A recent bail condition imposed by a court in Assam has triggered widespread concern, as it not only reflects the troubling position Indian Muslims often find themselves in—compelled time and again to publicly prove their allegiance and love for the country—but also raises critical questions about the very nature of bail itself, which is meant to secure liberty and not function as punishment.
In a case involving Arif Rahman, arrested for allegedly praising Pakistan through a fake Facebook profile following the Pahalgham tragedy, the court granted bail on the condition that he chant “Jai Hind” three times each morning for 21 days, record it, and share the videos on social media.
The order, seen by many as symbolic and punitive, contradicts the foundational purpose of bail, which is neither to establish guilt nor to impose punishment, but simply to ensure the accused’s presence during trial and allow them the opportunity to defend themselves, according to The Wire.
Legal experts emphasise that bail exists within the framework of the presumption of innocence—a core principle of criminal jurisprudence—and any deviation from that undermines the accused's right to a fair trial.
In Rahman’s case, the bail condition appears to pre-judge the case, as it compels a performance of patriotism rather than ensuring procedural compliance. Indian law, including both the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, permits reasonable bail conditions, such as preventing evidence tampering or flight risk, but does not support the imposition of symbolic obligations that serve no legal function.
This instance is not isolated, as similar bail conditions were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when accused persons were made to donate to government funds or fulfil public service acts unrelated to their charges. Such trends suggest an erosion of principled judicial discretion and a worrying shift towards performative nationalism being embedded in judicial orders.