The rejection of bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam reinforced the principle that the rule of law, when applied firmly and without delay, leaves no operational space for radical or anti-national forces. By prioritising national security and evidentiary scrutiny over rhetoric, the judiciary has emphasized that legal processes cannot be used to normalise or shield alleged extremist activity, thereby affirming that consistent enforcement of law is a key instrument in curbing radicalism.
This decision of supreme court made one reflect on the hijacking of IC-814 in 1999 and the Mumbai attacks of 26/11 in 2008, we often focus on the brutality of the acts. But we must also examine what these events taught our adversaries about us.
During IC-814, sensitive information was broadcasted before the government could act. It deprived the government space needed for planning covert operations. During 26/11, security operations were televised live while terrorists were still inside Mumbai. And later, when foreign courts revealed names of those who aided David Headley, we hesitated.
What lesson did this teach?
It taught that pressure works.
It taught that exposure does not guarantee punishment.
It taught that time can erase accountability.
Terror networks do not just study weapons and targets—they study systems. They observe how slowly justice moves, how rarely facilitators are punished, how outrage fades without consequence. That is how fearlessness is learnt.
Strong laws without swift enforcement are symbolic. Investigations without convictions are educational—for the wrong audience.
If the nation wants deterrence, it must replace hesitation with certainty, delay with decisiveness, and outrage with outcomes. Otherwise, we will continue to teach our enemies that the risks of spreading terrorism in India are manageable.
The ISI’s success in embedding sleeper cells in India was not merely an intelligence triumph—it was a consequence of weak laws, slow justice, and political hesitation. For years, outdated legal provisions and procedural delays created safe corridors where covert operatives could hide in plain sight. This failure was compounded by attempts in public discourse to dilute or even slander the sacrifice of martyrs like Delhi Police officer M. L. Sharma, undermining morale and blurring the moral clarity needed to confront terrorism. Political leadership, often paralysed by vote-bank anxieties and image management, failed to send a consistent message that national security was non-negotiable. This indecision emboldened hostile actors, allowing sleeper cells to mature, adapt, and survive—terrorism, in this sense, was not just imported, but enabled by systemic complacency.
Anti national forces were able to skilfully leveraging systemic features of India’s democratic and judicial framework, including the effects of elite legal advocacy in terror cases. Historically high legal thresholds for arrest, difficulties in criminalising preparatory or non-violent support roles, and years-long trials created an environment where “clean” operatives—central to ISI’s sleeper-cell doctrine—could remain embedded in society while avoiding conviction. These vulnerabilities were amplified by delays caused by overburdened courts, hostile or intimidated witnesses, and the challenge of translating intelligence inputs into admissible evidence.
Within this framework, the legitimate role played by senior advocates of the Supreme Court—through rigorous procedural challenges, constitutional arguments, and bail jurisprudence—sometimes produced systemic outcomes that inadvertently benefited such networks, even in the absence of any illegality or collusion. Prolonged litigation, dilution of charges, or successful bail pleas for non-violent accused aligned closely with ISI’s strategy of patience, decentralisation, and legal invisibility. Additionally, aggressive courtroom scrutiny of investigative agencies, while a core feature of adversarial justice, occasionally weakened public and judicial confidence in counterterror prosecutions, a narrative that hostile intelligence and propaganda ecosystems were quick to exploit.
The resulting convergence—civil-liberty maximalism on one side and proxy-war exploitation on the other—was structural rather than conspiratorial, and India’s eventual response focused not on individuals but on institutional correction through stronger laws like the UAPA, the creation of the NIA, and clearer statutory backing for preventive and intelligence-led action, seeking to rebalance constitutional safeguards with the realities of asymmetric warfare. Even a case where ISI did not play any role is a shameful case study for legal practitioners.
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Perarivalan, Murugan, Santhan) is a live example that our system is incapable of delivering justice to an assassinated ex-prime minister. In this case;
• Death sentences confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1999.
• Mercy petitions under Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor) were filed.
• These petitions remained pending
• Supreme Court ruling (2014) that inordinate delay in mercy decisions is grounds for commutation
• As a result, death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.
• This judgment institutionalised delay itself as a constitutional factor, permanently altering death-penalty jurisprudence.
The problem does not end here; it multiplies to a new dimension. This process and success in surviving led to another news…
“Convicted twice for terror, Saquib Nachan among 15 arrested by NIA’
Express News Service Mumbai December 10, 2023.
When PILs are weaponised to challenge every civilisational, religious, or administrative norm like worship in temple, respecting the national flag, controlling stray dogs etc, —while genuine victims wait decades for justice—the law risks being turned from a shield of justice into a tool of disruption and ideological warfare. Upholding the rule of law means distinguishing legitimate rights-based litigation from strategic abuse of courts, ensuring that national priorities, public safety, and social order are not subordinated to orchestrated legal activism. The problem became so grave that Justice Reddi rebuked critics, “Those who celebrate Afzal (guru) martyrdom day must pick up the judgment and read it thoroughly before making comments or criticism’.
When Litigation Becomes Strategy: Funding Channels and Counter-Terrorism Challenges
In the context of India’s counter-terrorism and legal framework, it has been observed that banned organisations, such as the PFI, have sometimes been linked to the use of financial resources to sustain prolonged litigation in high-profile cases. While advocates have a constitutional right to represent clients and receive legitimate professional fees, policy experts argue that systemic scrutiny of funding channels—for instance, tracing whether payments originate from front organisations, foreign entities, or banned groups—can help ensure that prolonged legal advocacy is not indirectly exploited to further hostile agendas. This approach focuses strictly on institutional transparency and compliance, without targeting individual lawyers, and seeks to close potential avenues through which adversarial networks could benefit from delays in prosecution, prolonged appeals, or strategic litigation. By enhancing oversight of financial flows to legal representation in sensitive cases, the state can protect the integrity of both the judiciary and counter-terrorism efforts while respecting the fundamental rights of accused persons.
How India responded?
Post 2014 the government worked on basics, first thing first was, giving free hand to defence forces, second was better coordination between CBI, ED, NIA and third was monitoring and controlling money laundering and terror funding. Drastic steps like demonetisation and surgical strikes were implemented. Results are visible;
• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has received notable international recognition for its efforts in recovering black money, particularly from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global anti-money-laundering and counter-terror financing watchdog. In its “Asset Recovery: Guidance and Good Practices” report, FATF described India’s asset-recovery framework and the ED’s functioning as a “model” for other jurisdictions, specifically praising the use of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA). FATF highlighted India’s effective practices in tracing, freezing, attaching, and confiscating proceeds of crime, including non-conviction-based and value-based confiscation, as well as strong cross-border cooperation in recovering assets hidden abroad. This endorsement positioned India’s ED as a global benchmark in financial crime enforcement and illicit asset recovery.
• Replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — India’s new criminal code — has introduced several changes that proponents argue improve the handling of terror-related activities. These changes reflect efforts to modernise India’s legal framework to better address contemporary security challenges. The difference is reflected in approach we adopt to deal such cases.
• Focused handling of Urban Naxal infrastructure has resulted in isolation or returning to main stream by many insurgent groups. The last phase of the Naxal (Left-Wing Extremism) movement in India is widely understood as a period of strategic decline, ideological erosion, and territorial contraction
The rejection of bail signals that acts allegedly aimed at destabilising the country will be treated with utmost seriousness, even at the pre-trial stage;
Deterrent Message to Anti-National Elements.
By refusing bail, the judiciary conveys that:
1. Ideological extremism, urban insurgency, or covert support to violent movements will not be accepted.
2. Legal processes cannot be used to normalise or justify activities that allegedly incite violence or undermine constitutional order.
3. Freedom of speech and dissent are protected, but they do not extend to actions that allegedly promote violence or insurrection.
4. Political ideology cannot act as a shield against accountability under anti-terror or national security laws.
Balanced Perspective.
At the same time, it is important to note that:
5. Bail rejection does not imply guilt; the accused remain entitled to a fair trial.
6. Judicial scrutiny at later stages may still alter outcomes based on evidence.
Symbolic and Psychological Impact.
Beyond legal implications, such rulings have a symbolic impact:
7. They reassure citizens that the judiciary remains vigilant in safeguarding national unity.
8. They counter narratives that portray accused individuals as victims without acknowledging the seriousness of alleged offences.
This serves as a deterrent, discouraging individuals and groups from engaging in or supporting actions perceived as anti-national.
Unfinished agenda:
Institutional Capacity as National Security: Rethinking India’s Investigative Framework
India’s national interest is increasingly constrained by the deputation-based staffing model in key central investigative agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), and NIA. Short tenures, divided loyalties, and career uncertainty weaken institutional continuity, domain expertise, and operational courage—especially in complex terrorism and financial crime cases. These agencies require dedicated, permanent cadres with specialised training, protected tenures, and a clear career progression to build long-term capacity and institutional memory. Compounding this is the chronic shortage of human, technological, and forensic resources, which limits the ability to pursue sophisticated financial frauds and cross-border money-laundering networks. A third structural handicap is the dependence on state government consent, which often delays or obstructs investigations with national and international ramifications. If India is serious about bringing back black money from abroad and preventing its future generation, it must invest aggressively in advanced financial fraud detection, data analytics, forensic accounting, and global cooperation, backed by autonomous institutions empowered to act swiftly and independently. Half-measures will only preserve the ecosystem of impunity that fuels economic crime and undermines national security.
Expectation from supreme
court of India.
The Supreme Court can curb the menace of senior advocates by strictly enforcing ethical accountability and penalising misuse of influence. Transparent, merit-based designation with periodic review will weaken entrenched privilege. Limiting special procedural advantages and curbing adjournment culture will restore courtroom fairness. Equal rules for all advocates are essential to protect judicial credibility.
Courts That Match the Crime: Reforming Trials for Terror and Financial Offences.
The creation of specialised courts for economic offences and terror-related activities is essential to strengthen India’s justice delivery and national security framework. Such courts, staffed by judges trained in complex financial laws, forensic accounting, and counter-terror jurisprudence, can ensure speedy trials, consistent interpretation of special statutes, and timely convictions, thereby restoring deterrence. Dedicated courts would prevent prolonged delays caused by overburdened regular courts, reduce procedural misuse, and deny accused persons the opportunity to exploit legal loopholes through endless adjournments. By fast-tracking cases involving money laundering, terror financing, and organised crime, specialised courts would protect the integrity of investigations, enhance conviction rates, and send a clear message that economic and terror crimes will be met with swift and decisive justice under the rule of law.
Conclusion
The dismissal of bail applications in high-profile cases like that of Umar Khalid and others is widely seen as a strong institutional response against anti-national activities, reaffirming that national security, constitutional order, and public safety remain paramount. It sends a clear warning that the law will act firmly against those accused of threatening India’s unity and sovereignty, while still operating within the framework of due process.
RAKESH KUMAR
(The content of this article reflects the views of writer and contributor, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment