The signs of the rise of the Right are evident across Europe. In France, the National Rally, despite not winning a majority in the end, became a key party in France winning 142 seats out of the National Assembly’s 577 seats. In January 2025, Jean-Marie Le Pen, one of Europe’s most prominent right-wing figures and founder of the National Rally, died aged 96. His daughter, Marine Le Pen, had long led the party he founded in 1972—the National Front (renamed National Rally in 2018). Jean-Marie was expelled from his party in August 2015 amidst a feud with his daughter.

In the National Front’s early days, Jean-Marie Le Pen was a pariah, his radical views on immigration and nationalism relegating him to France’s political fringes. His first presidential bid in 1974 garnered less than 1% of the vote, highlighting his marginal status at the time. In stark contrast, the 2002 election marked a significant leap for Le Pen, as he secured over 15% of the votes in the first round, propelling him into the second round against Jacques Chirac. This dramatic increase in support underscored the growing influence of his far-right ideology and the National Front’s rise from the political fringes to a major force in French politics.

Marine Le Pen transformed the party into a major force, renaming it National Rally to shed its racist and anti-Semitic associations. She softened its rhetoric, distanced it from her father’s extremist views, and rebranded it as a mainstream alternative. This “de-demonization” strategy enabled electoral breakthroughs. The journey from Jean-Marie’s early irrelevance to Marine’s mainstreaming of far-right ideology encapsulates this article’s theme: the rise of far-right movements in Europe, their evolution from marginal to influential players, and the disruptions they pose to the existing world order.

Historical Context

The rise of far-right movements was shaped by socio-economic anxieties, cultural shifts, and political opportunities. Post-war Western Europe experienced economic growth, wealth distribution, and social stability, but as this stability eroded, right-wing extremism and populism found new openings. Immigration, national identity, and sovereignty became central issues for far-right mobilization. The 1973 oil crisis marked the end of post-WWII prosperity, fuelling discontent. Rising opposition to the welfare state, and tax systems, and increased xenophobia amid non-European immigration further accelerated this trend.

Global Catalysts

Several world events reinforced far-right expansion. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 heightened anxieties over national identity and border security. Globalization caused economic disruptions, leaving many feelings marginalized. The rise of multiculturalism and the perceived decline of traditional values triggered a cultural backlash, which far-right movements exploited. These factors deepened insecurity and alienation, making certain segments of the population receptive to far-right rhetoric. It is within these conditions we find homophobia, racism, etc. today in Europe.

National Variations

The far right rose differently across Europe. In Germany, reunification in 1990 created economic and social strains, which the extreme right leveraged. In Austria, Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party (FPÖ) gained influence, entering government in 2000. In France, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front capitalized on economic discontent and anti-immigrant sentiment. These cases illustrate how far-right movements adapted to specific national contexts, exploiting existing grievances to reshape political landscapes.

Current Political Landscape

The contemporary rise of far-right parties across Europe is marked by significant electoral gains and increased visibility. In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has emerged as a dominant nationalist force. Recently, speaking at the United States’ Conservative Political Action Conference, she criticized what she saw as a double standard, noting that when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair built a global left-liberal network in the 1990s, they were hailed as statesmen, whereas figures like Trump, Meloni, Milei (Argentina’s President), and possibly Modi are now labelled as threats to democracy. Giorgia Meloni is arguably the most prominent face of the right-wing conservative parties in Europe although she has been described by some as pragmatic and shrewd in her politics.

In Germany, the AfD has become the second-largest party, capitalizing on economic grievances and anti-immigrant sentiments. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has embraced far-right policies, consolidating power through nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. And in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally continues to challenge mainstream parties.

Frustration with the welfare state and tax policies, perceived as excessive, has further driven national populism. The failure of centrist parties to address these concerns has created a political vacuum that far-right movements exploit.

Cultural and social factors also play a key role. The 2015 migration crisis intensified fears of cultural displacement and strengthened anti-immigrant sentiments. Many national populist voters seek to reassert national identity, viewing globalization and international institutions as threats to their communities and traditions.

Political factors further enable the rise of the far right. The erosion of liberal and social democratic traditions has weakened centrist alternatives, while anti-establishment sentiment and political distrust push voters toward radical right-wing populism. Crises—whether economic, social, or security-related—provide fertile ground for far-right movements, which thrive on instability, inequality, and mistrust of mainstream politicians.

Understanding the reasons for the rise of Right

Gramscian hegemony provides a lens through which we can view the rise of the far-right as a challenge to the established cultural and political dominance of centrist ideologies. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist, argued that hegemony is the process by which a dominant group maintains its power not just through coercion, but also through consent. This consent is achieved through cultural and ideological means, making the dominant group’s worldview seem natural and inevitable.

In the context of contemporary Europe, the far-right can be seen as a counter-hegemonic force. They challenge the hegemonic narratives of centrist ideologies, which have long dominated European politics. By questioning the established order and offering alternative visions, far-right movements tap into the frustrations and grievances of segments of the population who feel marginalized or ignored by mainstream politics.

The neoliberal backlash theory suggests that the economic policies of the past few decades have created conditions ripe for far-right populism. Neoliberalism, characterized by free-market policies, deregulation, and reduced government intervention, has led to increased economic inequality and job insecurity. These economic conditions have driven voters to seek alternative solutions, making them more susceptible to the messages of far-right parties.

Far-right movements often capitalize on these economic anxieties by promising to restore economic stability and national pride. They appeal to voters who feel left behind by globalization and economic liberalization, offering a narrative that blames external forces and marginalized groups for their economic hardships.

Empirical research supports these theoretical perspectives. For instance, studies have shown that economic inequality and job insecurity are significant predictors of support for far-right parties.[1] Additionally, qualitative and quantitative analyses of right-wing populist groups across various European countries reveal common themes of anti-immigration sentiment, nationalism, and a rejection of the political establishment.[2]

The formation of the European Union (EU) has had a profound impact on cultural nationalism in Europe. The EU was designed to foster economic and political integration, creating a unified European identity. However, this process has also led to a sense of cultural homogenization, where local traditions and identities are sometimes overshadowed by a broader European culture. This has created a tension between the desire for a unified Europe and the need to preserve national and regional cultural identities.

Eurocentrism and Cultural Nationalism

The dominance of homogenized Western culture, particularly American influence, has further complicated the cultural landscape in Europe. The spread of Western media and multinational corporations has led to concerns about cultural erosion and the dilution of local traditions. This has fuelled a backlash against globalization and has provided fertile ground for cultural nationalist movements. These movements often position themselves as defenders of national identity against external influences, appealing to those who feel their cultural heritage is under threat.

The Rise of Right-Wing Political Parties

The rise of right-wing political parties in Europe can be seen as a response to these cultural and economic anxieties. These parties often capitalize on fears of cultural erosion and economic insecurity, promising to restore national pride and protect traditional values. For example, the refugee crisis in Europe, which brought over a million asylum seekers to Germany between 2015 and 2016, amplified fears of cultural and economic instability, leading to the rise of nationalist parties like Alternative for Germany (AfD). Similar anxieties have driven support for right-wing movements in Scandinavia, where concerns over immigration and cultural identity have surged.

What happened to the Left in Europe?

The European left has declined due to economic shifts, internal divisions, and cultural nationalism. Once dominant, left-wing parties have lost their traditional working-class base, leading to fragmentation between social democrats and progressives. Economic changes, such as the decline of industrial jobs and the rise of precarious labour, have weakened solidarity, while concerns over immigration and national identity have further eroded leftist appeal. Many voters see left-wing parties as ineffective in addressing these issues, fuelling distrust in their leadership.

Right-wing nationalism has surged by capitalizing on cultural anxieties, emphasizing sovereignty, and positioning itself as a defender of national identity. Left-wing parties struggle to counter this narrative, as their focus on economic justice and globalization often overlooks cultural concerns. While some resistance exists—seen in Portugal’s socialist government, Sweden’s centrist-left coalition against the far right, and Italian opposition to Giorgia Meloni—these efforts remain limited.

More recently—in the German elections—while AfD fared well, the Left Party also improved its performance by securing more than 8% of the vote. Although it is lesser than the AfD or the Conservatives, 25% of the young population between the ages of 18-24 voted for the Left Party in Germany. This shows a polarised electorate and indicates that the younger population’s support is up for grabs if the left can put efforts to secure it.

Implications of the Right’s Rise in the EU

The global rise of far-right movements challenges the post-WWII liberal order, undermining cooperation, human rights, and democratic norms. Nationalist policies promote protectionism and isolationism, weakening international institutions and efforts to address global issues like climate change. In Germany, the AfD’s opposition to climate action threatens international agreements. These risks create a fragmented world order where unity and global cooperation become increasingly difficult.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite their gains, far-right movements face several challenges. Electoral volatility is a significant factor, as their support can be fickle, often tied to specific issues or crises. Policy implementation is another hurdle, as the far-right’s radical proposals often face resistance from established institutions and the broader electorate. Additionally, shifting demographics, particularly the increasing diversity of European societies, may limit their long-term appeal.

Conclusion

The rise of the far-right in Europe is a complex phenomenon, rooted in historical grievances, economic anxieties, and cultural concerns. The rise of far-right movements in Europe is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a global tide of right-wing nationalism. From India to Argentina and the United States, right-wing parties are forming transnational networks to amplify their influence. Examples include Elon Musk’s support for Germany’s far-right AfD, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s appearance at the U.S. Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where she framed herself as part of a global conservative coalition alongside figures like Donald Trump and Narendra Modi. These alliances reflect a strategic effort to legitimize far-right ideologies on the global stage.

Yet, the challenges facing these right-wing coalitions are significant. Their agendas—marked by climate denialism, opposition to immigration, and scepticism toward international cooperation—often clash with urgent global priorities like poverty alleviation and climate action. As scholars like Thomas Piketty have argued, there is a general movement in the world toward more equality and social change. Indeed, the internal contradictions within right-wing movements—such as tensions between economic liberalism and cultural nationalism—may limit their long-term viability.

Moreover, the far right’s reliance on fear and division risks alienating broader electorates, particularly as demographic shifts and civil society resistance intensify. While these parties may temporarily capitalize on instability, their inability to address systemic issues like climate change or inequality without undermining their core ideologies suggests their dominance could be short-lived. As history shows, movements built on exclusion rarely sustain themselves in an interconnected world. The future may yet belong to coalitions that prioritize inclusivity, equity, and global cooperation.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

[1] Gagatek, W. (n.d.). Explaining the Rise of the Radical Right in Europe 2. [online] Available at: https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Martens-Centre-Policy-Brief.pdf.

[2] Wodak, R., KhosraviNik, M. and Mral, B., 2013. Right-wing populism in Europe: Politics and discourse (p. 179). Bloomsbury Academic.

The post The Rise of the Far-Right in Europe: From margins to mainstream appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Escalation of protests

On February 25, the protests reached a boiling point when authorities, under heavy police security and the imposition of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), initiated a land survey for the construction of a road connecting to the proposed port. Anticipating resistance, the district administration enforced prohibitory orders from 6 AM to 9 PM, preventing public gatherings. However, this move only fuelled the outrage, with schoolchildren and entire families joining the protests.

Determined to halt the survey work, hundreds of fishermen, including women and elderly members of the community, gathered at the shore in Kasarkod and staged a sit-in protest. The situation took a dramatic turn when over 50 protestors, including several women, waded into the sea, threatening mass suicide. Three women lost consciousness due to heat exhaustion and were rushed to hospitals, with one requiring critical care at Manipal Hospital.

Amidst the chaos, police detained more than a hundred protestors, including key leaders of the fishing community, accusing them of violating prohibitory orders. The arrests further enraged the demonstrators, who warned of escalating their protests unless their fellow protestors were released. In a show of solidarity, a young girl left a note threatening to jump into the sea, holding the state’s Fisheries Minister, Mankal Vaidya, accountable for the distress inflicted upon the fishing community.

1 of 5

State repression and suppression of dissent

Rather than addressing the genuine grievances of the community, the Karnataka government and district administration have reportedly resorted to heavy-handed measures to quell the protests. The imposition of prohibitory orders was a clear attempt to suppress dissent and create a hostile environment where the voices of the fishermen could be stifled. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, the state deployed a large police force to intimidate the protestors, using arbitrary arrests and excessive force to disperse the gatherings.

The police crackdown was marked by signs of brutality and disregard for basic human rights. Protestors were forcibly dragged away, shoved into police buses, and detained without proper justification. Reports indicate that some were denied access to legal aid and held in custody for extended hours without clear charges. The authorities’ decision to conduct overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media further demonstrates their intent to silence any opposition to the port project.

The betrayal by Fisheries Minister Mankal Vaidya has only deepened the outrage. Once a vocal opponent of the port under the previous BJP administration, he has now aligned himself with corporate interests, disregarding the very people he once promised to protect. His refusal to intervene meaningfully, despite multiple pleas from the fishing community, has fueled accusations of political opportunism and abandonment of his responsibilities.

Devastating impact on livelihoods

For the 6,000 families that depend on fishing as their primary source of income, the construction of the port represents an existential threat. Fishermen argue that the project will destroy crucial fishing zones, disrupt marine biodiversity, and render many of them jobless. Additionally, the planned four-lane road leading to the port has already displaced local vendors and affected small-scale businesses tied to the dried-fish industry. The community fears that further infrastructure development, including a railway line, could lead to mass displacement of around 600 families, stripping them of their ancestral lands and livelihoods.

The destruction of olive ridley turtle nesting sites is another critical concern. The coast of Kasarkod is an ecologically sensitive area, home to annual nesting of these critically endangered sea turtles. Despite documented evidence of nesting activity, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a fishermen-led petition in 2021, citing a flawed report from the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), which failed to account for the nesting season. Activists argue that the government and the courts have colluded to ignore environmental regulations in favour of corporate interests.

Legal and political setbacks

Efforts to halt the port project through legal channels have met repeated setbacks. In addition to the Karnataka High Court ruling, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) rejected a petition challenging the construction of the four-kilometer-long road on the grounds that it violated Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. Despite mounting evidence of environmental violations, authorities continue to push ahead with the project, disregarding the legitimate concerns of the local community.

The district administration’s use of excessive force to suppress the protest has further deepened the mistrust between the government and the fishing community. Reports suggest that police conducted overnight raids in search of protestors who had spoken to the media, raising concerns about the state’s attempts to silence dissent. The deployment of heavy security forces, including riot police, to facilitate the survey indicates that the state sees its own citizens as obstacles rather than stakeholders in development.

A community’s unwavering resistance

Despite facing repeated crackdowns, legal hurdles, and betrayals by their own representatives, the fishermen of Honnavar refuse to back down. Their struggle has become emblematic of the broader fight against unchecked industrial expansion at the cost of local communities and ecological sustainability. Fishermen leaders have vowed to continue their resistance until the port project is scrapped entirely.

The protests at Kasarkod are not just about a single infrastructure project; they represent a larger battle against corporate encroachment, environmental destruction, and the marginalisation of traditional coastal communities. The state’s heavy-handed approach, marked by repression and disregard for public sentiment, has only strengthened the resolve of the protestors. As the confrontation between the fisherfolk and the government intensifies, it remains to be seen whether the authorities will acknowledge the voices of the people or continue to prioritise industrial interests at their expense.

Related:

Displaced and denied the right to fish, Muslim fishermen in Gujarat now prevented from voting

Duty of GOI to ensure that innocent fishermen are not punished: SC

TN: Samsung Workers Continue Protest, Accuse Management of Vindictive Action

The post K’taka: fisher-folk take to the sea in defiance of Honnavar port project appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Where is justice lost…what happened in these five years? Many innocents are still behind bars and many accused are still roaming free. One of them has even become an MLA and minister on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket.

Five years ago, between February 23 and February 26, 2020, a conspiracy was hatched to light a communal fire in Delhi. The north-eastern part of the capital city was made the target of this attack.

About 53 people lost their lives in this communal violence. Hundreds were injured. There was huge loss of life and property in the violence that lasted for four days. Many houses and shops were burnt to ashes.

In common parlance, we call this a ‘riot’, but if the right words are used, it was an attack. A revenge against the Shaheen Bagh movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act or CAA. Statistics testify this.

Delhi Police figures say that among those killed, 40 were Muslims and 13 were Hindus.

Unfortunately, the government and the mainstream media largely reported one-sided stories and blamed the Muslim community for this violence. This is what is being propagated even today.

As per the Special Cell and Crime Branch of Delhi Police, there was a “deep conspiracy” behind the Delhi riots, the “foundation of which was laid” during the anti-CAA and NRC protests in 2019.

This conspiracy has been mentioned in case number 59/2020. Delhi Police considers former JNU student leader, Umar Khalid, as the “mastermind” of the Delhi violence.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad has argued that the violence was part of a conspiracy to create trouble during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.

The violence started in Jaffrabad in North East Delhi, where women were staging a sit-in protest against the CAA on the Seelampur-Jaffrabad-Maujpur Road.

At that time, the freshly minted BJP leader, Kapil Mishra (who had switched over from the Aam Aadmi Party), called upon Delhi Police to clear the streets, and threatening to do so himself with the help of his supporters. It is after this that the violence broke out.

Recall that despite all their efforts, BJP had badly lost in the Assembly elections held in February 2020.  Many analysts say that the stunning defeat had flustered BJP. (This year that defeat has been avenged. After 27 years, BJP has once again come to power in Delhi with full majority.)

The backdrop of the communal violence had already been created, but ultimately it is innocent people who became its victims.

In 2022, four former judges and a former Home Secretary had released a fact-finding report on the reality of the Delhi violence. The report had raised serious questions on the investigation by Delhi Police. Also, strong comments were made on the role of Union Home Ministry, Delhi government and the media.

The fact-finding report also found that speeches made by BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra had also played a role in instigating people, which led to the violence.

Social activist Harsh Mander had even filed a petition in Delhi’s Patiala Court saying that an FIR should be registered against Kapil Mishra. This petition is still pending in the court.

Notably, in July 2020, Delhi Police had told the Delhi High Court that no evidence had been found against Kapil Mishra and other BJP leaders’ speeches having instigated the violence.

The same Kapil Mishra has now become an MLA and minister by contesting the recent Delhi Assembly elections from Karawal Nagar on a BJP ticket. But there is no discussion in the media about his role in the 2020 communal violence.

According to various media reports, the police have registered a total of 758 FIRs related to the violence.

Some reports published in 2024 said a total of 2,619 people had been arrested, out of which 2,094 people are out on bail.

The court has so far found only 47 people guilty and has acquitted 183 people. Cases against 75 people have been dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Delhi Police has so far arrested at least 24 people, of which 10 have been released on bail in the case of Head Constable Ratan Lal, who was killed in the line of duty during the Delhi violence.

Also, the 11 accused arrested in the murder case of Ankit Sharma, who worked in the Intelligence Bureau, are still in jail. Sharma’s body was found in a drain in Chand Bagh on February 26, 2020.

Notably, the fact-finding report has put its finger on  another accused in the Delhi violence —  Delhi Police. Questions have been raised on the role of Delhi Police in allowing these riots to happen and for inaction and delay in stopping the violence. Besides, Delhi Police have also been accused on brutalities.

Hearing in a case related to the Delhi riots in September 2024, a court had acquitted 10 accused persons, raising questions on the ‘theory’ of Delhi Police. All the accused belonged to the Muslim community. They were accused of attacking a house and a shop in Gokulpuri police station area of ​​North East Delhi.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramchala of Delhi’s Karkardooma Court had said that “suspicions over the allegations against the accused are not beyond doubt.”

During these four-five years, there were many such occasions during the hearing in the court, when the court made harsh remarks on the Delhi Police and described the level of their investigation as poor.

In August, 2023, while hearing the arrest of three people in the case of rioting in FIR No. 71/20 case of Dayalpur Police Station, Karkaduma Court had commented that the incidents had not been properly and completely investigated. It noted that the charge sheet in the case had been filed with prejudice in a bid to hide the mistakes made in the beginning.

Because of this kind of investigation and attitude of the police, many youth are still languishing in jail.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Delhi riots accused Gulfisha Fatima, but asked the Delhi High Court to hear her bail petition soon. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gulfisha, had said that she had been in jail for four years, and her bail petition had been pending in the High Court for a long time.

Earlier, on October 25, 2024, the Supreme Court had given a similar order in the case of another riot accused, Sharjeel Imam.

However, in March 2022 itself, councillor Ishrat Jahan, an accused in the violence, got bail. She was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

The bail petition was filed in the court on behalf of former Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan, which said that the police did not have a single evidence against her.

Earlier, in June 2021, Delhi High Court had granted bail to Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were arrested under UAPA Sections on charges of rioting.

At that time the High Court had said that giving inciting speeches or blocking roads is not unusual when there is widespread opposition to the actions of the government and Parliament. Even if we assume that the alleged inflammatory speeches, ‘chakka jam’, inciting women to protest and other acts, even if these violate the limits of the right to peaceful protest given in the Constitution, the act cannot be termed as a terrorist act, its conspiracy or its preparation.

Alas, Umar Khalid did not get bail or such comments.

Delhi Police’s Special Cell and Crime Branch consider Khalid to be the ‘mastermind’ of the Delhi violence. He has been in jail since September 2020. He has been charged with terrorism, rioting and criminal conspiracy under UAPA. The trial in this case has not started yet.

Umar Khalid’s bail plea has been rejected twice by two different courts, and hearings on his case have been adjourned umpteen times.

Khalid’s bail plea remained pending in the Supreme Court from May 2023 to January 2024, but the debate on it could not be started even once. After this, he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court and went back to the trial court.

On February 20, 2025, Khalid’s bail plea was heard in the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, his lawyer told the HC that merely being a member of a WhatsApp group was not evidence of involvement in any crime.

His lawyer Trideep Pais told the court that Khalid had been in custody as an undertrial for a long time. He said that the delay in the trial was also a reason due to which Khalid should get bail. The senior advocate argued that on the basis of equality with the four accused in this case who have been granted bail, Khalid should also be granted bail.

The bench headed by Justice Naveen Chawla has now ordered the next hearing on Khalid’s bail plea on March 4.

So, if we look at how justice has progressed in these five years, it can be said that while one set of accused —  Umar Khalid or Gulfisha or Sharjeel Imam — has not got bail yet, And one of the accused (although Delhi Police does not consider him an accused) Kapil Mishra has become an MLA and the Law and Justice Minister in the Delhi government. Along with this, he has got charge of Development, Art and Culture Department, Language Department, Tourism Department, Labour Department and Employment Department.

The session of the new Delhi Assembly has started. It would be fitting if a report on the progress of investigation in Delhi riots is tabled so that the country knows what the police under Home Minister Amit Shah did for justice in these five years.

(Translated from the original article published on Newsclick’s Hindi website)

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post 5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed his journalistic work on displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged state excesses, which many believe led to his prosecution as an act of state repression against dissenting voices.

Singh was initially not named in the FIR but was later implicated based on alleged digital evidence obtained from co-accused individuals. His previous encounters with the authorities include a 2019 arrest under similar charges, where he was eventually released on default bail due to the failure of the police to file a chargesheet in time. His arrest came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, raising concerns over state surveillance and retaliation against critical journalism.

His case mirrors a broader crackdown on journalists, activists, and human rights defenders under UAPA. Notably, student leader Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi and Gulfishan Fatima remain behind bars as under trials and Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist, died in jail while facing questionable UAPA charges. These instances reflect a growing trend of using stringent anti-terror laws to silence dissent.

The United Nations Human Rights Office has also expressed concern over the misuse of UAPA in India, urging the government to review its application and ensure that it is not being used to target dissenting voices. The UN specifically called for the dropping of charges against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who were prosecuted under UAPA for their comments on Kashmir.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The order may be read here:

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in such sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Application of UAPA’s stringent bail provisions:

• The High Court and Supreme Court relied on Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true.” The threshold for bail under UAPA is significantly higher than in regular criminal cases
• The courts have interpreted “prima facie true” broadly, often placing the burden of proof on the accused, rather than requiring the prosecution to demonstrate substantial evidence at the bail stage.

2. Lack of independent evidence against Singh:

The primary evidence against Singh appears to be electronic data allegedly recovered from an SSD card seized from a co-accused. His defence argues that:

• No direct incriminating evidence was found from Singh’s residence or personal devices.
• The alleged videos and photographs are inconclusive in proving any criminal intent or Maoist affiliation.
• Digital evidence can be easily manipulated, and its authenticity should be scrutinized before being treated as conclusive proof.

Violation of fundamental rights:

• Singh’s arrest and prolonged detention raise concerns under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have highlighted Singh’s case as an example of state-led suppression of press freedom
• His prosecution under UAPA fits a pattern of using anti-terror laws to target activists, journalists, and dissidents.

A slew of judgements of the constitutional courts analysed by our team below illustrate how bail under this draconian counter-terror law has been addressed. Before this, in 2020, our team had analysed how various courts dealt with the issue of bail under the stringent UAPA. That legal resource may be read here.

Precedents

Observations of the Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) clarified the necessity of an independent judicial assessment in bail matters under the UAPA. The Court observed that:

1. Mere membership in a banned organisation does not amount to criminal activity: The Court ruled that the prosecution must establish a direct and substantial connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities. A person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of association.

On plain reading of Section 38, the offence punishable therein will be attracted if the accused associates himself or professes to associate himself with a terrorist organisation included in First Schedule with intention to further its activities. In such a case, he commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation covered by Section 38. The person committing an offence under Section 38 may be a member of a terrorist organization or he may not be a member. If the accused is a member of terrorist organisation which indulges in terrorist act covered by Section 15, stringent offence under Section 20 may be attracted. If the accused is associated with a terrorist organisation, the offence punishable under Section 38 relating to membership of a terrorist organisation is attracted only if he associates with terrorist organisation or professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The association must be with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. The activity has to be in connection with terrorist act as defined in Section 15. Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that if a person charged with the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 proves that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation during the period in which the name of the organisation is included in the First Schedule, the offence relating to the membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) of Section 38 will not be attracted. The aforesaid clause (b) can be a defence of the accused. However, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, we are not concerned with the defence of the accused. (Para 13)

2. Independent judicial scrutiny is essential: Courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s claims under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA. The judiciary must conduct a thorough review of the material evidence before concluding that the allegations are “prima facie true.”

“..By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise..” (Para 21)

3. The Court emphasised that the offences under Sections 38 and 39 require mens rea (guilty intent). Mere association or possession of Maoist literature does not satisfy the requirement of intention unless there is active participation or acts showing furtherance of terrorist activities.

“Thus, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of associating or  professing to be associated with the terrorist organisation and the offence relating to supporting a terrorist organisation under Section 39 will not be attracted unless the acts specified in both the Sections are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. To that extent, the requirement of mens rea is involved. Thus, mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.” (Para 15)

4. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite the strict conditions in UAPA, especially when prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights. The accused had already been in custody for over 570 days, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court restored the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused.

“As held in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the stringent restrictions imposed by sub-section(5) of Section 43D, do not negate the power of Constitutional Court to grant bail keeping in mind violation of Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the accused no. 1 is taking treatment for a psychological disorder. The accused no. 1 is a student of law. Moreover, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Even assuming that some of the witnesses may be dropped at the time of trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time as even charges have not been framed. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act and the punishment can extend to 10 years or only fine or with both. Hence, depending upon the evidence on record and after consideration of relevant factors, the accused can be let off even on fine. As regards the offence under Section 13 alleged against accused no. 2, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment of 5 years or with fine or with both. The accused no. 2 has been in custody for more than 570 days.” (Para 42)

The judgement in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) may be read here:

Observations in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

1. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. The prosecution intends to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial uncertain.

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: 

(i)  The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; 

(ii)  Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and 

(iii)  As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.” (Para 7)

2. The court emphasized that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”  (Para 8)

3. The appellant remains an accused, not a convict.  The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be ignored.

“We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” (Para 20)

4. The court noted that jails are overcrowded, and undertrial prisoners suffer due to delayed trials. It referred to Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 311), highlighting that prolonged incarceration has severe social and psychological consequences. (Para 14)

5. The court referred to Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which mandates that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

“The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.” (Para 15)

6. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the court held that statutory restrictions on bail (like UAPA’s Section 43-D (5)) cannot override constitutional rights. The court reiterated that when trials are excessively delayed, bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence. (Para 16)

7. The judgment noted that criminals are made, not born, and the criminal justice system should consider social and economic factors that may influence crime. The court emphasized that justice should be tempered with humanity, quoting the principle that “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.”

“Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” (Para 18)

The judgement in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022)

1. The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial for almost 8 years (since 08.05.2014). Only 6 out of 109 witnesses had been examined so far, indicating an unreasonably delayed trial. The trial court estimated that the case might take 2-3 more years for completion.
2. The Supreme Court had directed priority examination of three prosecution witnesses who had raised concerns about threats to their lives.

Among these witnesses: One (Devendra Patel) was declared hostile. The other two (Hemant and Pappuram) did not provide any deposition implicating the appellant. The State’s case was largely based on the appellant’s alleged communication (31 conversations) with a co-villager, who was accused of being a sleeper cell module head of the Indian Mujahideen.
“We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis.” (Para 8)

3. The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration. It noted that UAPA’s bail restrictions (Section 43D (5)) are comparatively less stringent than NDPS Act provisions, which demand a prima facie case of innocence before granting bail. (Para 12)

4. One co-accused, Adil Ansari, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2020. The State argued that the role of the appellant was different, but the court acknowledged this factor in deciding bail.

“No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said accused is different.” (Para 13)

5. The impugned High Court order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The judgment made it clear that these observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.

The judgement in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022) may be read here:

Observations in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

1. The Court noted that 12 out of 14 accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The number of prosecution witnesses had been reduced from 114 to 100, and only 40 witnesses had been examined so far.

Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020. (Para 5)

This ruling highlights the importance of parity in bail matters, considering that a majority of the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged trial delay was a factor in the decision.

The judgement in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024)

1. The charge sheet did not contain specific material proving that the appellant participated in, abetted, or incited unlawful activities or terrorist acts. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organization under the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA.

“We may note here that, assuming that the appellant knew that co- accused Athar Parvez was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Moreover, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show any connection of the appellant with PFI before letting out first floor premises to accused no.1.” (Para 6)

2. The Court found that the statement of a protected witness (Z) had been misrepresented in the charge sheet, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

“Thus, paragraph 17.16 purports to reproduce the statement of protected witness Z. In terms of our earlier order, the translated version of the statement of protected witness Z, recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has been produced in a sealed envelope. We find that the statement substantially differs from what is narrated in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet.” (Para 10)

3. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, emphasizing that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, bail should not be denied when statutory conditions are met.

“…when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail..”  (Para 21)

4. The Court held that unjustly denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.” (Para 21)

The judgement in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Yedala v. State (2024)

The case was related to the murder of two politicians by members of the CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against 79 accused. The appellants had been in custody for over four years and seven months without the framing of charges.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. After analysing the entire prosecution case, the court concluded that there was no strong material linking the accused to the crime. Since the prima facie case was weak, the statutory bar on bail under UAPA did not apply.

“…Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to sub section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations.” (Para 21)  

The judgement in Yedala v. State (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an accused is not entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. However, upon scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it was found that the primary accusation against the appellant was that he paid levy/extortion money to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court held that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding.

A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization ((Para 11 (A))

2. The Court noted that the charge sheet alleged that other accused persons, who were members of the terrorist organization, had been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in the Amrapali and Magadh areas. The appellant was in the business of coal transportation in that region and had made payments under duress. It could not be said prima facie that the appellant conspired with the other members of TPC or raised funds to promote the organization.

“…It is alleged in the second supplementary charge- sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization.” ((Para 11 (A))

3. The prosecution argued that the appellant had been in constant touch with members of the terrorist group. The Court noted that the appellant had stated in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he was summoned to meet A-14 and other members in connection with the payments. The Court held that merely meeting the members of TPC, without further evidence of conspiracy, does not establish a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy.

“Another factor taken into account by the Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation of the Appellant meeting the members of the terror organization. It has been held by the High Court that the Appellant has been in constant touch with the other accused. The Appellant has revealed in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.”((Para 11 (B)))

4. The Court referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, which set the parameters for granting bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. The Court held that while prima facie satisfaction of allegations is sufficient to deny bail under UAPA, in this case, the material did not meet the threshold to establish a clear case against the appellant.

“After a detailed examination of the contentions of the parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial.” ((Para 12))

The judgement in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021may be read here:

Singh’s case underscores the precarious state of press freedom and the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA matters. While national security concerns must be addressed, an overbroad application of UAPA risks eroding fundamental rights. The denial of bail in Singh’s case, despite the legal precedents favouring a more balanced approach, raises significant questions about the selective and inconsistent application of UAPA laws. The courts must ensure that stringent bail conditions do not serve as a mechanism for prolonged incarceration without trial, which contradicts the very principles of justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related: 

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

Petitions challenging stringent provisions of UAPA to be heard by the SC

The post SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister MK Stalin’s fiery response to the NEP, which he claims will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years,’ reflects the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenize education across India.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Tamil Nadu’s long-standing resistance to Hindi imposition

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi imposition is deeply entrenched in its socio-political fabric. The anti-Hindi movement in the state has a long and vibrant history, beginning as early as 1937, when the C. Rajagopalachari-led Congress government in the Madras Presidency attempted to introduce Hindi in schools. This triggered a massive outcry, leading to widespread protests by students, teachers, and political leaders who saw this as an attempt to undermine Tamil language and culture

The language protests reached a boiling point in 1965 when the Indian government attempted to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language of the country. Students, intellectuals, and political leaders took to the streets, culminating in violent protests that ultimately forced the Centre to relent and retain English as an associate official language alongside Hindi. These events cemented Tamil Nadu’s defiant stance against linguistic imperialism.

Nehru’s 1959 promise and the betrayal

In the wake of these protests, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1959, assured the people of Tamil Nadu that English would continue as an official language for as long as non-Hindi speaking states wanted it. However, successive governments have tried to renege on this promise, subtly pushing Hindi through policies like NEP. The so-called three-language formula is nothing but a tool to coerce non-Hindi speakers into learning Hindi while Hindi-speaking states face no such compulsion to learn southern languages.

A flawed model: Hindi-speaking states lagging in education

The Centre’s argument that Hindi is necessary for national integration crumbles under scrutiny. Hindi-speaking states consistently perform poorly in education, employment, and economic indicators. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, the heartlands of Hindi, have some of the lowest literacy rates in the country, proving that Hindi is not a magic wand for progress. If anything, Tamil Nadu, which has refused to embrace Hindi, has done far better in education, employment, and social development.

The NEP and its assault on federalism

The NEP is not just about education; it is a direct attack on the federal structure of the Constitution. Education, which was originally in the State List, was forcibly moved to the Concurrent List in 1976, taking away states’ autonomy over a crucial subject. The NEP exacerbates this by allowing the Centre to dictate syllabi, control educational institutions, and impose a uniform framework that disregards regional languages and cultures. The Tamil Nadu government’s demand to restore education to the State List is, therefore, not just about resisting Hindi but about reclaiming constitutional federalism.

Succinct. Articulate. Objections to Bill both national and a federal, serious federal concern. This unikn govt is a hatchet regime rejecting the tenets of the Indian Constitution! @mkstalin https://t.co/2tyC8P3bU7

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 23, 2025

Mohan Bhagwat’s questionable advice to ‘ditch English’

Amid this policy battle, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has added fuel to the fire by advising Hindus to stop speaking English and embrace Indian languages instead. Ironically the RSS that claims itself to be a merely ‘cultural outfit’ is not simply the backbone of the three times elected Modi regime, but often wades in everything that is political.

Withholding funds: The centre’s strong-arm tactics

Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the NEP has led to the Union withholding Rs 2,150 crore in education funds, a clear act of coercion. This financial strangulation tactic is reminiscent of colonial-era policies where dissenting states were punished. The Union’s message is clear: ‘Implement our policies or face financial retribution.’ But Tamil Nadu is not one to bow down and its chief minister M.K. Stalin in fact said he is not ready to accept NEP even if centre offered Rs. 10,000 crores.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the NEP and Hindi imposition is not just about language—it is about protecting the rights of states, preserving linguistic diversity, and upholding the federal structure of India. The state has historically been at the forefront of social justice movements, and its current stand against NEP is another chapter in its fight against central overreach.

The Union must realise that a one-size-fits-all policy will never work in a country as diverse as India. Until then, Tamil Nadu will continue to resist, unyielding and unapologetic.

Related

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In context, the Court’s decision is a part of its ongoing investigation into genocide and crimes against humanity committed against the Rohingya in Myanmar from 2012 to 2018. Welcomed as an impartial and independent decision by international human rights organisations, this decision marks a critical moment in the long and challenging pursuit of justice for the Rohingya: This is the first time that arrest warrants have been ordered in relation to the Myanmar military’s genocide against the Rohingya in 2017.

A perusal of this order issuing arrest warrants show that they are not determinative of guilt or responsibility for these international crimes, but instead aim to summon the 25 named individuals to testify before the Court as part of its investigation. We believe these individuals will be treated in accordance with standards of international justice, including the affordance of due process and the opportunity to present evidence in their defence.

If these warrants are taken to their logical end, an impartial inquiry into justice and accountability, not only for the Rohingya but for all people of Myanmar, the Argentinian government has now been called upon to request Interpol to issue Red Notices for the 25 named individuals to initiate their extradition to Argentina.

Details of the suit under universal jurisdiction

Tomas Ojea Quintana is the human rights lawyer who served as U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar between 2008 and 2014. In this case, he has represented the Burmese Rohingya Organization U.K., which filed a case in an Argentine court in 2019 that allege genocide and crimes against humanity were committed by senior Myanmar military officials against Rohingya Muslims. An interview with him may be read here.

The arrest warrants were issued for those named in the suit including the de facto leader of the democratically-elected government, Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi was

Removed from power when the military took over the country in a 2021 coup and is reportedly under house arrest but the junta has not disclosed her exact location. Interestingly, the Argentine suit was filed under the principle of “universal jurisdiction” enshrined in Argentina’s constitution, which holds that some crimes are so heinous that alleged perpetrators thousands of miles away can be tried. The reasons why members of the now deposed civilian government are named in the suit because they were in charge of the government in 2017, and Aung San Suu Kyi defended the military’s actions in 2019 to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands. However, members of Myanmar’s shadow National Unity Government, made up of other leaders deposed by the coup and their allies, have requested that Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders be removed from the arrest warrant because the Rohingya could be unfairly blamed for adding a blemish to the reputation of Myanmar’s most popular political figure. But Quintana said the court decided that she and the others must be included to show that the court is impartial. 

Independent International Fact-Finding Report, 2018, UN response

A report by the United Nations in September 2018 severely indicted the Myamar military on the mass persecution of the Rohingyas. The present development therefore follows the release of a report into the circumstances surrounding the mass exodus of more than 700,000 Rohingya people from Myanmar, beginning in mid-August 2017 – events previously described by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

The crimes committed include murder, rape, torture, sexual slavery, persecution and enslavement, according to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar.

Speaking to journalists in Geneva, the investigators – Marzuki Darusman, Radhika Coomaraswamy and Christopher Sidoti – underlined the horrific and organised nature of the brutality meted out on civilians in Myanmar’s Rakhine state since 2011, as well as Kachin and Shan states. “The fact-finding Mission has concluded, on reasonable grounds, that the patterns of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law that it is found, amount to the gravest crime under international law,” Mr. Sidoti said.

“These have principally been committed by the military, the Tatmadaw,” he added, referring to Myanmar’s armed forces. “The Mission has concluded that criminal investigation and prosecution is warranted, focusing on the top Tatmadaw generals, in relation to the three categories of crimes under international law; genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

This case

According to the news available with the United Nations on this crucial matter affecting human rights, in November 2019, the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK filed a petition on behalf of Rohingya victims requesting the Argentinian courts to open an investigation into the role of Myanmar’s military and civilian leaders in committing genocide and crimes against humanity against the Rohingya. The details are available here. Two years later, on November 2021, an investigative judge of the Federal Criminal Court of Argentina commenced investigations, and in 2022, delegated investigative powers to the Federal Prosecutor’s office. Since then, the Mechanism has been assisting and sharing evidence with the Prosecutor’s office following a request for its support. In pursuance of the matter, last year, in June 2024, the Federal Prosecutor petitioned the Federal Criminal Court to issue 25 arrest warrants for 25 suspects from the Myanmar military, security forces and civilian government.  Thereafter, on February 13, 2025, the Federal Criminal Court ordered the arrest of these suspects. The arrests aim to bring the suspects before the court for a preliminary hearing, which is part of the investigative stage. The court may then decide whether to refer any suspects to trial on specific charges.

What is universal jurisdiction?

This principle means that some crimes are so serious in nature that a national court may, depending on their laws, prosecute alleged perpetrators even if there is no connection between the crime and that country. Based on universal jurisdiction, perpetrators of serious international crimes may be prosecuted by a national court irrespective of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. For more information, see the OHCHR website.

How does the Mechanism support universal jurisdiction cases?

The Mechanism has a mandate to support universal jurisdiction cases that concern serious international crimes committed in Myanmar through sharing evidence and analysis with relevant investigative, prosecutorial or judicial authorities, as long as the jurisdiction in question provides basic guarantees for a fair trial that meets international standards and cannot impose the death penalty. Since 2021, the Mechanism has been an Associate Member of the European Network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, also known as the European Genocide Network. This enables cooperation with national investigative and prosecutorial authorities across Europe and other jurisdictions.

Related developments

Turkey: In March 2022, the Myanmar Accountability Project submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office in Istanbul concerning crimes committed by the military following the coup. The Turkish authorities have yet to announce any response to the complaint.

Germany: In January 2023, 16 applicants from Myanmar, supported by the non-governmental organization Fortify Rights, submitted a criminal complaint to the Federal Public Prosecutor General of Germany against senior military officials and others. The Federal Prosecutor has rejected this complaint in September 2023.

Philippines: In October 2023, five victims and their families filed a joint criminal complaint before the National Prosecution Services in the Philippines alleging the commission of certain war crimes in Chin State, Myanmar, in 2021. The Philippines authorities have yet to announce its response to the complaint.

United Kingdom: The Counter Terrorism Command of the UK Metropolitan Police has opened structural investigations for each of the situations under investigation by the International Criminal Court, which includes Bangladesh/Myanmar. This means that the case is ongoing, under investigation and they are identifying potential witnesses and examining the alleged crimes.

Related:

Killing by Hunger: Rohingya Muslims starved after Cyclone Mocha in Rakhine state, UN denied access: Myanmar

Cut in WFP funding threatens Rohingyas with hunger, deprivation: Bangladesh

Rohingyas sue Facebook for $150 billion over failing to police communal hate speech

The post Rohingya Genocide 2012-2018: Argentinian Court issues arrest warrants to Myanmar military leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In addition, power sector employees will also take part in the nationwide strike being planned by central trade unions in May against the government’s move to implement the four labour codes.

These two decisions were taken at the National Convention of the Electricity Employees and Engineers held in Nagpur, Maharashtra, on February 23, 2025, according to a press statement released by the Electricity Employees Federation of India (EEFI).

The national convention, which discussed the “multi-pronged attacks on the public electricity sector and the energy security of our country”, also noted the “growing attacks” on the democratic right of electricity employees and consumers, especially in Uttar Pradesh.

“After being elected for the third time, the NDA government has become desperate to privatize all the public electricity utilities. Under the diktat of the Central government, the Chandigarh UT Administration forcefully privatized its highly profitable, efficient and low tariff Power Utility in an irregular manner,” the statement read.

EEFI also noted the “desperate attacks of privatisation” unleashed on Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (PVVNL) and Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (DVVNL) of Uttar Pradesh, which, it said, would put the service of 27,000 employees and engineers and 50,000 contract workers at stake.

“Electricity employees and engineers of UP are fighting for last 87 days defying the instigation and attacks of the UP administration,” it added.

EEFI also flayed the Rajasthan government that has started the  bidding process to privatise “generation and battery storage projects”, as also plans by the Telangana government to hand over electricity distribution service of the South Hyderabad Circle to the Adani group.

“Actually, the Central government is in real haste to privatize the state DISCOMs. A unique regional meeting on Power sector with States and UTs of Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh has been held on 20th February, New Delhi,” it said, citing a Power Ministry press release saying, “the States have urged Centre for support in privatization of distribution” and “Listing of Utilities will be taken up by States to bring investment.”

Calling upon electricity employees to unite and fight privatisation moves, EEFI noted that to facilitate its privatisation project, a Group of Ministers had been formed by the Centre with the UP Energy Minister as its convenor, who is “infamous for his privatization drives,” as also the new draft of the Electricity Amendment Bill being prepared by the Centre.

“Certainly, it is the final course of attack on India’s public electricity distribution sector. It will lead to massive de-electrification and food security of our country will be jeopardized. It is an attack on federal structure of India,” it said.

EEFI said its June 25 strike had already received support from central trade unions as well as the Samyukta Kisan Morcha, which has for long been opposing the new Electricity Bill.

In preparation for the countrywide sectoral strike, EEFI said it would hold regional meetings, and state-level mass conventions.

“Four massive rallies will be held in UP in the March 2025, against the privatisation attempt of the UP government,” it added.

EEFI called upon all power sector employees as well as consumers to make the strike actions a “great success”.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Power Sector Employees Call Countrywide Strike on June 26 Against Privatisation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent backlash against Ranveer Allahbadia over his appearance on Samay Raina’s show India’s Got Latent is a textbook example of aggressive and selective outrage. During the show, he was asked a controversial hypothetical question: Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life or join in once and stop it forever?  While the question was undoubtedly crude, it is not unprecedented in the realm of comedy. In fact, years earlier, comedian Kanan Gill had posed the exact same question in a lighter setting, yet it had largely gone unnoticed

Despite the overblown reaction, it is essential to ask: is this really the issue that warrants such national attention? In a country where public figures routinely make far more offensive remarks without consequence, why has a digital content creator become a scapegoat?

Cultural sensitivities vs. evolving crudity, humour

Humour is subjective. What is offensive in India may be considered routine in other cultures. In the U.S., controversial animated shows such as South Park have consistently pushed the boundaries of satire and dark humour, yet they continue to thrive without state intervention. Similarly, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia has built its brand around being politically incorrect but has never faced legal consequences.

In contrast, India’s deep-rooted conservatism often prevents it from embracing even the mildest forms of irreverent humour. The backlash against Allahbadia is proof that Indian digital creators still walk a tightrope when it comes to free expression.

Selective outrage and hypocrisy

The outrage surrounding Ranveer Allahbadia raises the larger question of hypocrisy in India’s censorship culture. Several BJP politicians have a well-documented history of making inflammatory and crude remarks, yet they rarely face legal scrutiny. Meanwhile, comedians and digital creators are regularly policed for their content.

Furthermore, Bollywood films have long normalised sexual double entendres and explicit jokes, yet these instances do not attract the same vitriol. The disproportionate outrage against Allahbadia is reflective of a systemic bias—where those in power enjoy unchecked privileges, while independent voices are muzzled.

Supreme Court’s relief and its implications

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to Ranveer Allahbadia, staying his arrest in multiple FIRs filed against him. The order specifically protects him from immediate detention in cases registered under Sections 79, 196, 296, 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Maharashtra and Sections 79/95/294/296 of the BNS, along with the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 in Assam

The Court, however, imposed strict conditions: he must join the investigation whenever summoned, deposit his passport with authorities, and refrain from airing any content on YouTube or other media platforms until further orders. While the interim protection ensures his immediate liberty, the restrictions imposed indicate judicial discomfort with his remarks and set a concerning precedent on digital expression.

Supreme Court order dated 18-02-2025 on Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia v. Union of India; IA no. 41866/2025 issued by Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ may be read here:

Legality of incest and the misrepresentation of Allahbadia’s remarks

One of the fundamental flaws in the backlash against Allahbadia is the assumption that his remarks amounted to advocating an illegal or universally condemned act. However, incest laws vary widely across countries. Nations such as Belgium, France, Japan, Portugal, and Spain do not criminalize incest between consenting adults, while other countries impose stringent legal prohibitions. This variation highlights the subjectivity of moral outrage, where cultural and legal perspectives differ significantly. While his comment may have been in poor taste, framing it as an endorsement of criminal activity is a misleading exaggeration.

The dangerous precedent of digital censorship

What makes this controversy even more concerning is how it is being weaponized to justify greater control over digital platforms? The government is now citing this incident as a reason to push forward the Digital India Bill, which aims to regulate online content more stringently

If enacted, such laws could stifle not only comedic expression but also political criticism, independent journalism, and artistic creativity. The internet, which has long been a space for free expression, is now at risk of becoming another extension of the state’s moral policing.

A moment of reflection

The backlash against Ranveer Allahbadia is not just about one crude joke—it is emblematic of a larger struggle between free expression and selective censorship in India. If a young content creator can be vilified for an offhand remark while politicians and public figures enjoy impunity for far worse, it is clear that India’s approach to free speech is deeply flawed.

Instead of vilifying Allahbadia, it is time for a broader conversation about the inconsistency in how India polices speech. Selective outrage only weakens the foundation of free expression, making digital spaces less diverse, less honest, and ultimately, less free.

Related:

Proposed Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023: threat to free speech and media independence

The post Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Main Points:

Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence and former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a strict interpretation of Islamic governance. It rejects nationalism, democracy, and secularism, advocating instead for the revival of a unified Caliphate under Islamic law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir remains one of the most enigmatic and controversial Islamist movements in the modern era. With a highly disciplined structure and a clear ideological vision, it has survived despite decades of repression.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), an international pan-Islamic political organization, has long been controversial and debated. Established in 1953, its stated objective is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, which it sees as the only legitimate governing system for Muslims worldwide. While the group insists on non-violent means to achieve its goals, many governments have outlawed it due to its radical political ideology.

This article explores the origins, ideological framework, leadership perspectives, and legacy of Hizb ut-Tahrir, relying extensively on quotes from its leaders and publications.

Origins and Early History

Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence and former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Nabhani, disillusioned with what he saw as the secularization of the Arab world and the failure of existing Islamist movements, sought to create a political party that would focus on re-establishing the Caliphate as a comprehensive solution for Muslim governance.

Al-Nabhani emphasized that HT’s methodology was unique compared to other Islamic movements:

“We do not engage in practical politics in the sense of seeking power through participation in existing regimes. Our work is solely intellectual and political, aimed at changing the minds of the Ummah (Muslim community).”

From its inception, HT focused on recruiting members through intensive ideological training rather than mass activism. The party quickly spread to Jordan, Syria, and other parts of the Middle East, but it faced immediate repression from regional governments, many of which saw its calls for an Islamic state as a direct threat to their authority.

Ideological Framework

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a strict interpretation of Islamic governance. It rejects nationalism, democracy, and secularism, advocating instead for the revival of a unified Caliphate under Islamic law.

The Role of the Caliphate

The Caliphate, according to HT, is the only legitimate system for Muslims because it is divinely mandated. The party argues that all Muslim-majority countries today suffer from “man-made” laws rather than divine rule, leading to corruption, oppression, and weakness.

As Abdul Qadeem Zallum, a later leader of HT, wrote:

“The Ummah has been living in darkness since the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924. Only by re-establishing it will Muslims regain their dignity and rightful leadership in the world.”

HT envisions a Caliphate that stretches across all Muslim lands, ruled by a single leader (Caliph) implementing Islamic law (Sharia) in all aspects of life—governance, economy, and society.

Rejection of Democracy

Hizb ut-Tahrir firmly rejects democracy, arguing that it is a Western-imposed system incompatible with Islam. In HT’s view, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone, not to the people.

Al-Nabhani argued in his writings:

“Democracy places legislation in the hands of humans, whereas in Islam, legislation comes only from Allah.”

HT considers electoral politics under secular governments to be illegitimate and sees participation in them as a betrayal of Islamic principles.

Opposition to Nationalism and the Nation-State

One of HT’s most distinctive ideological positions is its absolute rejection of nationalism. It views national borders in the Muslim world as artificial divisions imposed by colonial powers to weaken Islamic unity.

Zallum, elaborating on this point, stated:

“The so-called Arab world, the so-called Muslim world—these are colonial constructs. Our loyalty is to Islam, not to nations.”

This anti-nationalist stance has often put HT at odds with various governments that see national identity as crucial to their stability.

Methodology: Non-Violent but Radical

Despite its radical rhetoric, Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to follow a non-violent methodology. The group insists that it seeks to bring about the Caliphate through intellectual and political work, rather than armed struggle.

One of HT’s spokespersons stated:

“We reject terrorism and violence. Our method is one of ideological struggle, exposing the corruption of existing regimes and preparing the Ummah for Islamic rule.”

However, critics argue that HT’s rhetoric can inspire extremist violence by portraying secular governments as illegitimate and Western influence as a form of colonialism.

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Global Expansion

Since its founding, Hizb ut-Tahrir has spread far beyond the Middle East. Today, it operates in over 40 countries, with strongholds in Central Asia, South Asia, and Europe.

Presence in the Middle East

HT’s attempts to gain traction in the Arab world have been met with repression. Many Middle Eastern governments, particularly in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, have outlawed the group and imprisoned its members.

Despite this, HT continues to have underground networks in many Arab countries, particularly in Syria, where it has attempted to influence Islamist factions.

Strength in Central Asia

HT has a significant presence in Central Asia, particularly in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. The governments of these countries view HT as a major security threat, accusing it of attempting to radicalize the population and undermine state authority.

The Uzbek government has been particularly aggressive in cracking down on HT, imprisoning thousands of its suspected members.

Growth in South Asia

HT has made notable inroads in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where it has targeted the military and educated elites for recruitment. It has repeatedly called for a military coup in Pakistan to establish an Islamic state.

A prominent HT leader in Pakistan stated:

“The Muslim armies must remove the traitorous rulers and establish the Caliphate, for they hold the power to do so.”

This open call for military intervention has led to multiple government crackdowns on HT activities.

European Presence

HT has also gained a following in Western countries, particularly in the UK, where it has a visible presence in Muslim communities. While it is banned in Germany and Russia, it continues to operate legally in some Western countries under the banner of free speech.

HT’s European branches focus heavily on intellectual debates, organizing lectures and conferences that critique Western democracy and foreign policy.

Legacy and Controversy

Impact on Islamist Movements

Hizb ut-Tahrir has played a significant role in shaping Islamist discourse. While it has never succeeded in establishing a Caliphate, its emphasis on the unity of the Muslim world has influenced many contemporary Islamist movements.

Some jihadist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, have been indirectly influenced by HT’s vision of the Caliphate. However, HT officially rejects these groups’ use of violence, creating a paradox where it shares a similar ideological goal but differs in methodology.

Government Crackdowns and Bans

Many governments view Hizb ut-Tahrir as a threat to stability and have banned it. Countries that have outlawed HT include: Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, Germany, China (particularly in Xinjiang, where HT is accused of inciting separatism)

Despite bans, HT continues to operate clandestinely in many of these regions.

Internal Challenges

HT has faced internal struggles, including leadership disputes and strategic debates over whether to engage with existing political structures or continue its purist approach.

Additionally, the rise of violent extremist groups has made it difficult for HT to maintain its image as a non-violent organization. Many view its ideology as a stepping stone to radicalization.

Hizb ut-Tahrir remains one of the most enigmatic and controversial Islamist movements in the modern era. With a highly disciplined structure and a clear ideological vision, it has managed to survive despite decades of repression.

While it has not achieved its goal of restoring the Caliphate, HT’s impact on Islamic political thought is undeniable. Whether it will ever translate its ideology into tangible political power remains to be seen, but its presence in global Islamist discourse is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

A Detailed Refutation of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Ideology: Voices from Moderate Islam

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) presents itself as an intellectual and political movement dedicated to restoring the Islamic Caliphate. While it claims non-violence, its ideological underpinnings—rejection of democracy, nationalism, and participation in existing political systems—have made it a source of concern for governments and moderate Muslim scholars alike.

Throughout Islamic history, numerous respected scholars and leaders have espoused views that directly contradict HT’s core beliefs. This article presents a comprehensive refutation of HT’s ideology using insights from classical Islamic scholars, modern Muslim intellectuals, and contemporary political figures who argue for a more balanced and pragmatic understanding of Islam.

1. The Misuse of the Caliphate: A Historical and Theological Perspective

HT’s Claim:

Hizb ut-Tahrir asserts that the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 marked the beginning of the Muslim world’s decline. It claims that re-establishing a centralized Caliphate is a divine obligation and the only solution to the problems faced by Muslims today.

“The Ummah has been living in darkness since the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924. Only by re-establishing it will Muslims regain their dignity and rightful leadership in the world.” – Abdul Qadeem Zallum, former HT leader

Refutation: The Caliphate is Not a Religious Pillar

Islamic scholars throughout history have debated the nature and necessity of the Caliphate. While governance in Islam is important, it is not one of the five pillars of Islam (Shahada, Salah, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj), nor is it a core tenet of faith.

1.1 Classical Scholars on the Caliphate

The famous Islamic jurist Imam Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) argued that the unity of Muslims is more about faith and moral values than a political structure:

“The welfare of the people is not dependent on the existence of one ruler or a single Caliphate, but rather on the just administration of affairs, ensuring security, and upholding the principles of Islam.” – Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulum al-Din

Similarly, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), the great historian and sociologist, observed that political leadership in Islam evolved naturally over time and that power should be based on the needs of society rather than rigid historical models:

“The Caliphate as envisioned in early Islam was suitable for that time. Governance is shaped by economic and social conditions, and no single model can be deemed mandatory for all ages.” – Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

1.2 Contemporary Scholars on the Caliphate

Renowned modern Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (1926–2022) refuted the idea that a single political entity is necessary for the Muslim world:

“Nowhere in the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah is there a command that Muslims must have only one ruler. Unity in faith and cooperation in good deeds are required, but political unity under one state is neither a necessity nor a divine obligation.” – Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Even within early Islamic history, the concept of the Caliphate evolved and was never universally agreed upon. The Rightly Guided Caliphs (632–661) ruled differently from the later Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs, demonstrating that governance structures changed according to circumstances.

The insistence on reviving the Caliphate as an obligation ignores both historical realities and Islamic jurisprudence. Justice, security, and good governance—rather than a single political entity—are the true Islamic ideals.

2. Rejection of Democracy and Elections: A False Dichotomy

HT’s Claim:

Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects democracy, arguing that only divine law (Sharia) should govern Muslims and that elections under secular systems are illegitimate.

“Democracy places legislation in the hands of humans, whereas in Islam, legislation comes only from Allah.” – Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, HT founder

Refutation: Islam Encourages Shura (Consultation) and Public Participation

HT’s opposition to democracy stems from a rigid and literalist interpretation of governance. However, Islam itself encourages Shura (consultation), accountability, and public participation, all of which align with democratic principles.

2.1 Qur’anic and Hadith Evidence for Consultation

The Qur’an explicitly commands consultation in governance:

“And those who have responded to [the need for] their ruler with consultation among themselves, and who spend from what We have provided them.” – (Qur’an 42:38)

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) practiced consultation in state matters. He sought advice from his companions before major decisions, even when he had divine guidance. If democracy is about accountability and consultation, how can it be un-Islamic?

2.2 Statements from Muslim Scholars Supporting Democratic Principles

Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905), an Egyptian reformer, argued that democracy was in line with Islamic principles of justice and consultation:

“The essence of democracy—justice, accountability, and consultation—is what Islam calls for. The problem is not democracy itself but those who misuse power under any system.”

Similarly, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan (1925–2021), an Indian Islamic scholar, defended democracy by emphasizing that Islam is against dictatorship:

“A government chosen by the people and accountable to them is closer to Islamic values than authoritarian rule. Tyranny is haram, whether in the name of religion or secularism.”

HT’s rejection of democracy is based on a false understanding of Islamic governance. The Qur’an and Sunnah encourage consultation, participation, and accountability, all of which align with democratic principles.

3. Nationalism and the Muslim Identity: A Misplaced Opposition

HT’s Claim:

HT rejects nationalism, claiming that it is a colonial construct that divides the Muslim Ummah.

“The so-called Muslim world—these are colonial constructs. Our loyalty is to Islam, not to nations.” – HT statement

Refutation: Islam Recognizes Diversity and Local Identity

HT’s rejection of nationalism contradicts Islamic teachings that acknowledge diversity and local identities as part of God’s creation.

3.1 Qur’anic and Prophetic Recognition of National Identity

The Qur’an states:

“O mankind, We have created you from a male and a female and made you peoples and tribes so that you may know one another.” – (Qur’an 49:13)

This verse clearly recognizes that different identities exist, and they are not inherently un-Islamic. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself acknowledged tribal affiliations but condemned racism and oppression.

3.2 Scholars on Nationalism and Islam

Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), a philosopher and poet of South Asia, argued that Islam could accommodate nationalism within a broader spiritual framework:

“Love for one’s country does not negate love for Islam. A Muslim can be a patriot without abandoning his religious identity.”

Similarly, Prince Hassan of Jordan, a modern Islamic scholar, stated:

“Islamic unity is a spiritual bond, but political unity is not always practical. A just ruler, whether in a Muslim-majority or non-Muslim state, is preferable to an unjust Caliph.”

HT’s rigid opposition to nationalism ignores Islamic teachings that recognize diversity and local governance. Unity in faith does not require the dissolution of nation-states.

Final Thoughts: The Way Forward

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology is rooted in a selective and rigid interpretation of Islamic history, ignoring centuries of jurisprudential development and political realities. Scholars from classical to modern times have consistently advocated for justice, consultation, and adaptability, rather than an uncompromising, monolithic state.

The real challenge for the Muslim world is not the re-establishment of a Caliphate but the promotion of justice, education, and good governance. As the Qur’an states:

“Indeed, Allah commands justice, good conduct, and giving to relatives and forbids immorality, bad conduct, and oppression.” – (Qur’an 16:90)

A better future for Muslims lies in progress, knowledge, and ethical leadership, not in romanticizing a political model that no longer fits the modern world.

Grace Mubashir is a PhD scholar at Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia and a freelance journalist based at Delhi

Article was first published on New Age Islam

The post Hizb ut-Tahrir: Radical thoughts influencing global mainstream politics – Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Section 35A – Criminalising lawyers’ strikes: the death knell of dissent

The bill seeks to criminalise strikes, boycotts, and abstentions from judicial work by labelling them professional misconduct. This provision is a clear violation of Article 19 (1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.

Legal precedents that mitigate against this proposed law

1. Basheshar Nath CIT (1959 AIR 149): The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and cannot be taken away by legislative action. This provision seeks to suppress collective bargaining power and dissent, violating the core principles of free expression.

2. K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003): While the SC ruled that government employees do not have an absolute right to strike, it never extended this ruling to the legal fraternity, which does not operate as a government body. Lawyers serve the cause of justice, and their right to protest unjust policies is non-negotiable.

3. Mazdoor Sangh State of Bihar (2004): The Court recognised that strikes and collective protests are essential tools in fighting government overreach. By criminalising lawyer strikes, the government intends to silence the loudest voices against its excesses.

This provision does not seek discipline, it seeks obedience a demand that lawyers become docile tools in the hands of an authoritarian regime.

Section 16 government infiltration of Bar Councils: a hostile takeover of justice

The bill proposes government-nominated members be appointed to Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils. This is an unconstitutional violation of the autonomy of the legal profession and a direct threat to judicial independence.

Legal Precedents that mitigate against this incursion

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (2015) (NJAC Judgment): The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, which sought to give the executive a say in judicial appointments. If the judiciary must remain independent, why should its gatekeeping body be controlled by the executive?

1. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The SC reaffirmed that the executive cannot interfere with institutions that regulate the judiciary. Bar Councils are self-regulatory bodies and must remain free from political interference.
2. Indira Jaising Supreme Court of India (2017): The SC upheld the autonomy of legal professionals and emphasised that **independent bar councils are integral to judicial independence.

The Bar Councils were never meant to be puppets of the state. Allowing the government to infiltrate them will mean that every lawyer who dares to challenge the government will face disciplinary action from government-appointed stooges. This is nothing less than an institutional coup against the legal profession.

Section 26 – restricting entry into legal practice: a gateway to elite control 

The bill proposes new, arbitrary restrictions on who can enter the legal profession, making it harder for young law graduates to enrol. This is an elite, unconstitutional barrier that seeks to curtail the influx of young, bold, independent legal minds who might stand against government overreach.

Legal Precedents that counter this discriminatory move:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi (1995): The SC held that access to the legal profession is a fundamental right tied to access to This bill erects unnecessary barriers and violates the principle of equality (Article 14).
2. All India Judges’ Association Union of India (2002): The SC ruled that judicial independence starts from the bar. If the bar is infiltrated, the bench will soon follow.
3. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The SC emphasized that judicial independence is not just about judges it extends to legal education and the legal profession. The bill seeks to corrupt that very foundation.

A declaration of war against the legal profession?

This controversial bill is not about reforms it is about absolute control. It is a smokescreen to dismantle the autonomy of lawyers, install government loyalists in regulatory bodies, and silence every dissenting voice. The legal profession has always been the greatest obstacle to tyranny, and this government appears hell bent on bulldozing that resistance.

What makes this Bill a disgrace

1. It violates the fundamental rights of lawyers and law
2. It hands over legal regulatory bodies to government
3. It seeks to silence dissent by criminalizing
4. It curtails the judiciary’s ability to remain

The Supreme Court must strike down this abomination before it destroys the very fabric of justice in India. Lawyers across the country must rise, resist, and reject this sham of a bill.

The fight is not just for the legal community it is for every citizen who believes in democracy, accountability, and the rule of law.

The government fears independent lawyers because they expose its corruption and illegalities. This bill is its desperate attempt to enslave the legal fraternity. But let this be a warning: Lawyers do not bow to tyrants. They fight them, and they win.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

No toilets for women lawyers in Ooty court complex for the last 25 years!

Young, junior lawyers are not slaves, renumerate them decently; legal profession should not be an “Old Boys’ Club”: CJI DY Chandrachud

Lawyers must break the silence of complicity, question flaws of executive overreach: Kapil Sibal

The post The Advocates Amendment Bill, 2025: A blatant attack on lawyers’ autonomy and democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.