Owaisi faults Congress as Umar Khalid remains jailed
The remark came after the Supreme Court declined bail to Umar Khalid in the 2020 Delhi riots case.
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi has launched a sharp attack on the Congress party, blaming it for legal changes that, he said, have resulted in prolonged imprisonment of undertrials under India’s anti-terror law. His remarks came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots case.
Owaisi argued that amendments made to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) during the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government laid the groundwork for extended detentions without trial. He specifically pointed to changes introduced when P Chidambaram served as Union Home Minister, claiming these revisions strengthened provisions that now make it extremely difficult for undertrials to secure bail.
Speaking at a public gathering in Dhule, Maharashtra, Owaisi said he had repeatedly warned Parliament about the dangers of inserting vague and subjective language into a powerful law like the UAPA. According to him, these clauses allow for wide interpretation by investigative agencies and courts, increasing the risk of misuse. “I had cautioned then that these provisions would come back to haunt innocent people,” he said, asserting that current cases only confirm his fears.
The AIMIM leader drew attention to Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a “terrorist act” using broad phrases such as acts committed “by any other means of whatever nature.” Owaisi argued that such wording lacks clear boundaries and can be stretched to fit a wide range of activities. He said this very language has been cited in cases involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both of whom have spent more than five years in jail without a conclusion to their trials.
Owaisi maintained that prolonged incarceration without conviction undermines the principle of “bail, not jail,” which has traditionally guided India’s criminal justice system. He said laws like the UAPA reverse this principle, effectively punishing individuals before guilt is established.
He also took aim at Section 43D of the UAPA, another provision he has long opposed. This clause allows investigating agencies up to 180 days to file a chargesheet, far longer than what is permitted under ordinary criminal law. Owaisi claimed that this maximum period is routinely used in cases involving minorities, leading to years of incarceration even before trials begin. While the government argues that such provisions are necessary to combat terrorism, Owaisi countered that they are increasingly being applied in a sweeping and discriminatory manner.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling has brought renewed attention to these concerns. In its order, the court said the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case against both accused, triggering the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
whom had also spent more than five years in custody. The mixed outcome highlighted the complexity of the case and underscored the fine legal distinctions drawn under the UAPA’s bail provisions.
For Owaisi, however, the broader issue remains the structure of the law itself. He argued that regardless of who is in power, the consequences of these amendments are being borne by undertrials who spend years behind bars as their cases crawl through the judicial system. He said the Congress cannot escape responsibility for having strengthened such provisions in the past, even as it now criticizes their application.
The Congress party has not issued a detailed response to Owaisi’s remarks so far. However, party leaders have previously defended the UAPA amendments as necessary measures to address national security challenges, while also maintaining that laws should not be misused.
The debate reignited by Owaisi’s comments reflects a larger national conversation about balancing security concerns with civil liberties. As courts continue to interpret and apply the UAPA, questions persist about whether its broad language and stringent bail conditions serve justice — or whether they risk eroding fundamental rights in the name of national security.