Why has the JNU sedition case gone nowhere in a decade?

In February 2016, Jawaharlal Nehru University became the epicentre of one of India's most polarising debates on nationalism, dissent, and free speech after a campus event triggered a sedition case against Kanhaiya Kumar, the head of the students' union, and nine other students.

A decade later, the matter is in a legal stalemate.

The Delhi Police has filed a chargesheet against the accused but the trial cannot begin until the Supreme Court decides whether the offence of sedition remains on the statute book.

Introduced by British colonialists, sedition criminalises attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law. The provision has long been criticised for its vague and expansive wording, which critics argue enables its misuse against dissent and political speech.

In the JNU sedition case, for instance, the Delhi Police's chargesheet states that the accused shouted slogans that supported the secession of Kashmir, criticised the Indian state, and expressed solidarity with Afzal Guru, who had been convicted in the 2001 Parliament attack case.

But in submissions to a trial court in Delhi, lawyers representing the accused have disputed the authenticity of the video clips and the witness statements the police have relied on. They have also argued that even if some slogans were shouted, they do not amount to sedition.

Here, the lawyers relied on past judgements such as in the Kedar Nath Singh case in 1962, in which the Supreme Court held that sedition applies only when there is incitement to violence or public disorder, and the Balwant Singh case in 1995, where shouting pro-Khalistan slogans was held not to be seditious because it did not lead to any violence or disturbance.

While these arguments remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the future of the sedition law, the prolonged uncertainty has taken a toll on the accused.

Anirban Bhattacharya, one of the accused who is currently working with a research and advocacy organisation, said he had to renew his passports every two years. Anyone facing a criminal case is issued a passport valid only for two years, instead of the standard 10 years.

“Every time I had to travel – for instance, to attend a workshop – it became a major hassle. I had to arrange a surety, find someone willing to pledge around Rs 5 lakh, and then return the passport after coming back.”

Kumar's lawyer Chinmay Kanojia told Scroll that there has been “no real movement in the case and that it is unlikely to progress in the near future”.

Since 2022, when the Supreme Court stayed the sedition provision, the trial court has listed the matter at least 14 times, the most recent being on January 13, 2026. The matter was adjourned and posted for the next hearing April 16.

On February 9, 2016, an event was organised at Sabarmati Dhaba, in the JNU campus. Initially proposed as a poetry reading titled “The Country Without A Post Office”, the programme had been granted permission by the university authorities.

After posters in circulation indicated that the event was being organised to mark the anniversary of Afzal Guru's execution, the university withdrew permission. But the event went ahead despite the cancellation, says the chargesheet. Soon after, television news channels aired videos that they claimed showed students shouting “anti-India” slogans.

On February 11, the Delhi Police registered a first information report under Section 124A for sedition of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

The FIR was based on complaints lodged by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Maheish Girri, JNU Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad leader Saurabh Sharma, and videos and television news footage claiming to show that anti-India slogans were shouted during the event on campus.

The next day, on February 12, the Delhi Police arrested Kanhaiya Kumar, who was then the president of the JNU Students' Union. The police later named doctoral students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya as accused in the FIR. Both of them surrendered to the police and were arrested on February 23.

During the bail hearing before the Delhi High Court on February 29, the police told the court that it did not have video evidence showing that Kumar had shouted “anti-India” slogans.

On March 2, the Delhi High Court granted Kumar interim bail for six months, while criticising him as well as others who participated in the campus event for misusing free speech. The judge told Kumar that he had the freedom to raise “anti-national slogans” only because India's borders are “guarded by our armed and paramilitary forces”.

Days later, on March 18, Khalid and Bhattacharya, who were in judicial custody, were granted six-month interim bail by a Delhi trial court. They were released from Tihar jail after furnishing personal bonds and sureties, with restrictions on travel and a requirement to cooperate with the investigation.

Later that year, on August 26, the Delhi trial court granted Kumar, Khalid, and Bhattacharya regular bail. The police did not oppose the plea, stating that the accused had complied with bail conditions and cooperated with the investigation.

Meanwhile, a high-level inquiry committee set up by JNU had submitted its report to the university administration on March 16, 2016. The committee concluded that a group of masked outsiders had raised provocative slogans at the event, including “Bharat ko ragda do” and “Pakistan zindabad.”

Some witnesses claimed that slogans such as “Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi” were also shouted, but the committee noted that there was no video evidence to substantiate this allegation.

For three years after the first arrests, the case remained under police investigation. The accused appeared in court periodically to mark their presence, attend routine hearings where the court reviewed the status of the investigation and comply with bail conditions.

On January 14, 2019, the Delhi Police filed a chargesheet in court against 10 accused, including Kumar, Khalid and Bhattacharya. The names of the six other students emerged during the course of the police investigation.

Apart from sedition, the police invoked other penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code such as 120B for criminal conspiracy, 34 for common intention, 147 for rioting and 149 for unlawful assembly.

Then there was further delay.

For a case of sedition, the police must seek permission from the government, in this case the Home Department of the Delhi government then ruled by the Aam Aadmi Party. Without government sanction, courts cannot proceed with the trial. In July 2019, an Indian Express report, quoting unnamed sources, said that the Delhi government's legal officer had opposed granting sanction.

Nearly a year later, the Delhi government's Home Department granted sanction to the police on February 27, 2020.

In February 2021, a Delhi court took cognisance of the police's final report, which included the chargesheet, technical documents and the government sanction for prosecution. The judge's order summoned the accused for trial on March 15.

Beginning the process of framing charges, the court in March 2021 directed the Delhi Police to supply copies of the chargesheet to the accused.

But a development in the Supreme Court would soon put off the trial.

Read Scroll's special series: A decade after the JNU sedition case, we trace the trajectories taken by four student-activists – and what that reveals about political life in India.

In February 2021, two journalists filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A for sedition.

Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla contended that the formulation of Section 124A allows for arbitrary application and that it is routinely invoked to silence criticism of those in power. Nine other petitions were subsequently tagged to it.

Meanwhile, the JNU sedition case was proceeding slowly with hearings repeatedly adjourned for reasons such as delay in supplying documents to the accused and securing the presence of those witnesses. The judiciary was also struggling with an administrative slowdown following the Covid-19 pandemic.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court directed that all trials, appeals, and proceedings under Section 124A be kept in abeyance. In its order, it said “no coercive action” should be taken in pending sedition cases. A year later, the Supreme Court referred the constitutional challenge to a larger bench in.

In August 2025, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of scrutiny further by agreeing to also examine Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alongside the challenge to sedition. Section 152 mirrors the language of sedition provision in the Indian Penal Code. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2024.

The Supreme Court's 2022 order had an immediate impact on the JNU sedition case.

In July 2022, while hearing the matter, a Delhi trial court recorded submissions from defence counsel citing the Supreme Court ruling putting all proceedings under Section 124A in abeyance.

Accepting the submission, the court stayed the trial, observing that “although other penal provisions were involved, allowing the proceedings to continue could prejudice the accused while the constitutional validity of sedition remained under consideration”.

Advocate Sahil Ghai, who represents Khalid and Bhattacharya said, “each successive judge hearing the case – the matter is now before its third judge – has followed the same course and after noting the Supreme Court's order staying sedition proceedings, the court has simply adjourned the case.”

The lives of the 10 students named in the FIR have taken markedly different trajectories. Kanhaiya's lawyer Chinmay Kanojia said the bail conditions imposed in 2016 continue to remain in force. “Similar conditions were imposed on the other accused as well, but life has moved on for them, some have even gone abroad to pursue postgraduate studies.”

Kanhaiya Kumar joined the Congress in 2021, contesting elections and doing organisational work. Umar Khalid has been in jail since 2020 in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2019 Delhi riots. Anirban Bhattacharya is now working as a director of campaigns and team lead, National Finance Team at Centre for Financial Accountability.

Yet, the sedition case continues to hover over them.

Referring to the routine appearances in court every three to four months, Bhattacharya said, “All of this looks routine now, but the case never actually moves.”

Source: Scroll
Related Posts: Himanta Sarma files Rs 500 crore defamation case against Gaurav Gogoi Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil granted anticipatory bail in rape case Rajpal Yadav Has Paid Half The Amount In Cheque Bounce Case Trial date set for Trump's legal case against BBC From JNU to Congress Zubeen Garg’s death case Trump will be gone in three years Online education is one of the biggest finds of the last decade Rohit Shetty shooting case Rajpal Yadav Granted Bail In Cheque Bounce Case