When Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam appeared in court flanked by some of India’s most powerful legal minds, a storm erupted far beyond the courtroom.
- Kapil Sibal.
- Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
- Salman Khurshid.
- Siddhartha Dave.
- Sidharth Luthra.
These names are usually reserved for billion-dollar corporate battles and constitutional crises — not for undertrial activists accused in highly sensitive national security cases. So a simple but explosive question has taken centre stage:
Who is paying for this legal firepower?
The Cost of Fighting the State
Senior advocates of this stature charge anywhere between ₹5 lakh to ₹25 lakh per hearing in complex matters, according to multiple legal industry sources. A prolonged case can cost several crores of rupees.
Neither Umar Khalid nor Sharjeel Imam are known to possess business empires or large personal fortunes. Yet their defence teams are among the most expensive in the country. That financial mismatch is what has triggered widespread suspicion.
The Invisible Network Behind High-Profile Defences
Investigations into politically sensitive cases across India have revealed a pattern:
When an accused becomes a “cause”, money starts flowing.
This usually happens through:
1. NGO-Driven Legal Defence Funds
Several civil-rights organisations raise money domestically and internationally to fight cases they label as “human rights battles.”
These funds are used to hire elite legal teams.
2. Online Crowdfunding Campaigns
Supporters across India and abroad donate through digital platforms. Small contributions from thousands of people quickly turn into massive legal war chests.
3. Pro-Bono Networks
Senior lawyers sometimes waive or reduce fees when cases are seen as ideological or political.
But insiders say not all hearings are free — large legal teams, research, drafting, and court filings cost serious money.
The Foreign Funding Question
India’s investigative agencies have, in several past cases, flagged activist-linked NGOs for receiving money from overseas donors under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
While there is no public proof that Khalid or Imam personally received foreign money, authorities have been examining whether organisations backing their legal defence had international funding links.
Also Read: Supreme Court Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi Riots Case
If any money has come through FCRA-registered organisations and was declared, it is legal. If money was routed secretly or through proxies, it becomes a serious criminal offence. That is where the real investigation lies.
Why These Lawyers Took the Cases
Senior advocates close to the matter say these cases are not just criminal trials — they are constitutional battles.
The lawyers argue they are defending:
- Free speech
- Due process
- Minority rights
- Protection from misuse of laws
In such cases, legal ideology often matters as much as money.
What Remains Unanswered
Despite the intense public debate, one crucial piece is still missing:
A transparent disclosure of who exactly is paying the bills.
No crowdfunding platform has released audited details.
No NGO has publicly declared the full legal expenditure.
No legal trust has revealed donor lists.
In high-profile cases affecting national security, this financial opacity continues to raise serious questions.
The Bigger Picture
The issue is no longer just about Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam. It is about whether political and ideological funding networks can secretly mobilise massive financial resources to fight the Indian state — without public accountability. Until the money trail becomes transparent, the controversy will not fade.