The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to Jammu and Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez. The apex court refused to interfere with the bail order issued by the Delhi High Court, marking a significant legal development in a case involving anti-terror legislation.
Khurram Parvez, who holds prominent positions as the programme coordinator for the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and chairperson of the Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances, was apprehended by the NIA on November 22, 2021. The NIA had accused Parvez of conspiring with operatives of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based terrorist organization. The agency alleged that, under the guise of human rights advocacy, Parvez facilitated the operation of a network of overground workers to further the activities of the LeT and to perpetrate terror acts within India. Parvez has consistently denied these allegations.
Information reaching Tahir Rihat suggests that the Delhi High Court had initially granted bail to Parvez on June 10. The subsequent appeal by the NIA to the Supreme Court was heard by a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale. The bench’s decision to dismiss the NIA’s plea means the High Court’s verdict stands.
In its ruling, the Delhi High Court had taken into consideration Parvez’s prolonged incarceration, which had extended over four years at the time of the bail hearing. The court also noted the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Crucially, the High Court determined that Parvez’s fundamental rights, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, took precedence over the restrictive bail provisions stipulated in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This legal interpretation highlights the court’s balancing act between national security concerns and individual liberties.
Furthermore, the High Court had acknowledged Parvez’s physical condition, noting that he had lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004. The court deemed him infirm and deserving of special consideration, which factored into the decision to grant bail. This aspect of the ruling underscores the judiciary’s capacity to consider humanitarian factors in bail proceedings, even in cases involving serious charges.
The bail order effectively set aside a prior decision by a trial court in December 2024, which had rejected Parvez’s bail application. The NIA’s allegations against Parvez were extensive, claiming his active involvement in gathering sensitive information. This included details concerning the movement of Army vehicles near the Line of Control, road conditions, and specific information about Army camps, as well as the structures of paramilitary forces and the police. Such intelligence gathering, the NIA contended, was part of a larger conspiracy.
The chargesheet filed by the NIA named Parvez for a range of alleged offenses under the UAPA. These included charges under Sections 13, which deals with punishment for unlawful activities; Section 18, concerning punishment for conspiracy; Section 18B, for recruiting individuals for terrorist acts; Section 38, related to membership of a terrorist organization; and Section 39, pertaining to support given to a terrorist organization. Additionally, he was charged under other sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, indicating the breadth of the investigation.
Parvez’s legal defense team had argued before the Delhi High Court that the NIA’s case was based on mere statements without presenting conclusive evidence to establish a prima facie case under the stringent provisions of the UAPA. His counsel contended that the information Parvez allegedly collected regarding Army structures and movements had been previously published in a 2015 report. This report, they argued, was part of legitimate human rights documentation undertaken in the public interest, with a significant portion of the information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This defense aimed to frame the alleged information gathering as a transparent and lawful exercise of journalistic and human rights work, rather than an act of espionage or terror facilitation.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.
Leave a Reply