 5 journalist mentioned in the said statement were– Aasif Sultan, Sajad Gul, Fahad Shah, Irfan Mehraj and Gautam Navlakha.

The complete video can be viewed here:

 Background on Rupesh Kumar Singh

On July 17, 2022, at 5:25 am on a Sunday morning, Saraikela Kharsawan district police conducted a 9-hour raid at the home of Journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh. They seized a bed sheet, a nine-page notebook, a tax invoice for a motorcycle, two mobile phones, one hard-disk, the retail invoice of a car and two laptops, among other personal items. Immediately following the raid, the police arrested Singh and charged him under the UAPA and sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Rupesh reports extensively on the rights of tribal communities, known as Adivasis, and other marginalised people for the news websites Janchowk and Media Vigil. Just before his arrest, on July 15, he published a thread on his Twitter account, where he has about 4,900 followers, on the impact of industrial and air pollution on the health of populations in Jharkhand villages.

Rupesh was arrested in connection with a 2021 case for his alleged links with leaders of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), including Prashant Bose. The police had claimed that the journalist was involved in organising funds for the Maoist members.

In the year 2019, Rupesh was associated with the student wing of the CPI (Leninist) during his time at college and was arrested for alleged links with Maoists by the police in the neighbouring state of Bihar. He had been detained for six months, and was released on bail after police did not file a chargesheet within 180 days as required by law.

It was purported then too that the journalist is being targeted for his investigative work surrounding human rights violations. Rupesh had believed that the security forces targeted him in retaliation for his reporting on the alleged extrajudicial killing of a tribal worker.

Related:

Arrest of journalist and HRD Rupesh Kumar Singh

Biden administration should press Indian Prime Minister on media freedom during his visit: CPJ

India, with seven journalists jailed, draws criticism over its curtailment of media freedoms

Pegasus scandal: SC says serious allegations if reports are true

Pegasus Project: 5 targeted journalists move SC, say have been subject to intrusive hacking

Kashmiri journalist, human right defender languishing in jail under a draconian law

The post “The manner & intent of arrest was to create fear in minds of people”: activist Ipsa Shatakshi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Human Rights Defenders Alert -India writes to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alleging that journalist and HRD Rupesh Kumar Singh was illegally arrested on fabricated charges and tortured by Jharkhand police for his work as a journalist. You may read the letter here:

The post Arrest of journalist and HRD Rupesh Kumar Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.