The Supreme Court questioned the NIA for relying on speeches from the 1990s while opposing Shabir Ahmed Shah’s bail in a terror funding case. The Bench asked how decades-old material recovered in 2019 could justify his continued detention of over six years.
On February 25, 2026, the Supreme Court of India questioned the manner in which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) relied on speeches from the 1990s while opposing the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing arguments on Mr. Shah’s bail plea when the NIA submitted that it had strong material against him. Appearing for the agency, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the Court that there were inflammatory videos, incriminating emails and witness statements linking Mr. Shah to unlawful activities.
When Mr. Luthra began referring to transcripts of certain videos, the Bench asked about the time period of the speeches. In response, he said that some of the videos dated back to the 1990s. The Court then made a sharp observation, saying,
“These speeches are not a new creation. These are something which were already there, say 30 years or 35 years before today. Now, you recover them in 2019 and say that these are the inflammatory speeches,”
highlighting concerns about the relevance of decades-old material being relied upon to justify continued detention.
Mr. Luthra clarified that the inflammatory videos were recovered from Mr. Shah’s residence during a search conducted by the agency. He also stated that witness statements supported the prosecution’s case.
The Bench further asked about the progress of the trial. Referring to a February 19 order of the trial court, Mr. Luthra informed the Court that 34 witnesses had already been examined and that protected witnesses were yet to depose.
After hearing the NIA’s submissions, the Supreme Court posted the matter for March 12, when senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Mr. Shah, will present his rejoinder arguments.
This is not the first time the top court has raised questions in the matter. On January 13, the Supreme Court had pulled up the NIA for not properly presenting its case and had asked the agency to justify Mr. Shah’s detention for more than six years. The Court had directed the agency to place on record specific speeches and other relevant material.
Earlier, on September 4, 2025, the apex court had refused to grant interim bail to Mr. Shah and had issued notice to the NIA in response to his plea challenging the June 12, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court had denied bail, observing that the possibility of Mr. Shah engaging in similar unlawful activities or influencing witnesses could not be ruled out. It also rejected his alternative request for “house arrest,” considering the serious nature of the allegations.
Mr. Shah was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019, in connection with a larger terror funding investigation. In 2017, the agency had registered a case against 12 persons, alleging a criminal conspiracy to raise funds to disrupt public order in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the prosecution, the funds were allegedly used for stone-pelting, damaging public property and conspiring to wage war against the Government of India.
The NIA has alleged that Mr. Shah played a “substantial role” in promoting a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir.
It claims that he incited the public to raise slogans supporting the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India, paid tribute to families of slain militants by calling them “martyrs,” and received funds through hawala channels and cross-Line of Control (LoC) trade. These funds, the agency alleges, were used to fuel militant and subversive activities.
The High Court, while dismissing Mr. Shah’s appeal against the trial court’s July 7, 2023 order refusing bail, also took note of a table listing 24 pending cases against him. It observed that he was the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, which has been declared an unlawful organisation. The High Court concluded that the seriousness of the charges and the pattern of alleged activities weighed against granting him bail.
With the matter now posted for further hearing on March 12, the Supreme Court’s observations on the reliance on decades-old speeches may play a crucial role in determining whether Mr. Shah’s prolonged detention without bail is legally justified.
Click Here to Read More Reports On NCERT
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
