Two rules, one law — that is the pointed charge AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi levelled on Friday, 25 September 2026, drawing a stark contrast between the decade-long pre-trial detention ordinary Indian citizens endure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and what he framed as preferential intervention secured by Sergio Gor, a figure in American political circles.

Owaisi wrote: 'Sergio Gor decides who should be charge-sheeted under UAPA. Indian citizens can languish in jail for 9 to 10 years under UAPA as they don't have Sergio Gor to …… JAI HIND.' The ellipsis was deliberate — a rhetorical pause that says everything the sentence does not finish.

What UAPA's Bail Provisions Actually Do to an Accused

The UAPA, as amended in 2008 after the Mumbai attacks and again in 2019, introduced bail conditions so stringent that courts have routinely noted they amount to a near-presumption of guilt. Accused individuals can be held for up to 180 days without a charge-sheet, and even after one is filed, bail is typically denied unless the court is satisfied that the charges are 'prima facie' false — a threshold defence lawyers say is nearly impossible to clear mid-trial.

The result, documented in parliamentary records and civil liberties reports, is exactly what Owaisi describes: detentions stretching nine to ten years before any verdict. A significant proportion of those accused are from minority communities and marginalised groups, a pattern that opposition MPs — including Owaisi — have raised repeatedly in the Lok Sabha.

The Sergio Gor Reference and What It Implies

The research available does not allow NationPress to independently verify Sergio Gor's specific role in any UAPA matter in 2026. What is clear is the political logic of the comparison: Owaisi is arguing that access to powerful external advocates — foreign or domestic — can tilt outcomes under a law that is supposed to apply equally to all citizens. The implication is not subtle. If a name dropped in the right place can determine whether a charge-sheet is filed, the law has ceased to be a safeguard and become a lever.

For the Hyderabad MP, whose party has consistently opposed the UAPA's expansion and its application against activists and dissenters, the tweet is also a reminder of a structural asymmetry: those with political capital or international connections can navigate India's national-security architecture; those without it cannot.

A Recurring Fight in Parliament and Courts

The debate over UAPA misuse is not new, but it has sharpened since the 2019 amendments allowed the government to designate individuals — not just organisations — as terrorists without a court conviction. Civil liberties groups have challenged that provision in the Supreme Court. Opposition parties have tabled questions on charge-sheeting rates, acquittal ratios, and the demographic profile of the accused. The answers, when forthcoming, have fuelled precisely the kind of critique Owaisi is making.

The closing 'JAI HIND' is a patriotic sign-off — but read in context it carries an edge. It is a reminder that the people rotting in undertrial detention are, in Owaisi's framing, as Indian as anyone else, and entitled to the same constitutional protections.

India's supreme court is set to hear several high-profile UAPA bail matters in the coming months. The question Owaisi is asking — whether the law is applied equally — will be waiting in every courtroom that takes one up.