Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, announcing the decision, said the measure would empower civil administration and “to a large extent nullify the role of Foreigners’ Tribunals”.

What the SOP provides

1. Notice and proof – On receiving information from the police or border authorities, the DC issues notice to a suspect, granting 10 days to produce documents proving citizenship.
2. DC’s decision – If documents are unsatisfactory, the DC issues a written order of expulsion under Section 2(a) of the 1950 Act. The person must leave within 24 hours, using a route specified by the DC.
3. Declared foreigners – Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) has already declared a person a foreigner, the DC will directly issue an expulsion order, bypassing further scrutiny.
4. Police role – Before expulsion, the SSP records biometric and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal.
5. Detention and “pushback” – If a person refuses to leave, they may be placed in a holding centre or handed to the BSF. Individuals detected near the zero line or within 12 hours of entry will be pushed back immediately.

What did CM Sarma say during the Press Meet?

On September 9, 2025, the Assam Cabinet approved the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for implementing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.

Addressing a late-night press conference, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma explained that under the new SOP:

• If a District Commissioner (DC) receives information from the police or any other source that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant, the DC will issue a notice directing the person to produce proof of Indian citizenship within 10 days.
• After hearing the individual, if the DC arrives at the conclusion that the person is a foreigner, an immediate order of expulsion (“push-back”) will be issued.
• If the DC cannot reach a firm conclusion, the case will be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for adjudication.

Sarma emphasised that the cut-off date remains March 25, 1971, in line with the Assam Accord. Thus, anyone alleged to have entered Assam after 1971 may be brought before the DC under the new procedure. Pending cases before Foreigners Tribunals will continue, but new cases not already before an FT can now be initiated directly before the DC.

The Chief Minister described this as a “landmark decision,” arguing that while the Act of 1950 had never been actively enforced in this manner, the Supreme Court had “clearly indicated” that Assam is free to use it for detection and deportation of foreigners. He claimed the SOP would allow the government to act in the “letter and spirit” of the law, making it easier for the State to expel those determined to be foreigners.

Link of press meet:

(12.25 minutes to 16.35 minutes)

Earlier, on August 21, 2025, the Assam Cabinet also resolved that the State would stop issuing Aadhaar cards to adults, further tightening its documentation regime.

Historical and legal backdrop

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was passed by the Union government in response to post-Partition migration from East Pakistan. It empowered the government to order the removal of any non-Indian whose stay was deemed “detrimental to the public interest” or to the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Assam.

But within a month, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed Assam’s Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi to suspend its use following the Liaquat–Nehru Pact (April 1950), which sought to protect minorities on both sides of the border. The Act then fell into disuse. However, the 1950 Act and its use has surfaced only recently, for the same is being used to detain and “push-out” people.

SOP leaves fundamental questions unanswered

Mrinmoy Dutta, Advocate (Gauhati High Court) and counsel for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), said that the new SOP marks a clear attempt to shift the entire process of citizenship determination from the quasi-judicial Foreigners’ Tribunals to the executive authority of the Deputy Commissioner (DC).

He explained that India’s Citizenship Act does not clearly specify what documents are required to prove citizenship, particularly for those born in India. “There is no definitive legal framework that says what proof of citizenship by birth should look like. This makes the SOP deeply uncertain in its operation,” he noted.

Dutta stressed that there is no debate over the principle that foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971 must be excluded in line with the Assam Accord. “The real question is: who is a foreigner, and how will they be identified? Earlier, this role was entrusted to Foreigners’ Tribunals, but now the SOP transfers that function to the DC, without clear legal safeguards.”

He further pointed out that the SOP does not clarify how it interacts with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Under NRC rules, persons excluded from the final NRC list were supposed to receive rejection slips, enabling them to appeal. “Those rejection slips have not yet been issued. Now, if a DC serves a notice, it is unclear whether this process will be linked to the NRC or entirely independent of it. Can the SOP override NRC appeal provisions or bypass the Foreigners’ Tribunal framework? These are fundamental unanswered questions,” he said.

Another major concern, Dutta observed, is the absence of an appeal mechanism. “If someone receives a notice late or cannot produce documents within ten days, there is no statutory appeal provision in the SOP. The only remedy left is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. This places a heavy burden on individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized.”

He concluded that judicial scrutiny and oversight are indispensable, because in its current form the SOP risks arbitrary expulsions without clear rules, adequate time, or meaningful remedies.

Critical concerns

1. Bypassing judicial Tribunals

Traditionally, questions of citizenship and foreigner status in Assam are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs), quasi-judicial bodies created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The new SOP places this power in the hands of executive officers (DCs), raising concerns of bias, lack of due process, and arbitrary decision-making.

While Sarma insists that only “confusing cases” will go to FTs, this reverses the default mechanism: from judicial determination to administrative fiat. Many argue this risks turning citizenship adjudication into a purely bureaucratic exercise.

2. Violation of natural justice

The SOP grants only 10 days for a suspected person to prove citizenship. Given the well-documented difficulties in Assam — poor documentation, illiteracy, displacement due to floods, and language barriers — this period may be unrealistically short. Legal scholars caution that it fails to meet the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

3. Separation of powers and Constitutional mandate

By allowing DCs to override FTs, the SOP arguably undermines the statutory role of Foreigners’ Tribunals, established precisely to ensure that complex citizenship questions are not left to executive discretion. The principle of separation of powers — where determination of rights is reserved for judicial or quasi-judicial bodies — is at stake.

4. Risk of arbitrary expulsions and statelessness

The SOP also permits immediate pushbacks at the border within 12 hours, without any process. This could lead to collective expulsions in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law.

Constitutional and legal questions

1. Does the SOP violate Article 21? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)) that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Ten days to prove citizenship may not satisfy this threshold.
2. Can executive SOP override statutory mechanisms? The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 explicitly entrust FTs with the task of determining citizenship disputes. An executive SOP cannot, in law, displace this statutory framework unless backed by Parliament.
3. Equal Protection (Article 14): Selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslims, as human rights groups fear, may amount to hostile discrimination. Even if the SOP is facially neutral, its implementation could violate the Article 14 guarantee against arbitrariness.
4. Judicial Review: The SOP is likely to face constitutional challenge. Courts will have to weigh whether the 1950 Act, designed as an emergency measure, can be resurrected in a way that dilutes procedural safeguards crafted over decades.

Government justification

It has been argued by the state that the move is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 directions to employ the 1950 Act alongside Section 6A. According to the report of NDTV, with over 82,000 cases pending before FTs, the government says speedier administrative action is necessary to curb illegal immigration.

Sarma has also claimed that Assam has already “pushed back” more than 30,000 illegal immigrants, and the SOP simply codifies what has been practice on the ground, as reported by Assam Tribune.

Conclusion

The Assam government’s SOP under the 1950 Act is more than a bureaucratic measure — it marks a radical shift in how India addresses contested citizenship. By moving decision-making from quasi-judicial bodies to executive officers, it raises deep constitutional concerns about due process, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

The legal test ahead will be whether courts uphold this framework as a legitimate application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, or strike it down as executive overreach incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and justice.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post From Tribunals to DCs, 10 Days to Prove Citizenship: Assam’s radical shift in “foreigner” expulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is ‘nine-eleven’ once again! A day pregnant with memories! Memories of violence and suffering; of hate and division. On the other hand, the day is also one of promise –of truth and non-violence; of justice and peace; of hope, for new beginnings, a new dawn! Our world today, is gripped with hate and violence; wars and conflicts; discrimination and division; prejudice and racism; corruption and communalism! One sees and witnesses this everywhere!

In neighbouring Nepal for one, it is a youth uprising against a corrupt regime; reminiscent of what happened in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh not too long ago! A warning for the corrupt and communal regime in India!

The plight of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, continues for almost a year now. Despite condemnation from most parts of the world, the Israeli regime has not stopped its brutal, violent, inhuman attacks on a beleaguered and starving people; the Israeli Government, even bombed Qatar yesterday.

Violence from Ukraine to Manipur continues unabated. The military-industrial complex is having a hay-day profiteering on the blood of innocent victims. All this and more, happening today, on ‘nine-eleven!’

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today!

On this day, in 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched his non-violent resistance campaign at a historic mass meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was the birth of a new movement ‘Satyagraha’ – the relentless pursuit of truth and justice.  Gandhi believed that they were non-negotiables; two-sides of a coin. More than three thousand Indians (both Hindus and Muslims) and others, gathered to support the beginning of civil obedience. Later with ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence), ‘Satyagraha’ would ultimately become Gandhi’s twin-doctrine in belief and in practise. He used it effectively in his struggle against British colonial rule in India. Several world civil rights leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, later embraced this twin doctrine.

Sadly, we still do not learn from the past; racism, xenophobia, jingoism, exclusiveness, pseudo-nationalism, discrimination and divisiveness seem to have a stranglehold on nations and peoples across the globe. The emergence of the ‘extreme-right’ ideology wedded to fascism and fundamentalism is a growing cause of concern. Some want to ‘build walls and fences’ to keep people out. ‘Satyagraha’ was a movement to make people realise that all humans have dignity and are created equal in the image and likeness of God! Our responsibility is to help build bridges and not walls!

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! In 1893, on this day, at the very first World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda gave a powerful and passionate speech. He made a fervent plea to end every form of sectarianism, bigotry, fanaticism and violence from this earth, by fostering the values enshrined in every religion. He spoke emphatically, saying, “I fervently hope that the bell which tolled this morning in honour of this convention, may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons, wending their way to the same goal”. Ironically enough, his clarion call does not seem to evoke any positive response from ‘hindutva’ fundamentalists today. They continue with their fascist and fanatic agenda, demonizing and attacking the minorities (particularly Muslims, Christians and Sikhs) of the country, in a very meticulous manner. 

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! What happened in the United States on this day in 2001, will always be etched in human memory!  Any and every form of violence, is non-acceptable and needs to be strongly condemned. No violent act can be justified, whatever the provocation! That unprecedented violence in the US is remembered and defined today by a date “9/11.” The very utterance of it evokes all kinds of emotions: from undiluted hatred to a feeling of utter helplessness, in the face of rabid terror; from inconsolable grief at the loss of a loved one to heated debates on imponderables. A visit to ‘ground zero’ brings back painful memories of the almost three thousand lives, which were lost in just one place. One is also reminded of the millions of people who suffer every day in Palestine and Yemen, Syria and Iraq, DR Congo and Sudan, Myanmar and Afghanistan, Venezuela and El Salvador and so many other parts of the world. The world should also never forget the terror attacks that were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq and Iran and other parts of the world! We need to stop all war and violence just now; we must close down the military-industrial complex and all nations need to de-nuclearize immediately!  Do we, as citizens of the world who genuinely desire sustainable peace, have the courage to say ‘never again’ this 9/11?

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! The great Gandhian, Vinoba Bhave, was born on this day in 1895! He is widely regarded as the spiritual successor of Mahatma Gandhi; a strong advocate for nonviolence and human rights. He initiated the ‘Bhoodan Movement’, a nonviolent land gift campaign to redistribute land to the poor. He translated the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ into the Marathi language. He is regarded as the National Teacher of India. He died in November 1982 and was posthumously awarded the ‘Bharat Ratna’.

Swami Agnivesh, the well-known social reformer died on this day in 2020. He was known for his work against bonded labour through the ‘Bonded Labour Liberation Front’, which he founded in 1981.He was also a founder of the World Council of Arya Samaj. He championed freedom of religion and the rights of workers. He was an unwavering voice for the excluded and the exploited and for the victims of injustice! If he was alive today, he would have taken on the Rajasthan Government on their draconian anti-conversion law and also the Gujarat Government for increasing the working hours of factory workers to 12 hours a day. Both laws were passed yesterday.

Significantly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, also died on this day in 1948. He was a barrister and politician. He served as the leader of the All-India Muslim League from 1913, until the inception of Pakistan on 14 August 1947.

There are memories of ‘nine-eleven’, today! So much happening all over. We are in the midst of the ‘Season of Creation’ – yet parts of Punjab and Pakistan have been devastated by floods. Recent earthquakes in Afghanistan and Greece taking a toll on lives and livelihood, mean nothing to many, the rich and the powerful continue to destroy mother earth.  A terrible reality grips the lives and destinies of many people because of incompetent, autocratic, biased, violent and insensitive leaders everywhere. Marketing and manipulations greatly contribute to the fact that they are in power. These people use every trick in the book to keep people divided. Today (9/11) is surely about commemorations: the sad, tragic ones: a day of mourning! Nevertheless, it is also about new beginnings: of healing, building bridges, hope and resilience. Becoming pilgrims of hope!

As if on cue, the Catholic Liturgy of today provides us with a direction. In his letter to the Colossians St. Paul writes, “put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection.”  In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus exhorts us, “to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” Are we listening? Will we act? Memories of ‘nine-eleven’ today, must help us to do so!

(The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist/writer)

Related:

Sorry, Stan!

Fifty years later..another Emergency rules

The temporariness and unpredictability of life

The post Memories of ‘Nine Eleven’ today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Frankly—call it my inertia or whatever—I am not very familiar with Sainath’s recent writings, though from time to time I do read some of the very in-depth reports focusing on rural India on the excellent site he has been running for about a decade, People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI), which is, for all practical purposes, a virtual database for learning or understanding anything about how people live and work in rural India.

Not that I wasn’t familiar with Sainath earlier. As part of a Times of India project, I remember reading his in-depth reports in the paper in the 1990s, after I joined in Ahmedabad in 1993. However, at that time, from what I can remember, he concentrated more on doing stories on rural India. The latest lecture, which he gave in Ahmedabad on September 6, 2025, for the first time familiarised me with his worldview on the increasing concentration of wealth in India—especially in the media—and how it is adversely impacting Indian democracy.

According to Sainath, this concentration of wealth began soon after Independence, when the Nehru government, in its bid to give a helping hand, gave away land to top media houses for peanuts at prime spots—for instance, in Nariman Point in Bombay (now Mumbai) and Bahadurshah Zafar Marg in Delhi. This, he said, turned them into real estate barons: building multi-storey buildings on these prime plots, the media houses rented out all other floors—except for one, kept for publishing the newspaper—helping them amass huge wealth.

Today, said Sainath, these media houses are also powerful real estate developers. He quoted an interview Vineet Jain, one of the owners of the Times of India group, gave to the New Yorker. Jain, according to him, said, “We are not in the newspaper business; we are in the advertising business.”

I immediately wondered if this was a sharp change from the view held in the mid-1990s, when, while addressing a few of us “seniors” of the Times of India, Vineet Jain’s elder brother, Samir Jain, had said we should remember the paper was in the business of news, emphasising that the Times of India was a family business and had no social agenda. Then he turned to the whiteboard behind him and wrote “liberal social agenda”, crossing it out. He turned to me to ask if I agreed, and out of curiosity, I asked him, “Sir, what about a liberal political agenda?” Visibly embarrassed, he quietly said, “That of course is there…”
Stating how media has changed over time with the rise of television and digital media, Sainath said the corporate hold over media has further solidified, with top tycoon Mukesh Ambani controlling nearly 40 percent of all media in India today, buying up stakes in one outlet after another. Also referring in passing to Gautam Adani’s takeover of NDTV, he pointed out that politicians too are now deeply involved in the media business—owning several TV channels across India, especially in the South.

Stating how this has adversely impacted media coverage, Sainath said, there are several reporters covering Bollywood and business, but was for poverty and rural India, which makes up to nearly two thirds of India, there is no reporter.

Giving figures worth trillions of rupees related to corporate ownership of Indian media, Sainath then discussed how, with the rise of digital media, there has been further concentration of wealth. According to him, four major corporate houses across the globe now control the strings of digital media—they have access to all the data uploaded to digital platforms. With the Government of India seeking to further control digital media by proposing new laws, an attack on press freedom seems imminent, he added.

Giving examples, Sainath said there was an attempt during the Covid period to control media after Reporters Without Borders ranked India 161st out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index. A committee was formed, consisting mainly of government bureaucrats, to counter the index results. Only two journalists—including himself—were included. He said he joined on the condition that media freedom would be ensured. However, after finding his interventions too strong, the committee, which was headed by the Cabinet Secretary, eventually “disappeared”.

Now, said Sainath, there is a move to introduce a law that would impose a huge income tax on non-profit media houses. Pointing out that non-profit organisations like PARI, which he owns, and The Wire, are likely to suffer the most as a result of this move, he said the intention is to squeeze independent media outfits that have emerged over the last decade. This would take away ₹1 crore out of the approximately ₹2.5 crore that PARI raises annually to run its digital operations. He called upon the largely receptive audience—gathered at the invitation of top veteran Gujarat economist Prof. Indira Hirway—to financially support such independent media.

Later, talking informally, I asked Sainath a pointed question: would PARI, which is a digital media platform, have been possible 10 or 15 years ago, when internet penetration was low? He replied that he had started thinking of the PARI project 15 years ago. However, he admitted it was impossible for him to go into print or TV media, as it was too costly—one reason why he opted for the digital route.

I further asked him whether it was possible for ordinary journalists or people aspiring to share news to do so 15 years ago, as is now possible through blogging platforms and social media. To this, he replied that reaching out to readers is a huge issue. Algorithms control what gets propagated. If you’re willing to pay for services on platforms like X, for instance, you have a chance of reaching a wider audience—otherwise not.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From news to real estate: P Sainath on how corporate power is undermining media freedom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 3, 2025 the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a series of labour law amendments to increase the length of the working day, working hours without rest intervals, working hours per week, and limit of the overtime period. These amendments are based on recommendations of a central task force on labour reforms in order to “attract investment, expand industries, and create more employment opportunities.” The Maharashtra decision aligns with states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura – which have already enacted similar “reforms.”

The PUCL statement states that it must not be forgotten that the State is the biggest employer both in industries and establishments and is therefore required to ensure that workers are not exploited and their fundamental rights to a decent, safe and healthy work environment are protected. Yet it fails to do precisely that.

The State Government has made many lofty claims in support of these “reforms,” that are presumably in the interests of both labour as well as capital. The amendments will facilitate “protection of labour rights” while “improving the ease of doing business.” They will help “attract investment” as well as “increase employment opportunities in the state.”¹ But it is obvious that extending working hours, and removing smaller establishments from the purview of the law is meant to reduce or remove protections for workers, not to expand them, says the PUCL.

Today, even in the industrial sector in India, contractual workers are already working 12-hour shifts (without overtime). In effect, the amendments aim to legalise what is already happening in fact – depriving workers of the legal safeguards against super-exploitation. They seem to be a way of coercing a shrinking permanent workforce into this inhuman work regime. Besides, far from increasing employment, as is claimed, this step will reduce the organised work force to two thirds of its size by replacing 8-hour shifts with 12-hour ones. It is no surprise that the Karnataka State IT/ITeS

1 See the post by the Chief Minster of Maharashtra on the social media platform X:

मंत्रिमंडळ निर्णय : कामगार विभाग@Dev_Fadnavis#Maharashtra #मंत्रिमंडळनिर्णय #CabinetDecision #DevendraFadnavis pic.twitter.com/oTZrwmsHOp

— CMO Maharashtra (@CMOMaharashtra) September 3, 2025

Employees Union (KITU) labelled similar amendments proposed in Karnataka as “inhuman attempt to impose modern-day slavery” upon them.²

In line with the state cabinet’s decision, the proposed amendments will be carried out in the Factories Act of 1948 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. In the Factories Act, the amendments proposed are: (a) Under Section 65, the workday shall be extended from the present 9 hours up to 12 hours; (b) Under Section 55, the rest period which was half an hour after the first five hours shall be made half an hour after six hours; (c) Under Section 56, the maximum number of working hours (spread over) in a day from 10.5 hours to 12 hours; (d) Under Section 65, the maximum number of hours of overtime in a quarter shall be increased from the present 115 to 144 hours (the original limit had been laid down as 75 hours). Under the Shops and Establishments Act the government intends to (a) increase working hours from 9 to 10 hours; (b) exclude establishments having less than 20 workers (the current number of 85 lakh establishments covered by this Act will be reduced to about 56,000).

While the State Labour Secretary has claimed that overtime work will be paid at double the rate of basic wages and allowances for every such increase in working hours, and that such overtime shall be subject to worker’s consent, these assurances have to be tested upon the actual language of the proposed amendments, particularly the fine print. While the decisions have yet to take the shape of a bill/ordinance for amending the Factories Act in the state, it is very likely that the amending bill/ordinance shall be on the lines of similar amendments made in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

In the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2025, issued on July 1, 2025, for instance, at Section 6, it is stated that Section 59(1) of the Factories Act shall be substituted by:

“Where a worker works in any factory:-

• for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, working for six days in any week;
• for more than ten hours in any day or for more than forty eight hours in any week, working for five days in any week;
• for more than eleven and a half hours in any day working for four days in any week, or works on paid holidays; he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”

In effect this means that overtime will not be calculated on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis, and a worker may work for eleven and a half hours each day for four days in a week without being eligible for overtime. This amounts to squeezing out the maximum from workers, and if they do not consent to overtime, subjecting them to artificial breaks in service jeopardising their permanent status.

The Rajasthan Bill contains another dangerous clause, namely 6(v):

“A worker may be required to work for overtime subject to the consent of such worker for such work except worker required to work for safety activities.”

 2 See the statement “12-hour work day in Karnataka’s IT Sector; Modern-Day Slavery in the Making: KITU Urges Employees to Unite and Resist” by the Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union
https://kituhq.org/recent/6836e0f7e83575020247d3d1

Thus, a maintenance worker may be forced to work overtime all the year round. Given the current situation in the country of a large informal sector, underemployment, low wages, and unpaid work – workers will give “consent” out of fear or desperation, not choice. The provision of “consent” will be little more than legal subterfuge to conceal a new form of servitude.

It is a serious concern that while average working hours in wealthy countries have reduced by roughly half over the last 150 years – moving from over 50 hours per week to around 25-35 hours per week in recent times – India is reverting to colonial era standards by increasing working hours. In France, for instance, the standard full-time work week is 35 hours, with a daily cap of 10 hours; hours beyond the 35 hour threshold are considered overtime.

Finally, the PUCL statement states that the working class all over the world has fought a long battle to establish its right to an 8- hour working day so that workers may also have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of personal time in which to achieve their full potential as citizens and as human beings. It must be recalled that the International Workers Day originates from the demand for an eight hour working day. Labour Day commemorates the sacrifice of union organisers – who were framed after the Haymarket protest on false charges of causing a riot – during a strike and demonstrations of Chicago workers in 1886. It has origins in the American Federation of Labour’s call: “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886”. After the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919, the first instrument ratified by it was the one regulating working hours. The second article limited working hours to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. India was one of the first signatories of the ILO’s “Hours of Work Convention” in 1921. India has itself witnessed valiant struggles of textile workers in the year 1911 to reduce working hours which finally under the pen of Dr B.R. Ambedkar were enshrined in the Factories Act, 1948 in the form of the 8-hour work day. The government’s decision in effect seeks to extinguish in one stroke the rights that working people have won with great sacrifice and struggle over more than a century.

It is widely acknowledged that long hours of work does not increase worker productivity, on the contrary, they drastically increase incidents of workplace accidents. Such long hours of work can only lead to sweat labour and hazardous work conditions. It will adversely impact health of workers by increasing exhaustion and stress, and increase their exposure to occupation-linked diseases and medical conditions. It is equally well known that workers in establishments with 12- hour shifts are rarely able to unionise. Longer working hours are discriminatory towards women workers because women bear a significant burden of care work in their homes. If the government was serious about increasing productivity, employment opportunities and welfare of workers, they would introduce progressive amendments to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages.

The PUCL Maharashtra has therefore demanded that the full texts of the proposed amendments be made available in the public domain in both in Marathi and English, and in all offices of the Labour Department so that trade unions and organisations can scrutinise the fine print of these so- called “reforms.” We demand that this decision to amend the Factories Act and the Shop and Establishments Act along the lines of other state governments be immediately revoked. Any proposed labour reforms in the state must only be considered after a series of consultations with trade unions and workers’ organisations, after which they ought to be opened to the broader public for suggestions and objections.

The PUCL, has also stated that the organization, in alliance with trade unions and informal sector workers organisations will campaign against the extension of work hours. It will also lobby with the Standing Committee in the Legislative Assembly and with opposition party MLAs to not accept these changes, and if required challenge these amendments in the courts. The statement was issued by Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu, President of PUCL, Maharashtra and   Sandhya Gokhale, General Secretary.

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? 

The post Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ever since the introduction and passage of the controversial law, a unique alliance of people’s organisations and opposition political parties have come together, on four separate occasions to protest this law that spells doom for free expression, the right to protest and dissent. In April 2025 and then again in July 2025, there have been protests around this legislation.

Pune: Call to resist “state repression”

In Pune, under the leadership of Supriya Sule (MP), National Working President of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), a mass gathering was organized at the Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial near Pune Station. City NCP president Prashant Jagtap called on citizens to resist the law, warning that it empowers the state to directly imprison dissenters and silence public opposition.

1 of 7

Mumbai: Opposition Action Committee leads joint protest

In Mumbai, the Janasuraksha Bill Opposition Action Committee led a protest at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Maidan, Dadar, from 4–8 pm. The meeting was chaired by Com. Prakash Reddy (CPI) and attended by leaders across the political spectrum:

• Congress – Dhananjay Shinde
• NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) – Rupesh Khandke
• CPI(M) – Com. Shailendra Kamble
• CPI – Com. S.K. Rege, Amir Kazi, Com. Nana Parab
• Peasants and Workers Party – Com. Rajendra Korde
• Hum Bharat Ke Log – Feroze Mithiborwala
• CPI(ML) – Com. Vijay Kulkarni
• APCR – Shakir Shaikh, Adv. Inamdar
• Autonomous women’s organisations and civil liberty activists from Forum against Oppression of Women among others.

A message of solidarity was also sent by MLA Sachin Ahir (Shiv Sena–UBT). Multiple people’s organisations pledged participation.

1 of 7

Loh and Rural Maharashtra: Constitution and democracy defended

In Loh, a demonstration began with floral tributes at the statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, followed by slogans:

• “Long Live the Constitution”
• “Repeal the Anti-People Public Security Act”
• “Down with the Fadnavis-Shinde-Ajit Pawar Government”

Leaders including Com. Rameshwar Pawal (CPI-M), Milind Sawant (Congress), Rameshwar Bahirat (Shiv Sena–UBT), and Bhai U.R. Thombal (Shetkari Kamgar Paksha) condemned the Act as an assault on democratic rights. Protesters reminded that 10 lakh signatures and over 1.24 lakh written objections were submitted to the Governor, but the government still “bulldozed” the Bill through the Assembly.

1 of 4

Other District Actions

• Kolhapur: Maha Vikas Aghadi held a sit-in at the Collector’s office, led by Congress’s Harshvardhan Sapkal and district leaders; a memorandum was submitted.

महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या आदेशानुसार व प्रदेशाध्यक्ष हर्षवर्धन सपकाळ साहेबांच्या नेतृत्वात महाराष्ट्र जनसुरक्षा विधेयका विरोधात राज्यव्यापी आंदोलन करण्यात आले.
कोल्हापूर जिल्हा काँग्रेस कमिटी व महाविकास आघाडीच्या वतीने जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालय,कोल्हापूर येथे ठिय्या आंदोलन… pic.twitter.com/q2wPjfi8cL

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) September 10, 2025

• Solapur: Protesters burnt an effigy of the Act in a symbolic rejection.

1 of 4

• Manchar: A large gathering under MVA banner denounced the Act.

• Palghar district: Demonstrations were staged at Dahanu, Palghar, Vasai, Wada, Vikramgad, Jawhar, and Mokhada.

1 of 2

• Beed, Shevgaon (Ahmednagar), Hingoli, Dhule, Gadchiroli, Gondia: District-level agitations with party workers and civil society activists submitting memoranda.

1 of 22

Opposition’s Stand

Across locations, including Shahada, Nandurbar, Shambhajinagar and Satara, western Maharashtra, speakers reiterated that the MSPS Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, criminalises dissent, and grants unchecked powers to the state. They demanded its immediate repeal, warning that Maharashtra risks becoming a “police state.”

Slogan on everyone’s lips was: Not Public Security, but Public Oppression Bill!”

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

The post Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1. Facts

The matter before the Supreme Court arose from an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an appeal connected to a civil defamation suit. The original suit, CS (OS) No. 524/2024, was filed by ANI Media Private Limited (plaintiff/respondent) against Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (appellant) and others. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief to restrain the publication of allegedly false and defamatory content on Wikipedia, a platform maintained by the appellant Wikipedia, and also sought the removal of existing content.

The chain of events leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention began on August 20, 2024, when a single judge of the High Court, hearing the defamation suit, passed an interim order. This order directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details and IP addresses of certain platform administrators (editors) identified as defendants in the suit. This directive, which aimed to unmask pseudonymous online contributors, became a point of public discussion.

Following this order, on September 17, 2024, an opinion piece was published in the Indian Express newspaper and subsequently hosted on a Wikimedia platform. The article, titled “why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information,” was critical of the court’s directive to disclose editor details. It argued that such an order could chill free expression and set a dangerous precedent. On October 10, 2024, the news agency Medianama published a video that further analysed the case, discussing its potential implications for safe harbour protections for intermediaries in India.

Wikimedia appealed the single Judge’s disclosure order. During the appellate hearing before a Division Bench on October 14, 2024, counsel for ANI brought these publications to the court’s attention, arguing they were intended to “pressurise the learned Single Judge.” The situation was further compounded on the same day by the creation of a “talk page” on Wikimedia’s platform, a standard feature for discussing edits, which in this instance was used for public discussion of the ongoing court proceedings.

Two days later, on October 16, 2024, the Division Bench passed the impugned order. The Bench formed a prima facie view that the commentary constituted “interference in Court proceedings” and that the principle of sub-judice had been “violated with impunity.” The Bench noted that its own observations from the previous hearing had been “‘opened up for discussion’ on Wikimedia Foundation Inc. website which, according to us, complicates and compounds the issue at hand.” Concluding that the content “borders on contempt,” the Division Bench issued a direct and non-appealable directive ordering Wikimedia to “take down/delete the said pages and discussion” within 36 hours. It was this takedown order that the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.

2. Issues

The primary legal and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the High Court’s interim order directing the takedown of online content constituted a legally valid prior restraint on speech, consistent with the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the legal principles governing matters that are sub-judice and the law of contempt of court when issuing a mandatory takedown directive.
3. Whether the High Court’s order was a proportionate response to the perceived interference with the administration of justice.

3. Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court dated October 16, 2024. The Court held that the Division Bench had “reacted disproportionately” in issuing the takedown directive. It found the order to be an impermissible prior restraint on speech because it was not supported by adequate reasoning and failed to meet the established constitutional tests for such a restriction. The immediate effect of the judgment was the restoration of the online pages and discussions that had been ordered to be removed.

4. Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of several established legal principles, which it systematically applied to the facts of the case.

• The Test for Prior Restraint: The Court’s analysis began with the appellant’s primary contention that the takedown order was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court referred to the definitive test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. SEBI.[1] In that case, the Court held that a court-ordered postponement of publication is a “neutralizing device” to be used only in rare cases. The party seeking such an order must satisfy a stringent two-part test: first, demonstrate a “real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice,” and second, show that “reasonable alternative methods will not prevent the risk.” The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be entirely devoid of this essential analysis. It contained no reasoning as to how the online commentary, which was based on publicly available information, posed a real and substantial risk to proceedings being conducted by a professional judge, who is trained and presumed to be immune to media pressure. The High Court had not articulated what specific prejudice would be caused or why less intrusive measures would be insufficient.
• The Principle of Open Justice: The Court emphasized that open justice is a foundational constitutional value, not merely a procedural formality. It drew upon the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, which had observed that a “public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice.”[2] The Court powerfully reiterated this by stating that a “trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public.” This principle was further reinforced by citing Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which laid down clear guidelines to regulate the live streaming and enabled people’s right to access justice under Article 21.[3] The Court framed public scrutiny not as a threat, but as an essential safeguard for the institution itself, quoting Jeremy Bentham’s observation that publicity “keeps the Judge himself, while trying, under trial.”
• The Law on Contempt of Court: The Court examined the narrow contours of criminal contempt and prescribed the appropriate judicial temperament when faced with criticism. This was a direct response to the High Court’s prima facie finding that the content “borders on contempt.” The Court drew heavily upon the jurisprudential wisdom of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s celebrated opinion in In Re S. Mulgaokar, which advised a “wise economy of use” of the contempt power and cautioned judges against being “hypersensitive.”[4] Justice Iyer’s opinion stressed that judges should “deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude.” The Supreme Court also referred to Lord Denning’s approach, quoting him as saying, “We will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity… We do not fear… criticism, nor do we resent it.” By invoking these authorities, the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court’s reaction was not in line with the recommended standard of judicial fortitude and restraint.

In summary, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was disproportionate because it failed to apply the correct legal test for prior restraint and was inconsistent with the principles of open justice and judicial restraint in contempt matters. The Court also made the general observation that “it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down,” signalling a clear disapproval of judicial censorship.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wikimedia v. ANI clarifies and reinforces the high constitutional threshold required for issuing takedown orders or other forms of prior restraint against publications concerning sub-judice matters. The decision serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming that any such restriction on speech must be rigorously justified by demonstrating a “real and substantial risk” of prejudice to the administration of justice, a test that will be difficult to meet in cases involving professional judges.

The ruling underscores the constitutional importance of open justice, framing public discussion of court proceedings not as an obstacle but as a vital component of judicial accountability. It also provides important normative guidance for the judiciary, encouraging an institutional culture of resilience and restraint in the face of public criticism. For media organizations, journalists, legal commentators, and digital platforms, the decision provides a strong precedent to resist takedown orders that are not supported by a detailed, reasoned, and constitutionally compliant analysis.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] CURATIVE PETITION (C) NO.85 OF 2013 in REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.2332 OF 2012 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.9813 OF 2011

[2] AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1

[3] AIR 2019 SC (CIV) 194

[4] 1978 AIR 727

Related:

Recalibrating Free Speech: The Supreme Court’s constitutional turn in the digital age

Mixed Messaging: Free speech jurisprudence from the Supreme Court

India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025

The post Reaffirming Open Justice: The Supreme Court on speech and contempt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Criminal Incidence: The Scale No One Can Ignore

Official figures from India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that 445,256 incidents of crimes against women were reported nationally in 2022, an alarming increase from the previous year. These crimes encompass domestic violence, sexual assault, dowry harassment, kidnapping, and murder. The most frequently documented offense: cruelty by husbands or relatives (over 140,000 cases). Rape is another grim category, with 31,516 reported incidents. Assault with intent to outrage modesty hovers at more than 83,000 cases nationally.^[1][2]

Nearly one-third of women aged 18–49 in India admit to having experienced domestic abuse in their lifetimes, a figure confirmed in both the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) and recent academic research. These findings, aided by improved reporting mechanisms, reveal not just the prevalence but the social normalization of violence against women.^[2][3][4][1]

Geography of Violence

The burden of violence falls more heavily on some states and cities than others. Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh consistently top the list for crime volume and intensity. Delhi remains infamous for per capita rates, underscoring that urbanization and economic advancement do not guarantee women’s safety.^[1][2]

In Uttar Pradesh—the state contributing nearly 15 percent of all GBV cases—the legislative and executive branches routinely fail women. Less than 4% of the vital Nirbhaya Fund, earmarked for women’s protection, has been utilized, even as politicians pay lip service to women’s safety while perpetuating regressive attitudes in public and policy.^[1]

Social Determinants and Discriminatory Layers

Gender-based violence in India is neither uniform nor isolated from broader social fractures. Caste and religion make Dalit and Adivasi women, along with religious minorities, particularly vulnerable—Dalit women face a conviction rate for rape at just 2% compared to the already-low national average of 25%. This points to entrenched impunity and profound system neglect. Their labor and suffering are chronically erased from narratives; almost 98% of manual scavengers are women from oppressed castes.^[1]

Violence rooted in patriarchy is so endemic that 49% of survey respondents in 2025 said men and women face violence equally, a dangerous misconception that undermines the severity and specificity of women’s experience. Instead, facts show the overwhelming majority of crimes against women are perpetrated by men in domestic and community contexts.^[2]

Reporting, Stigma, and New Threats

Despite growing awareness, much gender-based violence goes unreported. Stigma, fear of reprisal, lack of economic independence, and social ostracisation silence survivors. On the other side, digital advances—while aiding some survivors—introduce new problems. A recent Asia-Pacific report revealed that 76% of women parliamentarians have faced psychological violence online, while 60% have experienced direct threats through social media platforms.^[5]

Child marriage also persists at a rate of 23%, adding another layer to the matrix of control and violence imposed on women, especially in rural India.^[3]

Government and Institutional Responses

India has, in recent years, expanded the legislative toolkit against gender violence. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) increased sentences for sexual offenses and broadened definitions, while the government rolled out One-Stop Centres, Women Helplines (181), and Emergency Response Systems across the country. The Nirbhaya Fund and special Fast-Track Courts are designed to improve survivor access to justice and speed up trials.^[6][2][1]

Yet, the disconnect between policy and practice is glaring. States with the highest GBV rates remain reluctant or slow to utilize central funds for women’s protection. Trials for high-profile cases last for years; conviction rates stay stagnant; perpetrator impunity remains the norm, not the exception.^[1]

The Cost of Inaction: Personal and National

Economic advances and social mobility for women are hindered by violence. India’s youth female literacy rate is now 96% and labour force participation stands at 45%, milestones reached over decades. But every act of violence robs these gains of their value and meaning, forcing many to abandon work, education, or public life altogether.^[2]

Married women are expected to rely on husbands, and divorces or widowhood leave women financially dependent on family members who may themselves be abusers. In rural areas, widowhood can make women burdens to their families, further restricting their autonomy.^[2]

Fact-Driven Solutions Must Replace Rhetoric

The facts underscore an urgent need for more than symbolic reform. Real change requires:

• Mandatory gender sensitization in schools and workplaces. Education must break the cycle of normalized violence early, bolstered by evidence-based curriculum and teacher training.^[2][1]
• Universal, accessible support infrastructure. One-Stop Centres and Helplines should be boosted with more funding and staff to address the needs of survivors with trauma-informed care.^[6]
• Justice reforms to improve conviction rates and reduce trial length. Fast-track courts must operate at full capacity, with police and judicial actors held accountable for delays and failures.^[1][2]
• Economic empowerment for women. Policies should enable survivors to pursue education and find employment, reducing financial dependency.^[2]
• Technology for protection, not exploitation. Law enforcement must adapt rapidly to new digital threats, training officers in cybercrime and prioritizing online safety, especially for women in public life.^[5]

Responsibility of Leaders and Society

Elected officials and civil society have a unique responsibility. Leaders must reject platitudes and manifest real intent—by allocating resources quickly, measuring outcomes honestly, and enforcing laws without bias. Civil society should amplify survivor voices, ensuring stories do not disappear behind statistics.^[1]

Conclusion: Confronting the Crisis with Facts

India’s gender-based violence crisis is not a mystery lacking solutions: it is a test of national will and honesty. Facts alone lay bare the limitations of silence and lip service. Only when the country commits fully to fact-driven progress—spanning education, justice, economics, and social attitudes—can cycles of violence be broken.

In this task, editorializing is a call not merely for outrage but for remedy. Women’s safety, dignity, and freedom cannot wait. The facts demand it, and so must our laws, leaders, and communities.^[5][2][1]

(The author is an Indian writer and economist, author of three books)

1. https://cjp.org.in/mapping-gender-based-violence-in-india-trends-determinants-and-institutional-frameworks/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/india-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-women-fearing-gender-based-violence-india-august-2025-accessible
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11932463/
4. https://ijmr.org.in/violence-against-women-in-india-comprehensive-care-for-survivors/
5. https://www.ipu.org/news/press-releases/2025-03/60-women-mps-asia-pacific-report-online-gender-based-violence
6. https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/mar/doc2025329529701.pdf
7. https://www.emro.who.int/emhj-volume-25-2019/volume-25-issue-4/gender-based-violence-in-new-delhi-india-forecast-based-on-secondary-data-analysis.html
8. https://www.mospi.gov.in/publication/women-men-india-2024-selected-indicators-and-data
9. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2116557
10. https://data.unwomen.org/global-database-on-violence-against-women
11. https://www.isdm.org.in/blog/its-womens-day-but-on-ground-little-has-changed

The post India’s Gender-Based Violence Crisis 2025: Facts must drive change appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since then, a debate has emerged in the public domain. Our self-styled “left liberal” intelligentsia, otherwise loud in denouncing Hindu majoritarianism, suddenly turned mute when confronted with Muslim right-wing pressure. If a program had been canceled under Hindu Right pressure, the outcry would have been deafening. Op-eds, reportage, and fiery essays warning of fascism’s arrival would have saturated every public platform. But when Muslim clerics strong-arm a cultural body into silencing a poet, silence reigns. Many intellectuals believe that calling out Muslim bigotry amounts to Islamophobia and would endanger an already threatened community. This view is simplistic and cowardly. If the true enemy is oppression, it must be opposed wherever it arises, across communities and within them. What the oppressed deserve is critical solidarity, a support that is constructive, accompanied by food for thought.

The Jamiat’s letter to the Academy, dated August 25, begins with praise but quickly hardens. It “forcefully” appeals that Akhtar not be invited, demanding a “man of integrity” take his place, “of any religion, but not a blasphemer of God.” It threatens “democratic means” if ignored, invoking the precedent of Taslima Nasreen who was hounded out of Kolkata. It expresses confidence the Academy will comply, which it did. The letter denounces Akhtar as a “blasphemer,” unfit for a literary stage.

What is striking is not just the intolerance of the demand, but the attempt to normalize religious authority in public life, where writers and poets must either submit to clerical approval or face ostracism. Mufti Shamail Nadvi, a leading voice of the protest, said he was “shocked” Akhtar was invited. But what is shocking about inviting Javed Akhtar to preside over a mushaira? He is first and foremost a poet, heir to four generations of Urdu literary contribution, the author of lyrics that define the golden era of Hindi cinema, and an uncontested literary figure. Nadvi’s “shock” reveals not moral concern but clerical disdain for a man who openly opposes them. Whom did he want instead? Someone with no claim to poetry but unquestioned theological orthodoxy?

Nadvi later claimed he did not demand cancellation, only that “true Muslims” boycott the event. But a boycott called by clerics is never benign. It lays the groundwork for ostracism and, in volatile contexts, mob violence. Imagine if a Hindu leader called for boycotting an event because the guest was Muslim. It would spark outrage. Yet when Muslim clerics do the same, many Muslims and their media representatives applaud it as a victory. This sets a dangerous precedent: must every intellectual first pass a theological litmus test before entering the muslim public sphere( public space where muslims form a sizable chunk ) ?

Nadvi also proposed a debate with Akhtar on the existence of God, accusing him of defaming religion and promoting atheism. But here the clerics stumble on their own contradictions. The Qur’an itself instructs believers not to insult others’ gods precisely because early Muslims did so and provoked offense. Offense is woven into Islam’s very beginnings. Why then is offense suddenly intolerable when directed at Islam? Will Muslims extend the same courtesy of not offending others’ beliefs? Within Islam itself, sects routinely accuse one another of blasphemy. In Pakistan, Nadvi’s counterparts have hurled the same charge at Engineer Mirza, a fellow Muslim preacher. Even Mufti Tariq Masood, from Nadvi’s own sect, has faced accusations of blasphemy. To brand someone a blasphemer is a political weapon, a tool to reclaim fading authority rather than a defense of truth.

If religion trembles before a single poet, then it is the clerics who insult the faith, not Akhtar. Nadvi insists Akhtar is famous for mocking Islam, when in fact his reputation rests on films, lyrics, and poetry. His atheistic remarks, when they appear, are marginal and occasional. Reducing his legacy to blasphemy is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation to score points. Worse, Nadvi’s rhetoric paints a target on Akhtar’s back. By invoking the precedent of Taslima Nasreen and repeating that Akhtar’s presence is an insult, he encourages hostility in an environment where blasphemy accusations can easily invite death  . Calling for a “debate” in such circumstances is a provocation for hardliners to do the job.

Akhtar was invited to preside over a mushaira, not to preach atheism. To object to his private unbelief is irrelevant. Does Nadvi mean to say a godless person has nothing valuable to contribute to literature, culture, or cinema? By that logic Muslims should shun modern intellectual life, where atheism and agnosticism are common, and confine themselves to insular ghettos of their own making. Such isolationism is disastrous. It strangles Muslims’ cultural life and reduces them to a community fearful of thought itself.

For so many years, he has attended thousands of mushairas and public programmes and no Muslim was ever offended by his supposed blasphemy. But suddenly when Nadwi comes out and declares that we should be offended and are offended everyone seems to fall in line. This politics of being offended must stop somewhere.

Meanwhile, Nadvi’s own 26-minute press conference did not cite a single Qur’anic verse or Hadith. It was a pure rant, a bid for relevance. His YouTube channel, once stagnant with 26,000 subscribers, surged to 32,000 after this controversy, with his video on Akhtar becoming the most viewed. The episode is less about defending faith and more about clerics chasing attention.

The Prophet of Islam urged believers to “seek knowledge even if it takes you to China,” meaning even from non-believers. Clerics like Nadvi are unable to come out of their archaic mindset of being offended. They demand isolation, echoing the Hindu Right’s charge that Muslims cannot coexist with others.

The cancellation of Javed Akhtar’s invitation may seem small, but it reflects a deeper malaise: the religionization of Muslim identity, where culture, literature, and art must bow to clerical approval. If unchecked, this mindset will strangle public life, silence intellectuals, and confine Muslims to an ever-shrinking ghetto of thought. The tragedy is not Akhtar’s disinvitation but that in 2025, clerics still dictate what ordinary Muslims are allowed to do, and ordinary Muslims can still be mobilized at the clerics’ whim.

(Osama Rawal is a political science graduate from Elphinstone College, Mumbai. He writes on identity, justice, and global affairs. Passionate about reading, travel, and critical thought. He tweets under @OsamaARRawal)

The post Urdu is not the monopoly of mullahs, nor even the Muslim community  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“An Election Commission bent on striking off names is bound to disenfranchise large sections of undocumented and vulnerable citizens,” he said, adding that this undermines trust in the fairness of elections.

Pointing out that the credibility of the Commission has historically been the backbone of India’s democratic resilience, he criticised the current system of appointing Election Commissioners, where the government retains decisive control, despite the Supreme Court recommending the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the process. “If the Commission is seen as partisan, the public will view elections as a fixed match,” Mr. Hegde warned.

The lecture traced the historical background to Citizenship and why the election commission’s doings first in Assam (over the exclusions in the National Register of Citizens –NRC and now the SIR) in Bihar are now spreading a fear and panic. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process since June 2025 has faced criticism politically and even in the Courts, where judicial orders have had to be resorted to, to ensure a measure of accountability and inclusion.

Journalist Dinesh Amin Mattu described the current controversies surrounding electoral processes as “symptoms” of a deeper malaise within India’s election system. Speaking on electoral accountability, he noted that while debates once centred on EVMs and now on voter rolls, the underlying problem was the lack of structural reform. “The real issue is not just in Bihar or elsewhere; it is the larger disease that has crept into the system,” Mr. Mattu said.

In the panel discussion that followed, activists and civil society representatives voiced concerns over large-scale exclusions from electoral rolls in Bihar and the continuing uncertainty around the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. Participants flagged the notification of a “special intensive revision” of voter lists in Bihar as deeply flawed, noting that it seeks to weed out “illegal immigrants” — a mandate that goes beyond the Election Commission’s role. Concerns were also raised about privileging certain groups such as bureaucrats and sportspersons while subjecting ordinary citizens, especially minorities, women, and migrant workers, to scrutiny. Teesta Setalvad, co-convenor of Vote for Democracy (VFD) led the panel discussion with participation from Tara Rao from Edelu Karnataka.

A lively discussion on what lay in store for Indian democracy followed. Opposition parties from Bihar like the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Indian National Congress (INC) have over the past two and a half weeks been conducting a ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar. Meanwhile independent journalists and Digital Platforms, including You Tubers have been reporting on the ground on gross anomalies and errors in the manner in which the SIR that has –initially excluded a staggering 65 lakh persons—been conducted. The Supreme Court is currently still hearing the matter. On claims of ‘weeding out 3 lakh illegal immigrants’ and those who are ‘dead’ or ‘permanently shifted’, or have ‘duplicate voter cards’ in fact, marginalised communities –Dalits, Muslims and women from across the spectrum face the serious threat of being denied their constitutional right to Universal Adult Franchise under Article 326 of the Constitution.

Journalist Gauri Lankesh’s immediate family, Kavitha Lankesh and her neice Esha Lankesh were present on the occasion.

Related:

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

Election Commission of India says voters’ names not to be removed without prior notice

The post Election Commission seriously risks losing all credibility: senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 25, The Hindu reported that Human Rights Watch had documented expulsions being carried out without any verification of citizenship. Bangladesh’s own border guards confirmed that more than 1,500 people had been pushed out in just five weeks. The report of Deutsche Welle amplified these findings with testimonies of workers whose Aadhaar cards were torn up, who were beaten, and then forced across the border at gunpoint.

Article 14 described the atmosphere in Ahmedabad’s Chandola area, where residents say their neighbours vanish overnight. As one woman put it: “They’re taken, and we don’t even get to see them again.”

The Courts: Cautious but engaged

For weeks, the deportations took place largely outside the gaze of the judiciary. That shifted in August.

On August 14, LiveLaw reported that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union government and nine states on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board. The Board alleged that under a May directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs, arbitrary deportations were being carried out by multiple state police forces, targeting Bengali-speaking workers.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pressed the Centre to respond. While the Solicitor General denied any targeting based on language, the Court reminded him that “action cannot be on the basis of language.” The bench stopped short of granting interim relief, but hinted at the need for a central coordination mechanism.

Meanwhile, the Calcutta High Court has taken a more pointed approach. On July 17, Scroll reported that the Court had sought answers about the case of Sunali Bibi, allegedly deported from Delhi while eight months pregnant. The petition was filed by her family, who say she was detained in Delhi despite showing Aadhaar and other documents.

According to the report of Madhyamam, it was revealed that the Delhi FRRO had issued an order on June 24 and executed it two days later. Delhi Police maintained that due process was followed. The Calcutta High Court, however, has asked the Union to explain why deportations suddenly escalated in June. The case is listed for hearing on August 20.

States push ahead

Even as courts are probing these deportations, state governments are moving aggressively.

• Maharashtra: On August 8, the Indian Express reported that Mumbai Police deported 112 people in a single operation using an Indian Air Force aircraft to the Assam–Bangladesh border. This brought the 2025 tally in Mumbai to 719 deportations — a staggering jump from 152 in all of 2024. Officials said they relied on call records, bank transactions, and site visits to identify foreigners. But the same report showed troubling patterns: entire families being targeted, and mothers with minor children deported without clarity about the children’s citizenship.
• Tamil Nadu: On August 12, the New Indian Express reported that the Attur district jail in Salem has been designated as a special camp for nearly 200 Bangladeshi nationals awaiting deportation. With existing camps overcrowded, Tamil Nadu’s move reflects how states are formalising and expanding detention infrastructure for cross-border removals.
• West Bengal: By contrast, West Bengal is resisting. On June 17, The Telegraph reported that three of five workers who had been pushed into Bangladesh were repatriated after the state government pressed the BSF to raise the matter with its Bangladeshi counterparts. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly accused BJP-ruled states of using deportations to harass Bengali-speaking Indians. On July 19, The Hindu reported her charge that this is part of a political campaign. That same day, The Hindu carried the testimony of Sweety Bibi, who said she and her family were picked up in Delhi’s Rohini area and deported despite holding Aadhaar cards.

Anatomy of a “push-out”

What distinguishes these deportations is their method. Reports by Citizens for Justice and Peace have previously detailed how people are detained in distant cities, transported under guard to Assam, and then forced across informal stretches of the border by the BSF — sometimes through river channels. There are no FIRs, no magistrates, and no tribunal hearings. Families are often not informed, and the individuals vanish from Indian legal records.

As The Indian Express explained, the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden on individuals to prove citizenship, but it still mandates a legal process — notice, inquiry, and tribunal adjudication. Many have argued that skipping these steps transforms deportations into unlawful expulsions.

The human cost

Behind the legal arguments are human tragedies. Deutsche Welle carried accounts of men in Mumbai who were beaten, stripped of their IDs, and loaded onto buses for Assam. In Delhi, the case of Sunali Bibi raises urgent questions about the rights of her unborn child if she gives birth in Bangladesh.

In Ahmedabad, Article 14 reported that residents of Chandola — branded as “Bangladeshis” after a demolition drive — have been cut off from rentals, water supply, and even schools for their children. Fear of deportation now pervades everyday life.

The emotional fallout can be as devastating as the legal consequences. In a deeply tragic case documented by India Today, The Indian Express, NDTV, and The Telegraph, a 63-year-old Kolkata man named Dilip Kumar Saha—who had lived in the city since 1972 after migrating from Dhaka—died by suicide amid intense fear over being targeted by the proposed NRC. His family said that even though he possessed valid voter ID and other documentation, he was increasingly anxious about the possibility of being detained or “pushed out” to Bangladesh. No explicit mention of NRC appeared in his note, but his wife and local politicians blamed the atmosphere of uncertainty for driving him to depression

The bottom line

India is in the middle of a deportation surge unlike anything seen in decades. State governments like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are expanding infrastructure and accelerating deportations; West Bengal is contesting them and even securing the return of deported workers. The Supreme Court and High Courts are beginning to engage but have yet to halt the practice.

As documented across multiple media reports as well as the ground reports of CJP, what unites these cases is a disturbing absence of due process. Citizens and migrants alike are being swept up, disappeared across the border, and left to fight for recognition.

The months ahead will show whether India’s judiciary reasserts constitutional safeguards — or whether the “push-out” becomes an entrenched, silent feature of governance at the border.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

“She Can’t Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told as state fails to produce handover certificate in Doyjan Bibi “pushback” case

The post India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.