The Crossbill News Desk
More than 100 prominent activists, writers, filmmakers, journalists and academics have appealed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to intervene in the prolonged incarceration of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have spent nearly six years in custody without trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in connection with the 2020 Delhi violence.
In an open letter addressed to the CJI as “concerned citizens of India”, the signatories invoked the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which held that prolonged incarceration without a reasonable prospect of the trial being completed could justify bail even in cases involving stringent laws such as the UAPA.
The letter referred to remarks made by CJI Kant during a recent lecture in Sweden on the Najeeb judgment. The signatories pointed out that Kant had been part of the three-judge bench that delivered the ruling.
“You were one of the judges on that landmark 3-judge bench ruling,” the letter said.
The signatories argued that the principles laid down in Najeeb should also apply to Khalid and Imam. Both were arrested nearly six years ago, but their trial has yet to begin, with the prosecution reportedly listing around 900 witnesses. Their bail pleas have meanwhile been rejected by various courts, including a two-judge Supreme Court bench in January 2026 in the Gulfisha Fatima v. State case.
“Their trial hasn’t even begun till date. But despite that, their bail applications have been repeatedly rejected by different courts, including by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in January 2026,” the letter states.
The January ruling was subsequently questioned by another Supreme Court bench in its May 18, 2026 judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the earlier bench had erred not only in denying bail but also in restricting the accused from seeking bail for another year.
The judges further held that the three-judge bench’s ruling in Najeeb had already established the applicable legal principles and that judicial discipline required subsequent benches to follow the precedent.
The authors of the latest letter said continued pre-trial detention for such a prolonged period risks undermining constitutional safeguards, particularly when a trial has not even commenced. They argued that even an eventual acquittal cannot compensate an accused for years spent in custody.
“It is dissent that breathes democracy into a republic. As long as such laws continue to deny liberty and justice of those who practice dissent, we will only be doing disservice to the principles of democracy,” the letter said.
Among those who signed the appeal are author Arundhati Roy, writer Amitav Ghosh, historian Ramachandra Guha, actor Prakash Raj, journalist Rana Ayyub and actor Swara Bhasker. Filmmaker Anand Patwardhan, economist Jayati Ghosh, author and activist Harsh Mander, political economist Parakala Prabhakar, social scientist and historian Partha Chatterjee, feminist historian J. Devika, journalist Pamela Philipose, human rights activist Sunita Visvanath and filmmaker Tanuja Chandra are also among the signatories.
The signatories also cited the Supreme Court’s repeated articulation of the principle that bail should ordinarily be the rule and imprisonment the exception. They urged the CJI to consider the prolonged detention of Khalid and Imam in light of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial.
“We urge your intervention to reverse this travesty of justice unfolding before our eyes,” the authors wrote, arguing that such judicial indifference will hollow out “constitutional principles of fair trial as well as the principle that bail is the rule, and jail an exception, that has been underlined repeatedly by the SC.”
The appeal comes amid renewed debate over prolonged incarceration under stringent national security laws and the balance between the State’s prosecution powers and constitutional protections of liberty.
The signatories warned that keeping dissenters in custody for years without trial could have consequences extending beyond individual cases and affect the broader democratic space.
In an open letter addressed to the CJI as “concerned citizens of India”, the signatories invoked the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, which held that prolonged incarceration without a reasonable prospect of the trial being completed could justify bail even in cases involving stringent laws such as the UAPA.
The letter referred to remarks made by CJI Kant during a recent lecture in Sweden on the Najeeb judgment. The signatories pointed out that Kant had been part of the three-judge bench that delivered the ruling.
“You were one of the judges on that landmark 3-judge bench ruling,” the letter said.
The signatories argued that the principles laid down in Najeeb should also apply to Khalid and Imam. Both were arrested nearly six years ago, but their trial has yet to begin, with the prosecution reportedly listing around 900 witnesses. Their bail pleas have meanwhile been rejected by various courts, including a two-judge Supreme Court bench in January 2026 in the Gulfisha Fatima v. State case.
“Their trial hasn’t even begun till date. But despite that, their bail applications have been repeatedly rejected by different courts, including by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in January 2026,” the letter states.
The January ruling was subsequently questioned by another Supreme Court bench in its May 18, 2026 judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the earlier bench had erred not only in denying bail but also in restricting the accused from seeking bail for another year.
The judges further held that the three-judge bench’s ruling in Najeeb had already established the applicable legal principles and that judicial discipline required subsequent benches to follow the precedent.
The authors of the latest letter said continued pre-trial detention for such a prolonged period risks undermining constitutional safeguards, particularly when a trial has not even commenced. They argued that even an eventual acquittal cannot compensate an accused for years spent in custody.
“It is dissent that breathes democracy into a republic. As long as such laws continue to deny liberty and justice of those who practice dissent, we will only be doing disservice to the principles of democracy,” the letter said.
Among those who signed the appeal are author Arundhati Roy, writer Amitav Ghosh, historian Ramachandra Guha, actor Prakash Raj, journalist Rana Ayyub and actor Swara Bhasker. Filmmaker Anand Patwardhan, economist Jayati Ghosh, author and activist Harsh Mander, political economist Parakala Prabhakar, social scientist and historian Partha Chatterjee, feminist historian J. Devika, journalist Pamela Philipose, human rights activist Sunita Visvanath and filmmaker Tanuja Chandra are also among the signatories.
The signatories also cited the Supreme Court’s repeated articulation of the principle that bail should ordinarily be the rule and imprisonment the exception. They urged the CJI to consider the prolonged detention of Khalid and Imam in light of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial.
“We urge your intervention to reverse this travesty of justice unfolding before our eyes,” the authors wrote, arguing that such judicial indifference will hollow out “constitutional principles of fair trial as well as the principle that bail is the rule, and jail an exception, that has been underlined repeatedly by the SC.”
The appeal comes amid renewed debate over prolonged incarceration under stringent national security laws and the balance between the State’s prosecution powers and constitutional protections of liberty.
The signatories warned that keeping dissenters in custody for years without trial could have consequences extending beyond individual cases and affect the broader democratic space.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment