Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal condemned a Mumbai court's decision to deny anticipatory bail to two [1] former Tata Institute of Social Sciences students.
The case highlights growing tensions between legal protections for activists and the state's approach to dissent. Sibal's comments suggest that the judiciary may be failing to act as a check against government overreach.
Sibal made his remarks in New Delhi on Monday, Aug. 10, 2024 [2]. He said the court's refusal to grant bail to the two [1] individuals reflects a broader systemic issue within the Indian legal framework.
"It was a shame that two ex‑TISS students were denied anticipatory bail by a court, and it shows the government's intolerance and the state of the judiciary," Sibal said [3].
The MP linked the specific legal outcome in Mumbai to a perceived trend of intolerance. He said the denial of bail is not an isolated legal event but a symptom of the current state of the judiciary.
Sibal's criticism centers on the use of anticipatory bail, which is intended to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest. By denying this protection to the former students, Sibal said the court has signaled a lack of independence from government influence.
The former TISS students had sought the court's intervention to avoid detention. The denial of their request ensures they remain vulnerable to arrest as the legal proceedings continue.
“It shows the government's intolerance and the state of the judiciary.”
This incident underscores a recurring legal conflict in India regarding the use of anticipatory bail for students and activists. When high-profile legal figures like Kapil Sibal challenge court rulings, it signals a deepening divide over whether the judiciary is maintaining its independence or aligning with executive interests to suppress political dissent.
