Delhi Court Grants Bail to Human Rights Activist Khurram Parvez in UAPA Terror Funding Case
A Delhi court has granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez in the 2020 National Investigation Agency (NIA) case concerning alleged terror funding through non-governmental organisations. Principal and Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt of the Patiala House Courts also granted bail to Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj, who was arraigned in the same case. A detailed order setting out the court’s reasons is awaited.
The case was registered by the NIA in October 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The agency alleged that certain NGOs, trusts and societies operating in Jammu and Kashmir had collected funds under the guise of charitable and welfare activities while allegedly channeling resources to support terrorist organisations, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM). The NIA has maintained that Parvez, who coordinated the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), played a role in providing material support to separatist activities and maintaining links with proscribed organisations.
The latest order assumes particular significance because it effectively clears the final legal hurdle to Parvez’s release from custody. Earlier, on June 10, the Delhi High Court had granted him bail in a separate 2021 UAPA case involving allegations of terror conspiracy, recruitment of overground workers, and terror funding. However, he remained incarcerated because he continued to be in judicial custody in the 2020 NIA case. With bail now granted in both matters, the way has been paved for his release, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the courts.
In the June 2026 judgment, the Delhi High Court had observed that Parvez had spent more than four-and-a-half years in custody while the trial had progressed at an exceptionally slow pace. The Court reiterated the constitutional principle that prolonged incarceration without a realistic prospect of an early trial could justify the grant of bail even in prosecutions under the stringent provisions of the UAPA. It emphasized that the right to a speedy trial forms an integral part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The NIA has consistently opposed Parvez’s bail, alleging that under the cover of human rights activism, he collected sensitive information relating to Indian security forces and maintained connections with individuals associated with banned terrorist organisations. The agency has argued that the alleged offences involve national security considerations and therefore warrant continued prosecution under anti-terror legislation. The merits of these allegations remain to be determined during the trial.
The grant of bail does not amount to an acquittal or a finding on the merits of the prosecution’s case. It merely permits the accused to remain at liberty during the pendency of the trial, subject to compliance with conditions imposed by the court. The criminal proceedings initiated by the NIA will continue, and the prosecution will be required to establish the allegations through evidence before the trial court.
The case has drawn national and international attention because it lies at the intersection of counter-terrorism law, civil liberties and human rights advocacy. The successive bail orders underscore the judiciary’s continuing effort to balance the stringent provisions of the UAPA with the constitutional principles of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial, while ensuring that prosecutions involving allegations affecting national security proceed in accordance with law.
