Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khuram Parvez in UAPA case

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed Parvez’s appeal against a trial court order that had denied him bail in December last year. The court observed that his prolonged incarceration, the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future and his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution warranted grant of bail despite the stringent restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

“The appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India need to be balanced and may even trump the restriction imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA,” the Bench observed. It also noted that Parvez, who lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004, was infirm and deserved “special consideration”.

Parvez was arrested by the NIA on November 22, 2021, as part of its investigation into an alleged conspiracy linked to LeT. The agency has accused him of being part of a larger network of overground workers allegedly involved in supporting terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.

According to the NIA, Parvez played a role in recruiting operatives, collecting information relating to security forces and military establishments, and mobilising protests following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in 2016.

The NIA further alleged that Parvez collected information regarding Army movements near the Line of Control, road conditions, Army camps and installations of security forces.

The trial court had rejected Parvez’s bail plea on December 17, 2024, following which he moved the High Court on December 24 challenging the order.

Before the High Court, Parvez maintained that he was a human rights defender with no connection to any terrorist organisation. He stated that he had served as Programme Coordinator and spokesperson of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and was also the Chairperson of the Philippines-based Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), which works on issues relating to enforced disappearances.

In his appeal, Parvez argued that he was a “factual stranger” to the alleged conspiracy and that the investigation had failed to establish any link between him and LeT operatives or members of any banned organisation. He contended that digital devices seized during the investigation did not reveal any communication with alleged handlers or any material indicating recruitment of overground workers.

Parvez also disputed the agency’s reliance on his visits to Pakistan, saying the trips were undertaken openly as part of humanitarian and advocacy work, including campaigns relating to landmines and enforced disappearances. His counsel further argued that information regarding Army structures and installations cited by the NIA had already been published in a 2015 report based largely on information obtained through the RTI Act and constituted legitimate human rights documentation.

In its order, the High Court noted that the allegations against Parvez, though serious, were largely based on the statement of a co-accused who later turned approver and claimed to be an NIA informer. The court observed that these allegations would have to be tested during trial and could not override considerations arising from his prolonged incarceration and the delay in conclusion of proceedings.