Supreme Court Questions NIA on Detention of Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmad Shah

Supreme Court's Stance on Terror Funding Case

The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance regarding the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) handling of the terror funding case linked to Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah. During a hearing on Tuesday, the court reprimanded the NIA for failing to adequately present its case and questioned the basis for Shah's detention, which has exceeded six years.

Key Observations from the Hearing

NIA Reprimanded: The court expressed dissatisfaction with the agency's approach, stating that the NIA did not present its arguments clearly and effectively.

Questioning Detention: The bench of justices directly asked the NIA what solid grounds exist for keeping Shabir Ahmad Shah in custody for over six years.

Insufficient Justification: The court noted that the agency had not convincingly demonstrated the seriousness of the case or the necessity for continued detention.

Court Directs NIA to Present Evidence

While hearing Shah's bail plea, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta instructed the NIA to provide relevant speeches and other pertinent facts related to the case. Justice Mehta remarked to senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the NIA, that there should be substantial evidence to justify such prolonged detention. He emphasized that the court cannot ignore the facts available.

Arguments from Shah's Counsel

Luthra requested additional time to gather documents that may be held by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and state police. The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for February 10. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Shah, argued that his client has never engaged in stone-pelting or incited violence. He highlighted that Shah has met with five Prime Ministers of India to discuss resolving the Kashmir issue, providing photographic evidence of these meetings.

Gonsalves stated that the Prime Ministers approached Shah because they recognized he was not a terrorist. He added that Shah's words resonate with the aspirations of the people in the valley, despite being somewhat uncomfortable.

Shah's Background and Legal Challenges

Gonsalves noted that Shah has spent a total of 39 years in prison, with the court emphasizing that he has been incarcerated since 2019 in connection with the terror funding case. The bench pointed out that facts from other cases cannot be included in this matter. Gonsalves argued that the charges against Shah in various FIRs primarily stem from his alleged 'hate speeches,' but he has never called for violence against security forces or disruption of government functions.

He clarified that Shah's concept of freedom does not imply a desire to align with Pakistan. Shah has visited families of those who lost their lives during violence, expressing sorrow over the situation in Kashmir, which is typical for a leader from the region.

NIA's Claims and Court's Response

Luthra countered that reports from Tihar Jail and the Director General of Jammu and Kashmir Prisons do not support Shah's claims of spending 39 years in custody. He stated that Shah's time served in connection with the terror funding case is approximately five years and two months, while the total time behind bars could be around eight years. The court reprimanded the NIA for not presenting the facts of the case accurately and insisted that the agency must justify Shah's extended detention.

Justice Nath inquired about the dignitaries Shah had met, to which Gonsalves provided names, including former Prime Ministers VP Singh, IK Gujral, and Chandra Shekhar.

Future Proceedings

Gonsalves suggested that Shah, now 74 years old, could be granted bail with conditions restricting him to his home and garden in Kashmir. He argued that the era of speeches in Kashmir has ended. The bench indicated that if the hearing is not concluded by February 10, the Supreme Court may consider relief on that date. The court had previously denied Shah interim bail on September 4 of last year.

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the NIA, seeking a response to Shah's petition challenging the High Court's order, which had denied bail on the grounds of potential illegal activities and witness tampering.

Background of the Case

The case primarily stems from a 2017 investigation, where Shabir Ahmad Shah is accused of receiving funds from abroad, particularly Pakistan, to incite unrest and engage in stone-pelting activities. Both the ED and NIA have filed cases against him under money laundering and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Who is Shabir Ahmad Shah?

Shah is the founder of the 'Democratic Freedom Party' (DFP) and is considered a prominent figure in Kashmiri separatist politics. He has spent decades oscillating between imprisonment and release, earning him the nickname 'Nelson Mandela' among his supporters, although security agencies view him as a key orchestrator of anti-India activities.

Next Steps for the NIA

The NIA is now required to submit a detailed affidavit to the court outlining:

• What concrete evidence has been gathered during the investigation?
• How much longer will the trial take to conclude?
• What potential threats to national security could arise from Shah's release?