The Supreme Court of India, on December 11, 2025, took a firm stance against repeated delays in the bail hearing of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah, who stands accused in a high-profile terror-funding case. After months of postponements and mounting frustration among legal representatives, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set a new date for the hearing—January 7, 2026—and issued a clear warning: no more adjournments would be tolerated.
Shabir Ahmed Shah, a prominent figure in the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir and chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, has been in the legal spotlight for years. His arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on June 4, 2019, stemmed from a 2017 case in which twelve individuals were accused of raising funds to disrupt public order and wage war against the central government. According to The Economic Times, the prosecution alleges that Shah played a “substantial role” in facilitating separatist and militant activities, including inciting the public to raise slogans in support of the secession of Jammu and Kashmir, glorifying slain militants as martyrs, and channeling funds through illegal hawala transactions and cross-LoC trade.
The December 11 hearing was marked by tension and impatience, especially from Shah’s legal team. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Shah, strongly opposed the NIA’s request for another adjournment, emphasizing the urgency of the matter. Gonsalves told the court that the accused was “really desperate” and needed an immediate hearing. Despite this, the NIA’s counsel insisted that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was engaged in another ongoing matter, would be the one to argue for the agency, prompting the plea for a January date.
Justice Vikram Nath, clearly dissatisfied with the agency’s repeated requests, questioned, “Why January? He is seeking bail. How long has this been pending?” The bench’s frustration was evident as they remarked, “We can hear it tomorrow. We can hear it today also. We have no difficulty, the difficulty is on the other side.” Eventually, the court relented but made its position unambiguous: “One last opportunity is granted to the respondent (NIA). We will have it on January 7. We will say no further time will be granted.”
The case has been mired in procedural delays and complex legal arguments. In November, the NIA was granted three weeks to respond to a rejoinder affidavit filed by Shah, which reportedly included new facts not previously presented before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. Solicitor General Mehta, assisted by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, argued that the affidavit “talks of some confinement. I would like to verify those facts,” underscoring the agency’s need to carefully check the new claims. Mehta further alleged that Shah’s conduct over the years indicated deep involvement in activities that threatened national security, stating, “The accused had connections with Pakistan-based terrorists and was extending financial assistance to them.”
On the other side, Gonsalves maintained that multiple detention orders against Shah were passed illegally and that even his family was not provided copies of these orders. This claim, however, was met with skepticism from the bench. Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the relevance of seeking such records during bail proceedings and pointed out, “It’s over 50 years.” Justice Nath added, “That is also 55 years,” highlighting the long history of legal entanglements surrounding Shah’s activities.
The seriousness of the allegations was not lost on the court. Justice Mehta asserted, “Pelting of stones in this State (Jammu & Kashmir) is not a very ordinary action,” a statement that underscored the gravity of the charges and the volatile context of the region. Supporting this, the NIA claims that Shah’s actions—including funding stone pelters, delivering provocative speeches, and glorifying militants—were part of a larger conspiracy to destabilize the region under the guise of a freedom movement.
The Delhi High Court had previously denied Shah’s bail on June 12, 2025, observing that there remained a significant risk of him engaging in similar unlawful activities or influencing witnesses if released. The court also dismissed his alternate request for house arrest, citing the serious nature of the charges. According to The Hindu, the High Court reviewed a detailed table outlining 24 pending cases against Shah, many of which are related to conspiracy for the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
During the December hearing, the trial’s progress was also brought into question. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the NIA, informed the bench that the examination of witnesses was ongoing. Out of 248 potential witnesses, only about 30 had been examined so far, with 95 witnesses already dropped and the possibility of further reduction looming. The slow pace of the trial has only added to the mounting frustration on all sides, with Shah’s defense pushing for a more expedited process.
Earlier, on September 4, 2025, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim bail to Shah and issued a notice to the NIA, seeking its response to Shah’s challenge of the High Court’s order. The court’s earlier inquiries also included a request on September 24 for the NIA to provide details of Shah’s custody in his other criminal cases, given the significant number of pending cases against him.
The NIA’s position remains steadfast. The agency has repeatedly emphasized the alleged threat posed by Shah’s activities, including his purported links to Pakistan-based militants and the use of funds to fuel unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. Solicitor General Mehta, in a pointed remark, stated, “Before the Supreme Court of India, nobody can say Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir. I am making an issue out of it,” alluding to the separatist rhetoric often employed by Shah and his associates.
For supporters of the government’s hardline stance, the case is emblematic of the ongoing struggle to maintain order and security in a region fraught with conflict. They argue that leniency in cases involving terror funding and separatist activities could set a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, advocates for due process and human rights maintain that prolonged detention without bail, especially amid procedural delays, undermines the principles of justice.
As the January 7, 2026, hearing approaches, all eyes remain on the Supreme Court. The outcome will not only determine Shah’s immediate fate but could also set important legal and political precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future. With the court’s patience wearing thin and the stakes running high, the next chapter in this long-running legal battle promises to be decisive.
