Legal and civil rights groups question delayed release of prisoner Roopesh

By A Representative 

A collective of civil rights organisations under the banner of the Campaign Against State Repression (CASR) has raised concerns over the delayed release of T. N. Roopesh, who has completed a 10-year sentence following his 2015 arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). CASR issued a press statement alleging that state authorities have activated a long-dormant 2012 case in Karnataka in a move that effectively blocks his release.

Roopesh, described by authorities as a Maoist ideologue, was arrested on May 4, 2015. Since then, he has faced over 40 UAPA cases across Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka. According to CASR, 13 of these were dismissed due to lack of proper legal sanction, while he was acquitted in at least one. His sole conviction was in a 2014 case from Kerala's Wayanad district, for which he was sentenced to 10 years — a term that concluded this year.

Despite securing bail in all other pending cases and paying court-imposed fines, CASR alleges that authorities recently invoked an unresolved case from 2012 that had not been actively pursued in the years since Roopesh's arrest. The group contends that this case was not cited at the time of his 2015 arrest, nor during the intervening judicial proceedings, and that no new evidence has emerged.

In its statement, CASR also referred to the Kerala High Court’s 2022 judgment, which quashed three cases against Roopesh, citing procedural delays in obtaining state sanction under UAPA provisions. The court held that the timeline for sanction under Section 45 of UAPA was “mandatory and sacrosanct,” and found the delays unjustified.

CASR further claimed that Roopesh had not been granted parole during his incarceration — even during family emergencies such as the death of his father or his daughter's wedding. A request to publish a manuscript written in prison was also allegedly denied without specific justification. Roopesh subsequently went on a hunger strike, which reportedly led to hospitalisation in May due to jaundice. Access to family members was also reportedly restricted during this period.

Citing constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 — equality before the law and the right to life and liberty — the statement questioned the legality of what it described as a pattern of administrative delays and procedural hurdles used to prolong Roopesh's detention.

Legal experts and civil rights observers have previously raised broader concerns about the use of UAPA, particularly regarding prolonged undertrial detention and delays in legal processing. CASR’s statement reiterates demands for Roopesh’s immediate release and the withdrawal of the 2012 Karnataka case.

There has been no official response yet from the Karnataka or central authorities regarding the status or reactivation of the 2012 case.