Amnesty condemns denial of bail to Muslim activists in India

NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — Amnesty International India has criticized the Indian Supreme Court’s decision to deny bail to Muslim activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying the ruling entrenches a dangerous pattern in which prolonged pre-trial detention is becoming normalized in India.

Reacting to the order, Amnesty said it welcomed the court’s decision to grant bail to five co-accused — Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, and Saleem Khan — all of whom, like Khalid and Imam, had spent more than five years in jail without trial on terrorism-related charges linked to protests against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

However, Amnesty said the continued incarceration of Khalid and Imam was unjustifiable. Aakar Patel, chair of Amnesty India’s board, said neither activist should have been detained in the first place, describing the allegations against them as politically motivated and rooted in peaceful civic dissent.

“While we welcome the court’s decision to grant bail to their co-accused, it is shameful that Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam continue to be denied bail,” Patel said. “They have been detained for more than five years without trial on politically motivated allegations — the charges against them should be dropped and their release should be unconditional.”

Amnesty also raised serious concern over the Supreme Court’s imposition of what it described as exceptionally restrictive conditions on any future bail applications by Khalid and Imam. Under the order, the two men may seek bail only after the prosecution completes examination of its protected witnesses, or after one year — whichever comes earlier.

Rights advocates say the conditions effectively place access to bail at the discretion of prosecutorial timelines rather than judicial oversight. Patel said imposing a blanket one-year restriction on bail, without clear justification, undermines the detainees’ right to regular judicial review of whether continued detention remains lawful and necessary.

“This is even more troubling given that they have already been held for more than five years without trial,” he said, adding that justice cannot prevail when individuals remain imprisoned for years for exercising their right to peaceful protest.

Senior Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde said the continued denial of bail rests on a prosecution narrative that treats political expression itself as criminal conduct, despite the absence of any allegation of violence.

Hegde pointed out that prosecutors do not claim that either Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam committed a violent act or were physically present at any site where violence occurred during the 2020 unrest. Instead, he said, the case is built almost entirely on speech and protest activity.

“There is no allegation that either Umar or Sharjeel committed a violent act. There is no claim that they were present at any site of violence,” Hegde said. “The material against them consists largely of speeches, meetings, pamphlets and protest-related communication — yet these are treated as markers of conspiratorial centrality. Speech becomes structure. Influence becomes intent. Visibility becomes culpability.”

Khalid, Imam, and their co-accused were arrested in 2020 following nationwide protests against the CAA, a law widely criticized for discriminating on religious grounds. While authorities alleged a larger conspiracy behind the Delhi violence, rights groups have consistently argued that the activists were targeted not for violence but for their vocal opposition to the law and their participation in non-violent demonstrations.

Amnesty said the latest Supreme Court order reinforces concerns about the use of India’s anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, to keep dissenters incarcerated for prolonged periods without conviction, turning pre-trial detention itself into punishment.