Amravati | January 11, 2026

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Saturday directly blamed the Congress party for activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam being denied bail, arguing that the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) under which they have been booked were originally enacted during a Congress government. The Hyderabad MP made these remarks while addressing a public meeting in the Chandni Chowk area of Amravati, Maharashtra, ahead of the upcoming civic elections scheduled for January 15.

Owaisi, a prominent voice in national politics, criticized what he described as the misuse of political secularism by mainstream parties, particularly Congress, to gain electoral advantage. He argued that such “political secularism” often masks policies and laws that disproportionately impact marginalized communities, including Muslims, Dalits, and tribals. “The people who talk of secularism during elections are, in reality, enemies of Muslims, Dalits, and tribals. They use the idea of political secularism merely to gain votes,” Owaisi said.

Bail Denial and the UAPA

The Supreme Court recently refused to grant bail to Khalid and Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing Section 15A of the UAPA. While five other accused in the same case were granted bail based on a “hierarchy of participation,” Khalid and Imam continue to remain in judicial custody. The case, which stems from the riots in Delhi in February 2020, has been under intense public and political scrutiny, with activists, legal experts, and civil society groups raising concerns about the prolonged incarceration of political activists under anti-terror legislation.

Owaisi pointed out that the UAPA, which allows for stringent preventive and punitive measures against individuals suspected of unlawful activities, was introduced when P. Chidambaram served as Union Home Minister during the Congress-led regime. Owaisi, who was a member of Parliament at the time, claimed that he had been the sole voice in Parliament to raise objections against the law. “I was the only one who had said that this law would be used by the police against Muslims, tribals, Dalits, and intellectuals who oppose government policies. Today, you can see what has happened: these two children could not get bail because of the definition of terrorism under this law,” he said.

The AIMIM chief highlighted the broader impact of the law on individuals accused under similar statutes, referencing the death of 85-year-old Stan Swamy in judicial custody. Swamy, a Jesuit priest and social activist accused in the Elgar Parishad case, passed away while in prison, bringing international attention to the use of UAPA against elderly and vulnerable individuals. Owaisi argued that the amendments to the law, supported by the Congress even during the BJP government in 2019, have exacerbated its punitive nature and resulted in “destroying innocent lives.”

Targeted Communities and Political Implications

Owaisi’s statements drew attention to what AIMIM and other critics describe as the selective application of UAPA provisions against minorities and dissenting voices. The Hyderabad MP contended that the law, while ostensibly framed to counter terrorism, has increasingly been employed against activists, journalists, students, and civil society members who are critical of government policies.

“The UAPA, as it stands today, is a weapon that can be wielded arbitrarily. Its definitions are broad and open to interpretation, which allows authorities to target those who think differently,” Owaisi said. He emphasized that the law’s use against Khalid and Imam is indicative of a larger pattern where legal provisions intended for national security are applied to curb dissent and criminalize activism.

The political implications of Owaisi’s remarks were clear, particularly as the comments were made on the eve of civic elections in Maharashtra. AIMIM has been increasingly vocal in asserting itself as a representative of marginalized communities, and Owaisi’s address sought to frame Congress as complicit in the legal framework that he argued has oppressed Muslims and other vulnerable groups. By linking historical legislative decisions to current judicial outcomes, Owaisi underscored the continuity of what he termed “institutional biases” affecting certain sections of Indian society.

Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to Khalid and Imam came after careful deliberation. While the court allowed bail for five other accused individuals, it noted the “hierarchy of participation” in the events related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Khalid and Imam, deemed to have played a more central role in the alleged conspiracy, were denied bail under Section 15A of the UAPA. The law allows for extended pre-trial detention and imposes stringent restrictions on the granting of bail in cases involving charges of terrorism or unlawful activities.

Legal experts have noted that the denial of bail, while following statutory provisions, has raised broader questions about balancing national security with fundamental rights, including the right to personal liberty and due process. Owaisi seized upon these concerns, arguing that the law disproportionately affects specific communities and dissenting voices.

AIMIM’s Position

AIMIM has consistently positioned itself as a defender of minority rights and a critic of what it views as selective application of laws. In his Amravati address, Owaisi reiterated that political secularism in India is often superficial and that mainstream parties, including Congress, have historically supported policies that, in practice, marginalize minorities.

“Congress supported the BJP government when UAPA was amended in 2019. This law is now being used to destroy lives, including those of innocent youth and elderly activists. While the Congress talks about secularism in public rallies, its historical and legislative record tells a different story,” Owaisi said.

He also highlighted the human cost of prolonged detention under UAPA. Activists like Khalid and Imam have been in custody for over five years, while Stan Swamy, despite his age and frailty, succumbed in prison. Owaisi used these examples to underscore the personal and societal consequences of legal provisions that allow extended incarceration without conviction.

Political Context and Broader Debate

The remarks come amid ongoing debates in India regarding the balance between national security, civil liberties, and judicial oversight. Critics of UAPA have long argued that its stringent provisions, including extended pre-trial detention and low likelihood of bail, pose risks to fundamental rights. Proponents argue that such laws are necessary to prevent and counter terrorist activities and protect national security.

Owaisi’s statements, linking the law’s origins to the Congress-led government and highlighting its current use against Khalid and Imam, added a historical and political dimension to the discourse. By framing the issue as one of accountability and legislative responsibility, he sought to shift part of the focus away from contemporary governance and onto historical legislative decisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s remarks in Amravati on Saturday underscored the intersection of law, politics, and civil liberties in India. By blaming Congress for the enactment of the UAPA and highlighting its impact on activists like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Stan Swamy, Owaisi sought to highlight perceived injustices in the application of anti-terror legislation.

As the 2026 civic elections in Maharashtra approach, these statements are likely to resonate with AIMIM’s base, while also contributing to the broader national debate on civil liberties, national security, and the use of stringent laws against political activists. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail in the 2020 Delhi riots case underscores the ongoing tension between statutory provisions and individual rights, a debate that continues to shape India’s legal and political landscape.

---