NEW DELHI, October 30: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant bail to Jammu and Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale declined to interfere with the High Court’s June 10 order granting bail to Parvez.
Parvez, programme coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, was arrested by the NIA on November 22, 2021.
The investigating agency had alleged that Parvez used human rights activities as a cover to conspire with a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative and operate a network of overground workers to support the Pakistan-based terrorist organisation and facilitate terror-related activities in India.
Parvez has denied the allegations.
The Delhi High Court, while granting him bail, had taken note of his prolonged incarceration of more than four years and observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
It held that his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighed the restrictions on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The High Court also considered Parvez’s physical condition, noting that he had lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and deserved special consideration on medical and humanitarian grounds.
The June 10 order had overturned a trial court’s December 2024 decision rejecting his bail application.
The NIA had accused Parvez of collecting sensitive information about the movement of Army vehicles near the Line of Control (LoC), road conditions, Army camps and installations, as well as the infrastructure of Army, paramilitary and police establishments.
The agency named him in its chargesheet under several provisions of the UAPA, including Section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), Section 18 (conspiracy), Section 18B (recruitment for terrorist acts), Section 38 (membership of a terrorist organisation) and Section 39 (support to a terrorist organisation).
The chargesheet also invoked provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
During the proceedings before the High Court, Parvez’s counsel argued that the allegations were based on statements without conclusive evidence establishing a prima facie case under the UAPA.
His lawyer also maintained that information relating to Army infrastructure had been compiled and published in a 2015 report as part of legitimate human rights documentation undertaken in the public interest. Much of the information, the counsel submitted, had been obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) mechanism.
With Friday’s decision, the Supreme Court has declined the NIA’s request to overturn the High Court’s bail order.
