The Supreme Court examined a plea challenging a Delhi High Court order denying bail to an alleged ISIS operative accused by the NIA of online radicalisation of youth. A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reviewed recruitment concerns.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court heard a challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that denied bail to an alleged member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This individual is accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of radicalizing youth through online platforms.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, reviewed the case, which pertains to online radicalization and recruitment.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati represented the NIA, discussing the efficiency and pace of trials under the anti-terrorism law framework. The discussion, however, expanded to tackle systemic delays in NIA prosecutions and the inadequate judicial infrastructure to manage such cases.
The Chief Justice remarked that the main challenge was creating a robust institutional mechanism that would minimize the need for the repeated physical presence of accused individuals in court, stressing that this efficiency could only be achieved by establishing additional courts dedicated to NIA cases.
The CJI stated,
“The idea is how do you make a robust mechanism that none of them are required to come to the courts. That will happen when additional courts are set up,”
The bench also suggested that structural reforms could be accelerated if there was clarity and commitment from the administration. The CJI proposed that if authorities could establish a definitive stance by February 10 on whether mere sanction was enough to operationalize new courts, High Courts could then advance with recruitment and appointments.
emphasizing the necessity for collaboration between the executive and the judiciary to tackle the growing backlog of cases, the CJI highlighted,
“By 10 February, if you can formalise some commitment… if the fact that a sanction is sufficient, then the High Court can go for recruitment,”
Given the broader implications, the bench ordered that the bail matter be scheduled for February 10, 2026, alongside an ongoing suo motu case regarding delays in NIA trials and issues related to MP-MLA courts.
In January 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Md Heydaitullah contesting the Trial Court’s rejection of his bail application. According to the NIA, the appellant conspired to “establish Sharia law in India under the flag of ISIS by waging Jihad.”
The Delhi High Court bench, comprising Justice Pratibha M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, pointed to the appellant’s communications in various online groups, noting that,
“it is not a case of passive support to a terrorist organisation, but rather the chats… show that the Appellant was advocating Jihad in order to establish Khilafat (‘Caliphate’).”
The court also acknowledged that the trial court had yet to frame charges against the appellant.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects ISIS Convict’s Plea, Emphasizes Stern Anti-Terrorism Measures
The Supreme court stated.
“To assess and find justifications for the grant or non-grant of bail to the Appellant, the material collected and filed along with the chargesheet by the NIA needs to be examined,”
It noted that the appellant had taken an oath (Bayath) in the names of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, both recognized leaders of ISIS. The chargesheet indicated that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced the establishment of a “caliphate” in June 2014.
Citing the appellant’s online communications and incriminating images recovered from his mobile phone, the court remarked,
“that the Appellant was not just a passive supporter of ISIS, but was determined to further its activities by influencing other individuals at various platforms.”
The court reiterated that ISIS is a known terrorist organization, and “the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS.”
Case Title: Md Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency