By Jameel Ahmed Milansaar, Bangalore
Five years after one of Bengaluru’s most disturbing episodes of communal violence, a faint glimmer of justice has finally emerged. The Supreme Court of India recently granted bail to two accused — Kareem Saddam (Accused No. 24) and Ziaur Rahman (Accused No. 6) — in the DJ Halli and KG Halli riot cases. For families who have spent years waiting for some sign of relief under the shadow of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), this decision is nothing short of a breath of fresh air. It is also a moment that compels us to pause and reflect on what happened that night, why justice took so long, and what the entire episode reveals about the fault lines in our law and society.
From Provocation to Violence
On the night of 11 August 2020, the twin localities of DJ Halli and KG Halli in Bengaluru witnessed an eruption that was more than just a riot — it was an explosion born of deep social tension, administrative failure, and reckless provocation. It began with a Facebook post by the nephew of Congress MLA Akhanda Srinivas Murthy, which insulted the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). What started as a small, angry gathering of around 25 people demanding action against the offender quickly spiraled into chaos.
Within hours, thousands had gathered outside the DJ Halli and KG Halli police stations and the MLA’s residence. Stones were hurled, vehicles torched, and buildings burnt. The police, overwhelmed and unprepared, opened fire to disperse the crowd. Three people died and over 50 were injured. Beyond the smoke and shattered glass, the violence held up a terrifying mirror to our society — one increasingly quick to outrage, slow to reason, and disturbingly willing to bypass the rule of law.
Arrests, UAPA, and the Machinery of Delay
In the immediate aftermath, Bengaluru Police launched a massive crackdown. Nearly 199 individuals were arrested; 138 were eventually charge-sheeted. By September 2020, the investigation was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which invoked the draconian provisions of the UAPA — transforming what was essentially a riot case into one of alleged terrorism.
The consequences were devastating. Under UAPA, bail is nearly impossible unless the court can prove that the accusations are patently false — a near-insurmountable condition. Many of the arrested men spent years behind bars without trial. In May 2025, when fourteen accused approached the Karnataka High Court seeking discharge from UAPA provisions, their plea was rejected on grounds that this was not one of the “rarest of rare” cases for bail interference. The court pointed out that much of the delay was caused by the accused themselves through repeated litigation tactics, denying them the relief of bail despite their long pre-trial incarceration. This reveals how our justice system, when dealing with extraordinary laws like UAPA, often struggles to balance speedy justice with legal caution.
Broader Context: UAPA Misuse and Judicial Trends
The recent legal developments in the DJ Halli-KG Halli riots case, including the Supreme Court granting bail to two accused after five years of detention under the stringent UAPA, fit into a broader pattern of misuse and criticism of the UAPA in India. The law, originally intended to tackle terrorism and unlawful activities, has often been invoked in riot and political cases, resulting in prolonged pre-trial detention and severe restrictions on bail.
The Supreme Court of India has maintained a tough stance on bail under UAPA, granting it only under exceptional circumstances, typically when there is significant delay in trial or lack of strong prima facie evidence. For instance, in a similar 2025 case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to an accused after noting that despite years in custody, trial progress was negligible and evidence weak. The courts recognize that while UAPA provisions allow denial of bail if the allegations appear prima facie true, prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional rights to liberty.
The Supreme Court decisions reflect a jurisprudential tension: on one hand, UAPA cases require a high threshold for bail due to the serious nature of the offenses; on the other, excessive delays in court proceedings and weak linkage evidence necessitate relief for accused persons. This has led to evolving guidelines reiterating the necessity of balancing state security interests with the protection of individual liberties.
Moreover, the use of UAPA in riot cases like DJ Halli-KG Halli illustrates how anti-terror laws are extended into scenarios of communal violence, often resulting in political and social controversies about fairness and misuse. Critics argue this broad application undermines fair judicial process, as most UAPA arrests end in long detentions without eventual conviction, increasing societal fissures and distrust in law enforcement.
In sum, the DJ Halli-KG Halli case’s slow justice and recent bail grant highlight systemic issues around UAPA’s enforcement: stringent bail conditions, slow legal proceedings, and the constitutional requirement for timely justice. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the need for judicial vigilance ensuring that laws designed to protect the state do not disproportionately trample on individual rights, particularly in sensitive communal contexts.
Convictions, Admissions of Guilt, and Societal Impact
In July 2025, the NIA special court sentenced three accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years after they pleaded guilty to charges related to rioting, arson, and conspiracy under UAPA and the IPC. These convictions were hailed as a vindication of the law enforcement agencies’ efforts, particularly since the violence was found to be orchestrated by banned outfits such as the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political wing, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). The court noted that the riots coincided with a religious festival and were a deliberate act aimed at communal disruption and attacking the state machinery by targeting police stations and public order. The central government’s ban on the PFI in 2022 was reinforced by these findings, as public confidence in the police and state authority was shaken by the attacks.
Lessons and the Road Ahead
The DJ Halli-KG Halli incident stands as both a tragedy and a warning. It tells us that:
Every act of hate or provocation on social media must be met with swift, lawful action to prevent escalation.
Police forces need better training, preparedness, and community engagement to handle volatile situations without recourse to excessive force.
Political parties must resist exploiting communal tensions for electoral gains, focusing instead on social harmony.
Our judicial system requires reforms to ensure speedy and transparent trials, particularly in cases involving sensitive communal elements and stringent laws like the UAPA.
The riots did not occur in a vacuum; they resulted from a dangerous mix of social discord, administrative failure, and legal complexity. Justice delayed has been justice denied for many; thus, it is imperative to balance security with liberty to prevent such fissures from widening in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment