A Mumbai Sessions Court on Friday, August 7, 2026, rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) students. The two students stand accused of shouting slogans that demanded the immediate release of Delhi anti-Hindu riot accused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam during an on-campus event. This gathering was organized on the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba in October 2025.

The two individuals are part of a group of 9 people against whom the police registered an official case. During the investigation, the prosecution alleged that literature and digital files associated with Maoist ideology were retrieved from their possession.

However, in the same ruling, the court granted anticipatory bail to seven other students named in the case. The court noted that paying homage to GN Saibaba was not an illegal act by itself. Nevertheless, it observed that the specific allegations framed against the remaining two students—32-year-old Abhirup Paul and 23-year-old Kamakhya Das—along with the material seized from them, created serious grounds that weighed against granting them protection from arrest. Full case proceedings have been detailed in legal coverage by LiveLaw and Bar and Bench.

Understanding the case background: How campus memorial event led to police action against TISS group

The incident dates back to October 12, 2025, when a group of roughly 10 to 12 students gathered near the hostel area at the Deonar campus of TISS between 7:30 PM and 8:30 PM. According to the complaint filed by the institute's Associate Dean, the gathering was held without obtaining prior administrative approval.

During the hour-long event held to mark GN Saibaba's death anniversary, students placed photographs of the former Delhi University professor on a tree and recited his poems. Saibaba had previously been convicted in 2017 on charges of maintaining links with an illegal Maoist organization; however, the Bombay High Court acquitted him of all charges in 2024.

Following the campus event, the Trombay Police filed a First Information Report (FIR) naming 9 individuals, after which the investigation was formally transferred to the Crime Branch of the Mumbai Police. According to the allegations in the FIR, the participants went beyond honoring the deceased professor and raised active slogans calling for the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

Upholding legal responsibilities: Court reflects on student conduct, anti-national slogans and texts

While denying anticipatory bail to Abhirup Paul and Kamakhya Das, Additional Sessions Judge VB Bohra clarified the legal boundary regarding peaceful memorials. The judge noted that there is no doubt GN Saibaba was acquitted of the criminal charges leveled against him, and therefore, paying tribute to him cannot be called unlawful.

However, the court pointed out that the actions of the two students extended far beyond a memorial service. Both students stand accused of leading slogans demanding the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, two individuals currently facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for acts directed against national security.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that these slogans were not uttered as part of a broader public agitation or outdoor political procession, but rather within a university campus setting. Reminding the young scholars of their societal duty, Judge Bohra stated that being students, the accused are expected to respect the dignity of the law. Based on these factors, the court concluded that their anticipatory bail pleas could not be entertained.

Judicial concern over literature found: Examining ties to Maoist ideology

Opposing the bail application, Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hire argued on behalf of the state that objectionable digital material was discovered during technical examinations of the students' laptops and mobile phones.

The prosecution presented a list of downloaded books and documents stored on their electronic devices, which included:

• Selected Works of Mao Zedong by Mao Zedong
• The Right of Nations to Self-Determination by Vladimir Lenin
• Caste and Revolution by N. Ravi
• Fractured Freedom by Kobad Ghandy
• Direct literature and publications linked to the banned CPI (Maoist) organization

The prosecution also informed the court that forensic analysis revealed certain data had been deliberately deleted from the devices prior to seizure.

Defending the students, legal counsel contended that merely downloading or possessing academic literature does not prove membership or active association with Maoist ideology, especially since these titles are not banned and remain freely available for public purchase.

The court accepted the foundational argument that simply downloading books published by or concerning a Maoist organization is not automatically a criminal offense in itself. However, Judge Bohra observed that the specific contents of these materials advocate for an ideology that actively incites or assists in dividing the nation. The court stated that this material, evaluated alongside their actions, prima facie creates suspicion that the accused were influenced by Maoist thought or ideology and an attempt might have been made to convey it to other students through the gathering.

Given the gravity of the circumstances and the nature of the recovered evidence, the court found sufficient reason to deny anticipatory bail to both primary accused students. In contrast, the seven other students were granted anticipatory bail after the court confirmed that their involvement was limited strictly to attending the Saibaba memorial on October 12, 2025, with no objectionable literature or inflammatory material found in their possession.