TISS Students Bail Rejected Over Umar Khalid Slogans

A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two students of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in a case linked to alleged slogans seeking the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam during a campus gathering in October 2025. The court, however, granted anticipatory bail to seven other students accused in the same case.

The case has drawn attention because the gathering was originally organised to pay homage to G N Saibaba, WHO died in October 2024, but police alleged that the event went beyond a memorial gathering after slogans supporting the release of Khalid and Imam were allegedly raised. Both Khalid and Imam are facing proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Why did the TISS students’ bail pleas get rejected?

Judge VB Bohra rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two students, a 32-year-old resident of Govandi and a 23-year-old resident of Deonar. The court said custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the intentions behind the alleged activities and to examine material recovered during the Investigation.

The judge also observed that students were expected to respect the law of the land. At the same time, the court distinguished between activities that were not inherently unlawful and allegations that required further investigation.

Seven other students named in the case were granted anticipatory bail, making the order significant because the court did not treat all the accused in exactly the same manner. The decision instead focused on the material and allegations connected to the individual applicants.

What happened at the TISS gathering?

According to the FIR, around 10 to 12 students gathered near a hostel at the TISS campus between 7.30 pm and 8.30 pm on October 12, 2025. The gathering allegedly took place without prior permission from the institute administration.

The students had organised the event to remember G N Saibaba. According to the prosecution, photographs of Saibaba were arranged and placed on a tree, candles were lit, poems written by him were read and placards carrying the words “Rest in Power (since 1967-forever)” were displayed.

The prosecution alleged that the event subsequently went beyond paying tribute to Saibaba. Police claimed that slogans including “Umar Khalid ko Riha karo” and “Sharjeel Imam ko riha karo” were raised during the gathering.

The investigation was initially handled by the Trombay police before being transferred to the Crime Investigation Department (CID).

What did the court say about the G N Saibaba tribute?

The court made a distinction between the memorial aspect of the gathering and the other allegations made by investigators. It observed that paying homage to Saibaba could not by itself be considered illegal, particularly because the Bombay High Court had acquitted him in 2024.

However, the judge said the alleged slogans seeking the release of Khalid and Imam raised a separate issue. The court observed that the gathering was intended as a tribute and that, according to the prosecution’s version, the alleged slogans went beyond that purpose.

The court noted that the gathering was held on a college campus rather than as a public agitation or procession. It therefore questioned the circumstances and alleged purpose behind the additional activities.

The order does not mean that every element of the gathering was found to be criminal. Instead, the court said the surrounding circumstances and evidence collected during the investigation required further examination.

What material did police recover from the students?

A major part of the prosecution’s argument concerned electronic devices seized during the investigation. Police recovered laptops and Mobile Phones from the accused students and allegedly found books and other publications associated with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on devices belonging to one of the students whose bail plea was rejected and another accused.

The prosecution also alleged that some information had been deleted from the devices.

The court said the material allegedly recovered during the investigation indicated that the accused could have been influenced by Maoist ideology. The judge also considered the possibility that the gathering may have been intended to influence other students at TISS.

Importantly, the court also observed that merely downloading Maoist publications would not necessarily constitute an offence by itself. The material, the judge said, had to be assessed alongside the other allegations and circumstances of the case.

Why did the court say custodial interrogation was necessary?

The court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to the two students was strongly linked to the need for further investigation. The judge said custodial interrogation was required to understand their intentions and establish the connection, if any, between the material allegedly recovered from their devices and the slogans raised at the TISS gathering.

The court also referred to allegations that the accused had not fully cooperated with investigators on certain aspects of the probe.

In the case of the Govandi resident, the court took note of his alleged association with the Progressive Student Forum. The prosecution claimed that the organisation had been working against the TISS administration.

Investigators also alleged that pressure had been placed on the complainant through Social Media and that one witness had been threatened. These allegations formed part of the broader circumstances considered by the court while deciding the bail pleas.

What allegations were made against the second student?

The court also considered a separate non-cognisable case allegedly registered against the Deonar student. The case reportedly relates to an incident in 2025 in which she was accused of threatening a police officer.

The judge also referred to the investigation into the electronic material allegedly found on the devices of the accused. In the case of the Govandi student, the court noted that investigators were seeking to understand not only why Maoist literature had allegedly been downloaded but also whether it had any connection with the events at TISS.

The court therefore concluded that further questioning of the two students was necessary before granting them protection from arrest.

What is the significance of the Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam slogans?

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are both facing legal proceedings under the UAPA, a law frequently invoked in cases involving allegations considered by authorities to have implications for National Security.

The alleged slogans at TISS became a central element of the prosecution’s case because they were not directly related to the stated purpose of the gathering, according to the court’s description of the allegations.

The court’s order therefore focuses not simply on the words allegedly spoken but on the wider context in which they were allegedly raised, the material recovered during the investigation and the questions investigators say remain unanswered.

At the same time, the order’s observations concerning the Saibaba tribute are important. The court did not hold that remembering Saibaba or using the phrase “Rest in Power” on a campus was, by itself, a criminal act.

What did the court say about delays in the case?

The students had also raised concerns about the delay in the criminal proceedings. The court acknowledged that criminal cases can take considerable time to progress and pointed to the wider problem of case pendency.

The judge noted that delays can result from several factors, including the large number of pending cases and the imbalance between the number of judges and the volume of litigation.

The court also pointed out that it was itself deciding the anticipatory bail applications more than nine months after they had been filed.

The observation highlights a broader issue in criminal proceedings: the distinction between the right to a speedy process and the practical limitations facing courts dealing with large caseloads.

What happens next in the TISS case?

The two students whose anticipatory bail applications were rejected will not receive the protection sought from the court. Seven other accused students, however, have been granted anticipatory bail.

The investigation remains ongoing, meaning that the allegations described in the prosecution’s case have not been finally established through a completed trial. The evidence recovered from electronic devices, the alleged slogans, witness statements and other material will form part of the continuing investigation and any subsequent proceedings.

The court’s decision is therefore a bail order rather than a final determination of guilt or innocence.

TISS students’ bail case explained

The case began with a gathering at TISS on October 12, 2025, organised to pay tribute to G N Saibaba. Police alleged that the event later included slogans calling for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam to be released. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the CID.

During the probe, police seized electronic devices and allegedly recovered Maoist-related publications from some devices. The prosecution also raised allegations concerning deleted information, social media pressure and witness intimidation.

The court concluded that these circumstances justified further investigation and custodial interrogation of the two students whose anticipatory bail pleas were rejected. However, it also made clear that individual elements of the gathering, including paying tribute to Saibaba or downloading publications, could not automatically be treated as criminal conduct without considering the wider circumstances.

With seven students receiving anticipatory bail and two being denied the same relief, the case will now move forward as investigators continue examining the allegations. Any final determination regarding criminal liability will depend on the evidence and subsequent judicial proceedings.

What the court order means

The TISS case highlights the legal distinction between participating in a campus gathering, expressing political views and allegations that authorities believe warrant further Criminal Investigation. The court’s reasoning suggests that context, intent and the totality of evidence are important in determining whether particular conduct crosses the legal threshold for criminal action.

For now, the court has declined to provide anticipatory bail to the two students because it considers further interrogation necessary. Seven other accused students have received protection, while the investigation into the October 2025 gathering continues.