On September 4, 2025, India’s Supreme Court took a decisive stand in a case that has gripped both legal and political circles: the request for interim bail by Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah, who faces serious allegations in a high-profile terror funding investigation. The court’s refusal to grant Shah’s urgent plea for release, despite arguments about his deteriorating health, has once again brought the complex saga of separatism, security, and civil liberties in Jammu and Kashmir into sharp national focus.
The proceedings unfolded before a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. Shah, who has been in custody since June 2019, petitioned for interim bail on the grounds that he was “very sick”—a point pressed by his senior counsel, Advocate Colin Gonsalves. However, as reported by PTI and corroborated by multiple outlets, the justices remained unconvinced that Shah’s medical condition alone warranted his immediate release. Instead, they issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), seeking its formal response to Shah’s special leave petition within two weeks.
This move, while procedural, signals the court’s caution in balancing humanitarian concerns with national security imperatives. The Bench’s skepticism echoed the position previously taken by the Delhi High Court, which had denied Shah’s bail plea on June 12, 2025. The High Court’s order, as cited by The Hindu, underscored that the “possibility cannot be ruled out that, as Chairman of an unlawful organisation, he would not indulge in similar unlawful activities and may attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses yet to be examined.”
Shah’s legal team, led by Gonsalves, argued that his prolonged incarceration—now exceeding five years—amounted to undue hardship, especially in light of his health. However, the Supreme Court observed that the trial was ongoing, with charges already framed and no delay attributable to the prosecution in examining witnesses. This point was crucial for the justices, who appeared intent on ensuring that procedural fairness for the accused did not compromise the broader interests of justice or security.
Shabir Ahmed Shah’s arrest in June 2019 was a headline event at the time, marking a significant escalation in the Indian government’s efforts to clamp down on what it described as a network of separatist and militant financiers in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the NIA, Shah played a “substantial role” in facilitating a separatist or militant movement in the region. The agency alleges that he incited the public to engage in sloganeering supporting the secession of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that he honored families of slain militants by eulogizing them as “martyrs.”
The charges against Shah extend beyond rhetoric. The NIA’s second supplementary charge sheet, filed on October 4, 2019, details accusations that Shah received funds through hawala transactions—an informal, and often opaque, system of money transfer. These funds, investigators say, were allegedly used to raise money via Line of Control (LoC) trade, ultimately supporting subversive and militant activities in the region. The agency claims Shah was part of a larger group of individuals conspiring to destabilize Kashmir and wage war against the Indian government.
In its June order, the Delhi High Court delved into the constitutional dimensions of Shah’s activities. While acknowledging that the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, the court emphasized that this right is not absolute. “This right cannot be misused under the garb of carrying out rallies wherein, a person uses inflammatory speeches or instigates the public to commit unlawful activities, detrimental to the interest and integrity of the country,” the bench wrote. The court further asserted that “reasonable restrictions” are necessary, particularly where public order, decency, morality, or incitement to an offence are concerned.
Shah’s alternative plea for house arrest, put forth as a compromise given the “serious allegations” and “sensitivity and gravity of the issues involved,” was also rejected by the High Court. The justices concluded that the risk of Shah resuming unlawful activities or attempting to tamper with evidence was too great to allow any form of release, even under strict conditions.
The NIA’s investigation into terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir has been a cornerstone of the government’s broader security strategy since 2017. Shah’s case, in particular, has become emblematic of the legal and ethical dilemmas that arise when counterterrorism efforts intersect with individual rights. His supporters argue that the charges against him are politically motivated, designed to suppress dissent and silence voices advocating for Kashmiri autonomy. Critics of the separatist movement, on the other hand, insist that figures like Shah have played an active role in perpetuating violence and instability in the region.
Public opinion on the case remains deeply divided. Some civil liberties advocates have voiced concern over the extended pre-trial detention of Shah and others accused in similar cases, warning that such measures risk undermining the principles of due process and presumption of innocence. They point to the fact that, despite five years in custody, Shah’s trial is still ongoing, and final conviction has not been secured. “Prolonged detention without conviction sets a troubling precedent,” one legal expert observed in an interview with Scroll.in (though not directly quoted in the court proceedings).
Conversely, security analysts and officials argue that the stakes in cases like Shah’s are simply too high to permit leniency. The NIA’s position, as reflected in court filings, is that the threat posed by alleged terror financiers is ongoing and that premature release could endanger both witnesses and the integrity of the investigation. “There is no question of considering house arrest given the serious allegations and the sensitivity and gravity of the issues involved,” the Delhi High Court stated—a sentiment that appears to have guided the Supreme Court’s own deliberations.
As the Supreme Court awaits the NIA’s formal response to Shah’s special leave petition, the case continues to serve as a litmus test for India’s approach to balancing civil liberties with national security. With the trial still underway and the broader investigation ongoing, the outcome will likely have far-reaching implications—not just for Shah, but for the legal framework governing counterterrorism in the country.
For now, Shah remains in custody, his legal options narrowing as the courts reaffirm the seriousness of the charges against him. The coming weeks will determine whether the NIA’s response sways the Supreme Court, or whether the status quo—detention without bail—will persist. Either way, the case of Shabir Ahmed Shah stands as a stark reminder of the difficult choices faced by India’s judiciary at the intersection of law, politics, and security.
