Declaring Solidarity Criminal: The problematic reasoning of the TISS bail order

ON AUGUST 7, the Bombay Sessions Court’s Additional Sessions Judge V.B. Vohra denied anticipatory bail to two students from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (‘TISS’), Abhirup Paul and Kamakhya Prasad Das. Although the Bombay High Court’s Justice Prafulla Khubalkar has provided interim protection from arrest to Paul and has agreed to hear Das’ plea, the Trial Court’s denial of bail raises troubling questions about its approach towards not just political speech but also political solidarity and the political beliefs of young students. And so, it merits a closer examination.

The backdrop of the Trial Court’s bail order is the allegations faced by students in connection with an event organised at their campus to commemorate Professor G.N. Saibaba, who had faced prosecution in an anti-terror case but was ultimately acquitted by the Bombay High Court of all charges. Saibaba eventually lost his life just after seven months of his release in October 2024. He also had a 90 percent physical disability with his health having deteriorated during his ten-year-long incarceration, leaving him with serious medical complications.

The Allegations Against the Students

The main allegations of the police against the students were that the event took place without having a prior permission and that these two students raised slogans in support of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam which included “Umar Khalid ko riha karo” (“release Umar Khalid”) and “Sharjeel Imam ko riha karo” (“release Sharjeel Imam”). The bail order contends that these slogans are problematic as both Khalid and Imam face trial under the stringent anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, with their bail orders being rejected by the Supreme Court of India. The order states:

“They even allegedly raised slogans in the nature of releasing Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from jail, who are facing trial for an offence under UAPA i.e. unlawful activities against the Nation. It was not the platform for raising such slogans. In other words, such slogans were not made in a public agitation or procession. The Hon’ble Apex Court had been pleased to reject bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Being students, it was expected from accused persons to respect the Law of Land.”

The order therefore treats the students’ expression of solidarity and demand for the release of two people facing prosecution as something questionable and worthy of criminal suspicion. The reasoning becomes particularly significant as the order ultimately denies anticipatory bail to the two students while granting it to five others.