The Supreme Court of India has once again thrust the long-running saga of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah into the national spotlight, refusing to grant him interim bail in a high-profile terror funding case. The decision, delivered on September 4, 2025, comes after years of legal wrangling and persistent allegations, raising new questions about the intersection of justice, national security, and human rights in one of India’s most volatile regions.
Shabir Ahmed Shah, the 70-year-old head of the Democratic Freedom Party, has spent much of his life behind bars. His most recent incarceration began in June 2019, when he was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and later named in the second supplementary chargesheet filed on October 4, 2019. The charges against him are sweeping: authorities allege that Shah played a significant role in mobilizing the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paid tributes to families of slain militants, received money through hawala transactions, and raised funds via Line of Control (LoC) trade to "fuel subversive and militant activities." According to Live Law, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) expanded the original allegations of money laundering to include terror funding and collusion with Pakistan, marking the first time Shah has been formally charged with such grave criminal offenses.
In the latest hearing, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta listened as senior advocate Colin Gonsalves pressed for interim bail on medical grounds. Gonsalves argued that Shah is "very sick" and suggested that, if released, he could be confined to his home. "His days of speeches are over," Gonsalves assured the court, as reported by Live Law. But the justices were unmoved. Justice Nath, after hearing the arguments, simply stated, "No interim bail," according to India Today. The bench did, however, issue notice to the NIA, requesting a response within two weeks on Shah’s broader bail plea, and listed the matter for further hearing.
Shah’s legal team has been persistent, challenging a July 7, 2023, order by the special NIA court that rejected his bail. That petition was also dismissed by the High Court, which cited the possibility of Shah engaging in further unlawful activities if released. The High Court observed that, as the chairman of an unlawful organization, there was a risk that Shah might tamper with evidence or influence the nearly 400 prosecution witnesses who have yet to be examined. "Although the appellant (Shah) has been in custody for five years, the charges have already been framed, and the trial is underway. There is no delay on the part of the prosecution for not examining its witnesses," noted a bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla, as reported by The Hindu. The court was not persuaded by arguments about the delay in trial or Shah’s deteriorating health, nor did it entertain his alternative plea for house arrest, citing the "seriousness of allegations" and the "sensitivity and gravity of the issues involved."
The government’s case paints Shah as a linchpin in the separatist movement. The NIA alleges he played a "substantial role" by inciting public sloganeering for secession, paying tribute to families of slain militants—eulogizing them as "martyrs"—and raising funds through hawala and LoC trade to finance militant activities. The High Court has also noted that Shah faces at least 24 other criminal cases, underscoring what authorities describe as his longstanding involvement in activities that threaten public order and national security.
Yet, Shah’s supporters and family see things differently. They point to his decades of detention—this is the 38th year of his incarceration—and argue that, despite years of pretrial detention, the government has failed to prove any charges against him. According to Maktoob Media, Shah has been repeatedly arrested under India’s emergency laws, such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA), which allow for detention without a charge sheet, warrant, or prior legal procedures. His appeal for bail highlights the absence of direct evidence, the prolonged incarceration, and the improbability of an early trial, given the sheer number of witnesses yet to be examined.
The case has taken a personal toll on Shah’s family as well. His wife has faced charges, and in April 2019, his daughter Sama Shah—only five years old at the time of the alleged crime in 2005—was summoned by authorities. The family alleges that Shah has been subjected to harassment and degrading treatment by escorting officers, particularly during a medical visit to Safdarjung Hospital on May 1, 2025. For the past two years, they claim, they have been denied any phone contact with him and were not allowed to be by his side during medical emergencies. These allegations of mistreatment and isolation have fueled criticism from human rights advocates, who argue that Shah’s prolonged detention without conviction raises serious questions about due process.
The prosecution, however, remains steadfast. The NIA and ED maintain that Shah and his associates conspired to raise and channel funds to disrupt peace in Kashmir and wage war against the Indian government. The case against him is built on a complex web of financial transactions, alleged links to Pakistan, and a history of political activism that has long put Shah at odds with the authorities. The High Court’s refusal to grant bail, and its concern about the possibility of Shah influencing witnesses or engaging in further unlawful activities, reflect the government’s broader strategy of maintaining a hard line against separatist leaders.
Meanwhile, the legal process grinds on. With nearly 400 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, an early conclusion to the trial seems unlikely. The Supreme Court’s latest decision leaves Shah in custody, his fate hanging in the balance as the NIA prepares its response to his bail plea. For now, the case serves as a stark reminder of the deep divisions and enduring tensions that continue to shape the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir.
As the courtrooms remain the stage for this prolonged legal drama, the story of Shabir Ahmed Shah encapsulates the complexities of law, politics, and human rights in a region where the boundaries between dissent and criminality are often fiercely contested. Whether justice will ultimately be served—by conviction or acquittal—remains a question only time and the courts can answer.
