Denying anticipatory bail to two students, who by the way are between the ages of 21 and 30, on the grounds that they raised slogans for the release of Omar Khalid and Shahji Lamam, is absolutely wrong. There is no basis in law for this whatsoever. To my mind, it's unconstitutional, it is illegal, it is unjust, it is unfair, and it is, I would say, perverse. Even if you refuse bail to a single citizen, unlawfully, unconstitutionally, it is a black dot on the judiciary, entire judiciary. And I really feel very sad that these judges are doing it repeatedly. So additional sessions, Judge B.B. Bora has betrayed and undermined the very concept and ideal of justice. Yes, absolutely. And liberty, especially because liberty is very crucial. And the whole freedom struggle was to give us the liberty. We have got liberty. And now that liberty is being taken away in an extremely cavalier fashion by, you know, these kind of actions on the part of the executive and the police. Hi, I'm Karan Thapar. Over the last few years, I hope you've been watching my program, The Interview on The Wire. During that period I've interviewed doctors, politicians, businessmen, scientists, authors, and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me it's been exciting. I hope it's been enjoyable for you. But these, as you know, are tough times, and if this program is going to remain bold, independent, and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support. At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So if you would like this program to remain the way it is, forthright, outspoken and interesting, then would you consider supporting us? All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom. But more than anything else, I hope you will continue to watch the interview. Your viewership means an awful lot to me. Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. Do young students have the right to call for the release of Umar Khalid and Sharj-e-Limam? Is it an offence for students to have on their laptop books by Mao and Lenin? Or are those grounds for denying them anticipatory bail? That's the first issue we shall tackle today. And then are students of the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad justified in demanding that the Chief Justice not be invited to their convocation as Chief Guest because of the comments he made last month about student protests Did the Chief Justice comments reflect the constitutional values NALSAR has attempted to teach these students That the second issue we should raise today My guest is the well-known lawyer and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dushyant Dave. Dushyant Dave, the Indian Express has reported that two students of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences were refused anticipatory bail by a Mumbai Sessions court on the ground that they raised slogans for the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who are facing trial for alleged offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Is it an offence to raise slogans demanding the release of people who are not even convicted, and the trial has not even begun, and yet they've been in jail for almost six years? Well, absolutely not. In fact, I myself on several television interviews and podcasts, even with you said that Omar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam should be released. So, am I guilty of an offense? Of course, I am not. I mean, this is ridiculous for a judicial officer of the rank of an additional sessions judge to have really denied bail to them. perhaps he has not read the judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI's case where the Constitution bench speaking through senior justice Chandra Chute had very beautifully said, why is it that anticipatory bill should be given? And the reason is that if you don't give, then in a case where there is no real serious case of prosecution against the person, his reputation, his liberty is going to be lost forever. And this is precisely what is happening. And in this case, the sessions judge has really committed serious error, I would say, gross error in denying anticipatory bail to these students who are very young students. And the incident was of October 2025, if I mistake not. And the learned judge is, you know, denying the anticipatory bail today, almost seven months later. What's the point of giving them, you know, to custodial interrogation? I mean, it's ridiculous. I think the judge is perhaps unaware about the facts, unaware about the law. It's so shocking what's happening in the judiciary of this country. Let me quote precisely what Additional Sessions Judge V.B. Bora said. According to today's Indian Express, he said they allegedly raised slogans in the nature of releasing Omar Khalid and Sharjid Imam from jail who are facing trial for an offense under UAPA. And then he added the honorable apex court had been pleased to reject bail applications of Omar Khalid and Shahjeeb Imam being students. It was expected from accused persons to respect the law of the land. Is the law of the land disrespected because two students raised slogans in support of Omar Khalid and Shahjeeb Imam being released Does that amount to disrespecting the law of the land I think with great respect to the learned judge he perhaps doesn know what is the law of the land It's really shocking, disappointing and saddening that judicial officers have such poor idea about what rule of law is, what law of the land is. They have not perhaps understood the constitution. See Karan, let us understand one thing. After almost 100 years of struggle, we got freedom. And freedom is for what? Freedom is for in every sense that we should have. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of liberty, freedom to do business, freedom to do anything, reside anywhere, freedom to profess religion. All kinds of freedoms were guaranteed because they were secured expressly because these are basic human values. Why did the constitutional framers gave those freedoms because for 100 years the british denied those freedoms to us we are now turning the clock back and doing exactly what the british authorities were doing denying to our citizens those cherished freedoms which constitutional framers have very passionately given to us so denying anticipatory bail to two students who by the way are between the ages of 21 and 30 on the grounds that they raise slogans for the release of omar khaled and shaji lamam is absolutely wrong there is no basis in law for this whatsoever to my mind it's unconstitutional it is illegal it is unjust it is unfair and it is i would say perverse the two tata institute students were also refused bail because they have allegedly been found to have on their laptops and mobile phones what's called maoist literature the books they had on their laptops and mobile phones were and i'm now repeating from the indian express selected works of mao the right of nations to self-determination by vladimir lenin caste and revolution by n ravi fractured freedom by kobat gandhi and the publications of the cpi maoist each of these books can be freely purchased in the market again is this a valid reason for denying those two students anticipatory bail no certainly not. I think it's really, I mean, it's really, I would say, it's really surprising that judges have such poor view of what is freedom of speech, what is freedom of expression, what are the rights of the citizens. I mean, look, I don't know whether these judges are trained at all or not. It really raises into serious question the entire recruitment process of judiciary. If they are not sensitive to the rights of the citizens, fundamental rights of the citizens. If they are not sensitive to constitutional safeguards, then I think they have no right to be judges And the whole process of selection of judicial officers is now becoming a serious challenge for this country because we are now citizens are at the receiving end at the mercy of this you know incompetent judiciary which really denies bail because even if you refuse bail to a single citizen unlawfully unconstitutionally it is a black dot on the judiciary, entire judiciary. And I really feel very sad that these judges are doing it repeatedly. Of course, this kind of literature anybody and everybody can possess. You may find several books behind me and somebody might find one or two of those books to be objectionable. So what? Am I going to be arrested for that? I mean, what is happening in this country? What are these judges going to do and what really shocks me is that this order came a couple of days ago why is the high court not taking a suomoto action and doing something about it in fact the chief justice of the high court should immediately take up the matter and see that these kids are released i mean it's really you know you remember sai baba's case i mean what were these students protesting about They were, see Tata Institute of Social Sciences is one of the most fantastic institutions of this country. Now part of the social sciences, you know, is really the treatment that the state meets out to, you know, people who are physically challenged. Sai Baba was born with polio and he had very serious, you know, challenges. He was arrested, he was kept in jail for almost 10 years and released ultimately you know without uh saying that he was illegally arrested now these kids were therefore trying to portray that somebody who was physically challenged was kept in jail for so many years he suffered you know bad health during those jail period and ultimately died now in saibaba's case when he was first released by the bombay high court the supreme court special bench set on a saturday presided by justice bela trivedi and justice emar shah both learned judges from gujarat i don't know how chief justice then chief justice you know constituted that bench and they stayed the acquittal they stayed the acquittal of sai baba and sent him back into the jail which was unheard of in the history of you know uh judiciary now if they can do that for you know for the state why doesn't somebody do it for these kids i mean you can't allow these kids to be in jail even for a second so i am really surprised that the bombay high court is not really intervening in this matter let me further quote what the sessions judge said he claimed that though the books are not banned by the government they reportedly instigate or aid the division of india those are his words as reported by the newspapers what do you make of that argument that those books reportedly instigate or aid the division of India. Therefore, those are grounds for denying.
