Overview
On 10 August 2026, Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal condemned a Mumbai court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to two former students of the TISS. The students had organised an unauthorised gathering to pay homage to the late professor G.N. Saibaba and to chant slogans demanding the release of under‑trial activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The episode raises questions about governmental tolerance, policing, and judicial independence.
Key Developments
- The Additional Sessions Judge V.B. Bohra denied anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Das (23) and Abhirup Paul (32).
- Seven other students – Uttkarsh Khuntia, Yash Kaundilya, Avantika, Ishpreet Kaur, Nikita Monica D'Souza, Hardika Bhagat and Satyam Yadav – were granted anticipatory bail after cooperating with the investigation.
- The court noted that while paying tribute to Saibaba was not illegal, the use of the phrase “Rest in Power (1967‑Forever)” and slogans supporting under‑trials raised doubts about the accused’s intent.
- Electronic devices seized from Das and Paul contained downloaded books of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The court said mere downloading is not an offence but required custodial interrogation to ascertain intent.
- Police investigation, transferred to the Crime Investigation Department (CID), was initiated after a complaint by an associate dean of TISS.
Important Facts
The incident occurred on 12 October 2025 when 10‑12 students gathered at the TISS hostel without administrative permission. They displayed Saibaba’s photographs, lit candles, read his poems, and displayed the message “Rest in Power (1967‑Forever)”. They also raised slogans for the release of Khalid and Imam, both detained under the UAPA. The associate dean’s complaint led to police seizure of laptops and mobiles, revealing downloaded material linked to the banned Maoist outfit.
Exam Relevance
This case touches upon several core UPSC themes:
- Polity & Governance (GS2): The role of the judiciary in balancing civil liberties with security concerns; the functioning of the Bombay High Court and lower courts in interpreting bail provisions.
- Security & Law (GS2, GS4): Application of the UAPA and the legal treatment of alleged extremist literature.
- Society & Civil Rights (GS1, GS4): Freedom of expression on campuses, student activism, and the state's response to dissent.
- Judicial Independence (GS2): Critiques by a senior parliamentarian highlight concerns about perceived intolerance and the need for an impartial judiciary.
Way Forward
For policymakers and administrators, the incident suggests the need for clear guidelines on campus gatherings and the distinction between lawful tribute and unlawful propaganda. Law enforcement should ensure that investigations focus on intent rather than mere possession of literature, respecting constitutional rights. The judiciary must continue to balance security imperatives with the protection of civil liberties, providing transparent reasoning for bail decisions. For UPSC aspirants, the case offers a concrete example to discuss the interplay of law, politics, and civil society in contemporary India.