Owaisi Blames Congress for Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam’s Prolonged Detention Under UAPA

'Why Cong leaders did not faced similar incarceration': Owaisi blames UPA regime for Umar, Sharjeel's detention

In a sharp political salvo, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi has turned the spotlight on the Congress party, holding it directly responsible for the prolonged UAPA detention of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Speaking in Hyderabad, Owaisi argued that it was the Congress-led UPA government’s 2013 amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act that laid the legal groundwork for extended incarceration without formal charges or timely trials—particularly impacting minority communities .

“Why didn’t Congress leaders face similar incarceration when they were in power?” Owaisi provocatively asked, highlighting what he called a double standard in the application of anti-terror laws. His remarks come amid growing national concern over the rising number of undertrials languishing in jails for years under the UAPA—a law critics say has been weaponized for political and communal targeting.

Table of Contents

What Is the UAPA—and How Did Congress Change It?

Originally enacted in 1967, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was designed to prevent activities threatening India’s sovereignty and integrity. But the 2013 amendment—passed during the UPA-II regime with support from multiple parties including the BJP—dramatically expanded its scope.

Key changes included:

  • Broadened definition of “terrorism”: Now includes acts intended to “intimidate the public” or “destabilize economic security”—vague terms open to interpretation.
  • Extended police custody: From 15 to 30 days, and judicial custody up to 180 days before filing a chargesheet.
  • Lowered evidentiary threshold: Allowed confessions made to police officers as admissible evidence (with caveats).
  • Allowed seizure of property without immediate recourse to courts.

Owaisi contends these changes, though introduced under Congress, have been aggressively exploited by subsequent governments—including the current BJP-led NDA—to detain individuals for years without trial .

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam: The Human Cost of UAPA Detention

Umar Khalid, a former JNU student activist, has been in jail since September 2020—over five years—without a trial in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Similarly, Sharjeel Imam, an IIT researcher, has been detained since January 2020 under UAPA for allegedly inciting violence during the anti-CAA protests.

Neither has been convicted. Both remain undertrials. Yet, due to UAPA provisions, bail is nearly impossible—the law presumes guilt unless proven otherwise, reversing the foundational principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Human rights organizations like Amnesty International have repeatedly flagged their cases as emblematic of systemic abuse .

“The UPA regime opened Pandora’s box,” Owaisi stated. “They amended the UAPA to appear ‘tough on terror’ but ignored the safeguards needed to protect innocent citizens—especially Muslims, Dalits, and dissenters.”

He pointed out the irony: many senior Congress leaders who championed the 2013 amendment now criticize its misuse under the BJP. “If the law is so dangerous today, why wasn’t it dangerous when you wrote it?” he challenged.

Owaisi also noted that during UPA rule, activists like Binayak Sen (a doctor jailed for alleged Maoist links) faced similar prolonged detentions—suggesting the problem predates the current regime but was institutionalized by earlier governments.

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reveals a troubling surge:

  • UAPA cases rose from 976 in 2014 to **2,898 in 2023**—a nearly 200% increase .
  • Conviction rate remains abysmally low: **only 2.2%** between 2016–2021.
  • Over **75% of UAPA detainees** are from religious or caste minorities, per PUCL reports .

These stats suggest the law is used more for deterrence and silencing than prosecution.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover calls the UAPA “a tool of executive impunity.” She notes that Section 43D(5)—which bars bail if the court believes accusations are “prima facie true”—effectively turns accusation into punishment.

The Supreme Court, in the 2022 Zahoor Ahmad Shah case, warned against “mechanical” UAPA applications. Yet, lower courts often defer to police narratives, especially in high-profile cases involving national security claims.

Congress Response and Political Fallout

So far, the Congress party has not issued a formal rebuttal to Owaisi’s remarks. However, internal sources suggest discomfort within the party about defending the 2013 amendment. Some leaders now advocate for UAPA reform, acknowledging its potential for abuse.

Meanwhile, the BJP dismisses Owaisi’s critique as “deflection,” arguing that UAPA is essential to combat terrorism. But critics counter that effective laws need precision—not breadth.

Conclusion: Reforming UAPA—or Repealing It?

Owaisi’s intervention forces a necessary reckoning: the UAPA detention crisis isn’t just about one government—it’s about a bipartisan legacy of sacrificing civil liberties at the altar of security theater. Whether through repeal or radical reform, India must ensure that anti-terror laws don’t become tools of oppression. As Justice Chandrachud once remarked, “Liberty is not a gift—it’s a right.” And no democracy can afford to forget that.

Sources

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top