Clearing pending court cases, secretariat files, and administration rules is an essential need of the people. The reference here is to a case related to the incumbent National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s Ministry of Home Affairs. The Home Ministry submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court suggesting that the President should act within a maximum time frame of three months on Bills referred by Governors.

This is neither a new idea nor breaking news. The Central government, through its Home Ministry, also proposed that Governors must decide within three months whether to assent to or reject Bills. But who asked for this?

• It was the Home Ministry that requested the Supreme Court to impose the same three-month limit on the President.
• Then why raise 14 questions? Why constitute a special bench of the Supreme Court to render advice?

Should Governors continue to keep Bills pending for years in several states, including Tamil Nadu? Is this not a constitutional challenge? Are we deliberately creating a situation where state governments are rendered powerless to act? Should the people of Tamil Nadu — and other states — keep waiting endlessly for governance through Bills? Is this good governance, bad governance, or non-governance?

Hence, the real question is: will the Supreme Court’s interpretation in response to this Presidential Reference stand, or if the Central government disagrees later, will this be a futile exercise?

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold assent for 10 Bills was “unconstitutional and erroneous.” Using Article 142, it held that the Bills should be treated as assented to by the President.

On May 16, 2025, the Presidential Reference asked the Supreme Court to answer whether a time limit can be imposed through a judicial order on the President. Article 201 of the Constitution does not prescribe any such time frame. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment on April 8, 2024, made it very clear: “We are merely adopting the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through two consecutive Office Memorandums (OMs) in 2016, which fixed a three-month timeline.” The government itself wanted this time limit back in 2016. If that’s the case, why is a fresh Supreme Court hearing on the Presidential Reference even necessary?

What Did the President Ask?

The President of India is the supreme constitutional authority for governance of the country. The President is elected through an elaborate process involving MPs and MLAs across the nation — no other election is so comprehensive. This is why the President holds significant powers. When the President refers a matter to the Supreme Court, it is the constitutional duty of the Court to advise.

The Matter is Federal in Nature

This matter pertains to the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. Article 1 of the Constitution clearly says: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” It further defines the states and territories as listed in the First Schedule. Just like the United States of America, India, too, can be considered a “Union of States”. This implies that Governors have substantial authority in state administration.

How Much Power do Governors Have?

Governors, appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister and Home Minister, often act under the influence of the Union government. They are supposed to serve as the highest authority within a state. They are expected to act promptly and responsibly. They must not misuse their powers to obstruct governance.

To Avoid Red Tape

Naturally, such deep constitutional questions demand careful legal examination. The set of questions was most likely framed by constitutional experts. Hence, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is required to provide clarity. Articles 200 and 201 do not stipulate any time frame — which is not necessarily a flaw. But administration requires timely decisions to avoid red tape. Governors don’t have bigger jobs than this — even if their powers are largely ceremonial, they must act without unnecessary delay.

The recent Supreme Court judgment applies to all Governors. Through this reference, the President is indicating that similar limitations may apply to her discretionary powers as well.

Why These Delays in Assent?

Not all Governors are in conflict with Chief Ministers or state cabinets. Such friction is mostly seen in states where the ruling party is different from the party in power at the Centre. There are credible allegations that such delays are politically motivated. Due to this, state governments are often unable to implement crucial laws, as a result of which the governance process halts.

That is why, under Article 143(1), the President approached the Supreme Court seeking advice, especially in light of growing conflicts between Governors and Chief Ministers across the country.

Recently, in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) case, the Supreme Court criticised the use of the term “pocket veto,” wherein Governors indefinitely withhold assent without acting on Bills.

The President has asked five critical questions:

1. Are the discretionary powers exercised by Governors under Article 200 subject to judicial review?
2. Is the protection provided to Governors/President under Article 361 an absolute bar to judicial scrutiny?
3. In the absence of a constitutional time frame, what is the appropriate manner in which the Governor should decide on a Bill?
4. Are decisions taken by the President under Article 201 subject to judicial review?
5. Can a time limit be imposed on the President’s decision under Article 201? Can the courts prescribe such a limit?

Other important questions include:

1. How many options does a Governor have under Article 200 regarding a Bill?
2. Should the Governor act solely on the advice of the State Cabinet?
3. Can the President, in such situations, seek advice from the Supreme Court?
4. Do the courts have the power to conduct judicial review under Articles 200 and 201?
5. Under Article 142, can courts issue directives to remove a Governor or President?
6. Is a law passed by the state legislature valid even without the Governor’s assent?
7. Under Article 145(3), must a Constitution Bench of at least five judges be constituted to interpret these issues?
8. Does Article 142 apply only to procedural law, or can it override constitutional provisions?
9. Can the Supreme Court resolve disputes between the Centre and states without an Original Suit under Article 131?

Justice J B Pardiwala made it clear that the Governor has only three options when a Bill is presented. Once a Bill is returned to the legislature and passed again, the Governor cannot send it to the President. Only if the Bill is altered, as per the Governor’s suggestions, can it be sent to the President; otherwise, not.

Is SC’s Advice Not Binding?

If the Governor or President fails to act, citizens or governments can file a writ of mandamus in court. In a democracy, governance must happen through action — not inaction. While this judgment indicates the path, a Constitution Bench may still be needed for final clarity. But it is important to note: under Article 143, the advice given by the Supreme Court is not binding.

Meanwhile, ministries and state departments have often come to a standstill due to such withheld Bills. This ultimately violates the people’s right to governance.

This writer is a Former Central Information Commissioner and Professor of Law, Hyderabad. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post President or Governor, People Have Right to Governance! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tracing the background for the crisis in the agricultural sector, the analysis states that the National Commission of Farmers headed by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan had clearly stated in its 2006 Report that in order to rescue farmers from the agrarian crisis, they must be paid a remunerative price at least 50% above the comprehensive cost of cultivation C2. However, even after 19 years, these remain hollow promises. Even the MSP announced remains mostly on paper since there is no assured procurement.  There exists a substantial gap between the announced MSP and price realised by farmers.

The cost of cultivation surveys shows that the average price received by paddy farmers was 36% lower than the MSP@ A2+FL in 2021-22 (the latest data available). The average price received by Tur/Arhar (lentil) farmers in Telengana was 11% lower than the MSP in 2021-22. This implies that the benefit of MSP is not reaching to most of the farmers. The long-term data on MSP released by the Ministry of Agriculture shows a deceleration in the growth of real MSP for almost all crops, particularly paddy. For example, the real MSP for paddy grew at an annual rate of 1.17% per annum between 2004–05 and 2013–14, which declined to 0.53% per annum during the period from 2014–15 to 2025–26. Out of the 16 crops studied, 9 crops showed a sharp slowdown in real MSP growth between years 2014–15 to 2025–26. For crops such as Paddy (rice), Maize, Tur/Arhar, Urad (lentils), and Groundnut, the growth rate in the last decade was less than 1% per annum.

The official press release of the Union Government has remained almost silent about paddy, the most important Kharif crop as the inconvenient truth is that its MSP has been increased by a mere ₹69 per quintal. According to the national average cost projected by CACP, the C2+50% price for paddy comes to ₹3,135 per quintal, but the declared MSP is only ₹2,369, which means a loss of ₹766 per quintal. If we look at the cost projected by the states for paddy, it is ₹2787 in Punjab, ₹3673 in Telangana and Rs.4159 in Maharashtra per quintal. These states had recommended MSPs of ₹4,281, ₹5,510, and ₹4,783 per quintal respectively. This clearly shows that in many states, even according to government figures, farmers will struggle to recover their cost of production from paddy crop sales. According to the CACP, across India merely 17.3 per cent of paddy farmers have benefited from procurement at MSP in 2023-24. The paddy procurement at MSP was very meagre in BJP-NDA ruled States like Uttar Pradesh (5.8%), Bihar (4.1%), and Assam (below 5%). Even Congress ruled Karnataka and JMM ruled Jharkhand procured less than 5 per cent of produce from paddy farmers. Most States have also flagged that costs are higher than the CACP cost estimates. Drawing on data from Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for 2023–24 agricultural year, clearly there is a lack of alignment between procurement levels and the increase in MSP. Pertinently, only 0.23 per cent of Tur/Arhar production, 0.72 percent of Groundnut production, and 9.3 per cent of Cotton production has been procured.

The government has made exaggerated claims that the MSP has been increased by ₹820 for Nigerseed, ₹596 for Ragi, ₹589 for Cotton, and ₹579 for Sesamum per quintal. But even these increased prices fall far short of the C2+50% benchmark, and farmers will have to bear heavy losses. The MSP for Nigerseed has been fixed at ₹9,537 per quintal, while the C2+50% price should be ₹12,037 — this means a loss of ₹2,500 per quintal for the farmer.

Similarly, in the case of Ragi, the government has fixed the MSP at ₹4,886 per quintal, but the C2+50% price, as per CACP’s projections, should be ₹5,964 — which means the farmer will get ₹1,078 less per quintal than the C2+50%  price.

Looking at the figures for cotton, the C2+50% price is ₹10,075 per quintal, whereas the government has announced an MSP of only ₹7,710 — compelling the farmer to sell the crop at a loss of ₹2,365 per quintal.

It is notable that the Telangana Government had in 2024-25 demanded ₹16,000 per quintal. In Sesamum, the C2+50% price should be ₹12,948, but the government has declared an MSP of ₹9,537 — resulting in a loss of ₹3,102 per quintal for the farmer.

In Jowar (sorghum), the government-declared MSP is ₹3,699 per quintal, but the C2+50% cost, as per CACP, is ₹4,809 — which means the farmer will receive ₹1,110 less per quintal. Not only this, the CACP-projected cost for Karnataka is ₹3,802, and the state’s projected cost is ₹5,232 per quintal, while Maharashtra’s projected cost is ₹4,163 — meaning that in these states, the income from crop sales will not even cover the cost of cultivation.

The same situation prevails in the case of Bajra (pearl millet) and Maize. The MSP for Bajra has been set at ₹2,775 and for Maize at ₹2,400 per quintal, whereas the C2+50% cost based on CACP’s projections is ₹3,313 and ₹2,928 respectively. Even in Gujarat — Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state — the state government has projected the cost of production for Maize at ₹2,991 and suggested an MSP of ₹4,550. This means that if a Gujarati farmer sells Maize at the Centre’s MSP rates, he will receive ₹591 less than his cost of production.

These losses calculated above are based on government-projected costs. The truth, which everyone knows, is that the actual cost of production is much higher than the cost projected by the CACP. The continuously rising input costs are increasing the farmers’ expenses, but they are not receiving a fair price for their produce. This is the reason behind the prevailing agrarian crisis and the ongoing farmers’ suicides in the country.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) has therefore warned the BJP-led Union government to desist from data manipulation and refrain from misleading the public. AIKS calls upon all its units to expose the farcical claims. The AIKS has re-committed itself to unite with farmers’ organisations to launch a fierce movement demanding fair price for crops.

Related:

Farmers’ protest fully justified

Why are thousands of Farmers marching with CPI (M) Leader JP Gavit?

RSS must stop demonising farmers’ movement: AIKS

The post NDA’s 11 years of betrayal: MSP of Kharif crop way below promised C2+50% appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement released on Wednesday, May 28 was in clear solidarity with Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad who was arrested over his posts on Operation Sindoor.

“We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest,” the statement said, calling the charges “outrageous and absurd.” “The main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace,” it noted.

Calling the charges against Mahmudabad reminiscent of the colonial-era sedition law, the statement said that it “be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint.”

The statement in full may be read below:

CCG Open statement on the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest. Professor Ali Khan was charged for two of his social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. His posts were thoughtful and measured. In these he praised the restraint of the Indian Army. He noted the importance of the “optics” of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a face of the Indian armed forces during the press briefings at the time that the hostilities were underway, but added that the symbolism of this would be hypocritical if lynching and bulldozing of homes continued.

But the main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace. He described the loss of civilian lives on both sides as “tragic” and warned against warmongering by civilians who have never experienced war. Denouncing the “blind bloodlust for war” displayed by some people on social media, he declared that warmongering “is actually disrespecting the seriousness of war and dishonouring the lives of soldiers whose lives are actually on the line.”

For these posts, Professor Ali was charged under stringent sections of India’s new criminal law code, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. These include Section 152, which penalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. This closely echoes the language of the colonial-era sedition law under the now repealed Indian Penal Code. Other crimes for which Professor Ali Khan is charged include Section 196(1) (b), which penalises acts that disturb communal harmony and public tranquillity; Section 197(1) (c), which targets “assertions likely to cause disharmony” and Section 299, which criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings.”

We regard the criminal charges against Professor Ali Khan as outrageous and absurd. It cannot be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for  taking suo moto action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian Muslims have rarely attracted these criminal charges of disloyalty to the  nation and fostering religious hate. In the most recent case, after a minister from Madhya Pradesh (MP), Kunwar Vijay Shah, described Colonel Sofia Qureshi as the sister of terrorists, it required the MP High Court to direct the police to register an FIR against the minister. The High Court described the statements of the minister as “cancerous and dangerous”.

Many students and faculty members came forward in heartening solidarity with Professor Ali Khan, even though the management of Ashoka University remained conspicuously silent about the unjust criminal targeting of their faculty. Faculty members took turns to sit outside places where the professor was detained. We were particularly touched by  a statement by Professor Ali Khan’s students, who described him as compassionate and  thoughtful, a teacher who loved his country and taught his students respect for the values of  secular democracy spelt out in our Constitution.

After his arrest and police remand, we were relieved that the Supreme Court granted him interim bail. But, with due respect, we are dismayed by some of the comments made by the bench and the conditions of bail that were laid down. The bench made mystifying allusions to “dog-whistling” in the professor’s social media tweets, criticising his “choice of words” and charging him with seeking “cheap publicity”. The bench ordered the surrender of the professor’s passport and the appointment of a Special Investigation Team to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in the two posts.” It is beyond our comprehension how three police officers could be equipped to extract hidden meanings from a post written in elegant and straightforward English.

The Supreme Court disapproved of public displays of solidarity with the professor, handing out a stern warning to academics and students who supported Professor Ali Khan with the words “we know how to handle them also”. The learned judges also directed the professor to make no further statements about the India-Pakistan hostilities. At a time when the country is deluged with social media posts and speeches of hatemongering and warmongering, it is a matter of painful irony that calls for peace by a political scientist are silenced. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for taking suo moto  action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian  Muslims have rarely attracted criminal charges of disloyalty to the nation and fostering  religious hate.

We are quite disturbed by the deviation from defence of free speech, which has been  upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases, including Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India  and even recently in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat. In the latter case, Justice Oka pronounced that “in a healthy democracy, the views or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view”.  Even if such speech is opposed by many people, it must still be “respected and protected”.  That judgment notably offered advice to judges who might personally dislike certain articulations. Even in such cases, it was their “duty to uphold” and “zealously protect” the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

The perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by unjust application of criminal law can be profoundly corrosive for a society. Young journalist Saurav Das aptly describes the treatment of Professor Ali Khan by the police and courts as “a perfect example of how you make a nation of intellectually dead citizens, where critical inquiry is replaced by  rote repetition and progressive voices are muzzled to make space for conformist, mediocre  opinions. This is how a society dies, where the proliferation of free thought is choked, through a slow, judicially sanctioned suffocation of intellectual life”.

Satyameva Jayate

Constitutional Conduct Group (79 signatories, as below)

The post ‘Seeking peace, calling out hate crimes not a crime’: Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Signatories like Mrs Lalitha Ramdas, wife of Admiral Ramdas (retired), former Chief of the Indian Navy, Vishnu Bhagwat (retired), former Chief of the Indian Navy, Lt. General (Retd) Vijay Oberoi, Vice Admiral (Retd) Sanjay Misra, Major M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd), and EAS Sarma IAS (Retd) among several others have stated that such derogatory statements made by these two Ministers can “adversely affect the morale of the serving personnel of our Armed Forces resulting in the weakening of national security and territorial integrity.” Hence the signatories have demanded that both the Centre and the State should therefore initiate decisive action against the two Ministers for making such derogatory statements under the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.  The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh should remove forthwith the two Ministers from the State Cabinet. The central leadership of the concerned party should publicly condemn the derogatory statements made by the two Ministers and initiate action against them.

The signatories, in their open letter, dated May 17, 2025, have added that, because of the stringent Rules and discipline in the Armed Forces its members are unable to respond to these derogatory statements and humiliation. Therefore, as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces they have urged President of India, Draupadi Murmu to defend the honour and self-respect of the brave Indian Armed Forces by directing appropriate action against those indulging in such denigration and preventing the same in the future.

It may be recalled that statements made by deputy chief minister, Madhya Pradesh, Jagdish Devda and minister Vijay Shah came in for sharp criticism some weeks ag during the recent Indo-Pak conflict. First, Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah made a public statement referring to Col Sofia Qureshi, the official spokesperson for the defence forces as the “(terrorists) wiped the sindoor of our sisters and daughters (in the context of the recent Pahalgaon attack by terrorists), and we sent their own sister to give it back to them in kind ” openly betraying his gender-insensitive, non-secular, divisive state of mind, a statement that tends to deprecate women in general, incite communal fissures and insult the defence forces.

Second, Deputy CM Jagdish Devda, speaking at a training session for civil defence volunteers in Jabalpur on Friday, controversially told the audience, “Pradhanmantri ji ko bhi dhanyawad dena chahenge, aur pura desh, desh ki wo sena, wo sainik, unke charno mein natmastak hain. Unke charno mein pura desh natmastak hai. Unhone jo jawab diya hai (We would also like to thank the Prime Minister; the entire country, the country’s Army, its soldiers are bowing at his feet. The entire country is bowing at his feet. For the response he gave).”

The open communication also recalls and records that earlier, Shri Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of UP made a similar derogatory statement against the defence forces by calling the armed forces, “Modiji ki sena” in April 2019. Through all of these remarks that affect the dignity and morale of the forces the Government has chosen to remain silent in the matter leading to the repetition of the humiliation of the Armed Forces!

Besides, Shri Adityanath’s earlier statement and Shri Devda’s latest statement showed their outright disrespect for the letter and spirit of Article 53 of the Constitution, which defines executive power of the Union as follows:

“(1) The executive power of the Union  shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.

 (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

 (3) Nothing in this article shall—

 (a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority;” In other words, under Article 52(2) of the Constitution, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall vest in the President of India and no other authority.

Finally, the letter records that it is unfortunate that, instead of questioning and condemning these “despicable acts” senior leaders of BJP at the national level and their handlers are supporting them. In conclusion, the signatories have stated that while expressing solidarity with Col Sofia Qureshi and the Defence Forces in general for their unwavering commitment to safeguarding national security, we unequivocally condemn the statements made by the two Ministers.

Signatories:

1. Mrs Lalita Ramdas, Wife of Admiral (Retd) L. Ramdas, Former Chief of the Naval Staff
2. Admiral (Retd) Vishnu Bhagwat, Former Chief of the Naval Staff
3. General (Retd) Vijay Oberoi
4. Vice Admiral (Retd) Sanjay Misra
5. Major M G Devasahayam IAS (Retd)
6. EAS Sarma IAS (Retd)
7. Surendra Nath IAS (Retd)
8. Prof (Retd) Sebastian Morris (IIM, Ahmedabad)
9. Thomas Franco (People First)
10. Joe Athialy (Centre for Financial Accountability)
11. Dinesh Abrol (Delhi Science Forum)
12. Soumya Dutta (MAUSAM, Environmental Activist)
13. V Sridhar (Journalist, Bengaluru)
14. Prasad Chacko (People’s Union for Civil Liberties )
15. Vijayakumar (Indian School of Social Sciences)
16. Smita Ramanathan (Social Activist)
17. R. Sankari (TNGPA)
18. Teesta Setalvad (Human Rights Activist)
19. Vivekanandan (Retd Professor, MUTA)
20. K Ashok Rao (Patron All India Power Engineers Frederation)
21. Kaushik Majumdar (Social Activist)
22. Vivekaanandhan (TANRECTA)
23. Praveer Peter (Sajha Kadam (for Peace & Harmony))
24. Venkatesh Athreya (Retd Professor, Economist)
25. Nityanand Jayaraman (Chennai Solidarity Group)
26. Amanulla Khan (All India Insurance Employees’ Association)
27. Tara Rao (Eddelu Karnataka)
28. Uma Shankari (Social Activist)
29. Meera Sanghamitra, Social Activist (NAPM), Telangana
30. Madhu Bhaduri, Delhi
31. Malathi N Thomas, Karnataka
32. Prabhat Patnaik, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
33. Arun Kumar, Haryana
34. Cedric Prakash, Gujarat
35. Arun Kumar
36. VIVEKANANDAN TD, Tamil Nadu
37. Ambassador K P Fabian, Delhi
38. Ashok Sharma IFS (Retd), UP
39. Elizabeth D’Souza , Mumbai
40. A. NATHAN – PRESIDENT – NEW LIFE PEOPLE’S PARTY, TAMILNADU
41. Sushil, Karnataka
42. Beena Choksi, Maharashtra
43. Sathish Kumar, Tamil Nadu
44. Sabina Basha, Karnataka
45. Biraj Mehta, Maharashtra
46. Rahul George, Karnataka
47. Sabala, Maharashtra
48. John Dayal, Delhi
49. Chellappa, Tamil Nadu
50. Maj Sharat Chandra Singh (DGM BOI Retd) Uttar Pradesh
51. H S Gujral Punjab
52. SHARAD BEHAR, IAS Retired       Madhya Pradesh
53. Armaity Irani, Maharashtra
54. Mariadasa, Tamilnadu
55. Prabhat Sharan (Senior Journalist), Maharashtra
56. Ravi Budhiraja IAS(Retd), Maharashtra
57. Ashish Kajla, Delhi
58. Aruna Rodrigues, Madhya Pradesh
59. AlokPerti, Delhi
60. Calvin Dsouza, Goa
61. Madhu Bhaduri, Delhi
62. Peter, Tamilnadu
63. Bob Monteiro, Karnataka
64. Mariadasan, Tamilnadu
65. Amanulla Khan, Karnataka
66. MOHAMED IMRAN, TAMILNADU
67. S M Sebastian, Tamilnadu
68. Pranjali Tripathi, Delhi
69. Kirity Roy, MASUM, West Bengal
70. Aditya Mukherjee, Delhi
71. Narendra Panjwani, Maharashtra
72. M.Fidelis , Tamil Nadu
73. Ramesh Dixit, Uttar Pradesh
74. Koshi Philip, Tamilnadu
75. Neera Burra, New Delhi
76. Antony Ravi J, Tamil Nadu
77. Maya Krishna Rao, Karnataka
78. ivy lobo karnayaka
79. S Om Prakash, Karnataka
80. Kripa Noronha, Karnataka
81. Mridula Mukherjee, Delhi
82. Hilarius , Tamilnadu
83. Justice D. Hariparanthaman (Retd)
84. Sarbendu Guha, West Bengal
85. T.R. Colaso, Karnataka
86. Samrat, Delhi
87. Captain Subbarao Prabhala IN Retd, Karnataka
88. Naveen Yadav, Delhi
89. Nagalsamy , Tamilnadu
90. Varsha, Telangana
91. Gleetus, Tamil Nadu
92. Anjali Bhardwaj, Delhi
93. Amrita Johri, Delhi

The post Save the honour and self-respect of India’s Armed forces: Former army naval personnel & citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I saw a video from a public speech delivered by you in your home state of Gujarat on Tuesday, May 27. To say the least, I, as a person from Northeast India, am still numb at your references to “small eyes” and with “eyes that don’t even open”.

Before I come to why, let me take this opportunity to convey to you that far from Gujarat, in my family home in Assam, ever since my school days, I have seen a sizeable photo of a certain Gujarati hanging on a wall of the drawing room. Every godhuli (dusk), an incense stick is stuck on to the photo frame by my father, just after he finishes the same ritual on all the frames containing various gods and goddesses hung across the house, while reciting his evening mantras. I am proud to say here, that the Gujarati prayed in my family is none other than the Mahatma – Mahatma Gandhi.

My father, now 93, still continues the daily ritual. He also never forgets to tell any first-time visitor with a tinge of pride that the Mahatma, during his maiden trip to Assam in 1921, had also paid a short visit to his now over-a-century-old family house. My grandfather was one of the first in that Upper Assam town to have signed up for a Congress membership at the call of the Mahatma then to fight the foreign powers, and yes, to refuse foreign goods too.

Prime Minister, I am sure you are aware of the great Naga freedom fighter Rani Gaidinliu. When there was no advocate to fight the case mounted against her by the British, my grandfather had traveled a challenging path all the way to the Rangoon high court with a set of fellow Nagas to fight for her release from jail. In a country under foreign powers then, it was no surprise that the advocate was also jailed along with Gaidinliu, a young accused then who had the gumption to stand up to the colonial powers for converting fellow Nagas to Christianity from their religion, Heraka. That fight, by the way, had made our first prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru bestow on Gaidinliu the prefix to her name, Rani (queen), as we know her today, and call her a freedom fighter.

These references, particularly to the Father of the Nation, are only to underline that the connections that we form with powerful leaders and change-makers who may belong to another region or community, just keeps alive the unity and solidarity of the people of this huge country that we are all part of, and so proud of. Tiny, daily rituals carried out in houses like mine also acknowledge that we may know little about a region that the leader or change-maker comes from or their people, but, as the constitution says, we are the same people – no matter how large or small the size of our eyes are (irrespective of race and creed, remember?).

Prime Minister, like several from the Northeast, I too have lived on those lines. I happened to choose a partner from outside the region. I never looked at the size of his eyes, and I am sure, he didn’t either. Let me tell you, what we saw in each other’s eyes was the same – love and respect.

*

In your May 27 speech, even if you had made an indirect reference to the Chinese when you had referred to Ganesha with “small eyes” and “eyes that don’t even open”, the remark cannot be overlooked. It cannot be not seen to apply to “small-eyed” Indians like me, those who come from the region I call home.

Prime Minister, even in the national capital, many from the Northeast (that includes me too) face racism and discrimination on the streets almost every day. Often in central Delhi, I am stopped by random strangers while walking, to ask in English which country I belong to – whether I am looking for a currency exchange booth, a cheaper hotel room, or a taxi for sightseeing.

For those who may ask, ‘What clothes were you wearing then’ – well, no ‘Indian’ dress has been able to help me ward off such casual street racism in Delhi yet. I am sure this must be the case in various other cities.

Also, I speak for many northeastern women living in mainland cities when I say that I almost never step out of my house without using kajal on my eyes, just because we don’t want to be on the streets with “small eyes”; eyes that are seen by others as “barely open”.

Sir, I am not sure if you are aware, it is also well documented in the report of the Bezbaruah Committee, set up by the Union government after the tragic death of an Arunachali youth, Nido Tania, in Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar, that the racist terms used on people from the Northeast in big cities includes words like ‘chinky’ and ‘Chinese’.

“Small eyes” too is a term used for us. At times, no words are needed but finger tips are used to press the corners of the attacker’s eyes to send us the message that we have “small eyes” and “eyes that barely open” – the same gesture you used in your speech. And exactly like that China-made Ganesha idol you had referred to in your speech.

*

Prime Minister, it is also well documented that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many from my region were thrown out of stores and rented accommodations, some even attacked physically and spat at, just because they looked ‘Chinese’ and the epidemic had stemmed from China.

In such a dark reality, if you, as the prime minister, lampoon “small eyes” publicly, in our eyes, you are seen backing those nameless people in many mainland cities who call us “Chinky” and “Chinese”.

Anyway, it doesn’t behove the stature of an Indian prime minister to deploy such racist language about any community or set of people, whether Indian or not. What I understood also from your speech is that India’s contest is economic and versus China, and rightly so. In such a fight, there should be no space for the size of the eyes. Like it didn’t matter in diplomacy, when you set your big eyes on the “small-eyed” Chinese premier Xi Jinping while sitting on a swing and chuckling together by the Sabarmati some years ago.

Prime Minister, let me remind you here, that even in your own cabinet, there are ministers with ‘small eyes’. I am referring to Sarbananda Sonowal and Kiren Rijiju. In 2018, when your government, reportedly due to Chinese insistence, kept Rijiju out of an official function in New Delhi, many in my region were upset and sad that New Delhi didn’t stand up to the Chinese pressure. Arunachal Pradesh, Rijiju’s home state, is an Indian state, and shall remain so.

Also, doesn’t at least one of your important cabinet ministers, who is in the CCS, have a partner whose eyes are “small” due to her race? Personal preferences aside, racist outbursts by the country’s top leader should have no space in a public speech in today’s day and time; they are bad for both domestic and international optics. Remember how US president Donald Trump was chided by the world for having questioned the attire of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.

*

Prime Minister, here is something about Lord Ganesha having “small eyes”.

If you take into account the fact that Ganesha is also a Buddhist deity, revered across South Asia where people have “small eyes”. Even in several Indian monasteries, say, Alchi, said to be the oldest monastery in Ladakh, Ganesha exists in miniature paintings on its walls – and yes, with small eyes! The Vinayaka or the Ganapati cult within various sects of Buddhism exists beyond India, across the South and South-East Asia’s  geography. Finding a Ganesha sculpture in a museum, therefore, in these countries where Buddhism has been a strong religious influence, is not a rarity. By the way, Ganesha is the only Hindu god regarded as Bodhisatva. 

Even in China, there have been Ganapati rituals. French Buddhism expert Robert Duquenne in his note, ‘Ganapathi Rituals in Chinese’, had pointed out that “Not less than twelve texts in the Chinese Buddhist Canon are dedicated to Vinayaka or Ganapati.” The author had noted, “The alternative and more usual name Ganesa never occurs here.”

Here, let me also inform you that some of our goddesses may in all likelihood have “small eyes”. Assam’s revered goddess Kesaikhati is a tribal goddess. We don’t often draw Ma Kamakhya, but as per new research, she too might have a tribal (Khasi) origin.

In Assam, we also celebrate the annual arrival of the monsoons, no less than that of a goddess. We call her Bordoisila. Every monsoon, we keep out a small mirror, a bottle of hair oil and a comb, for her to look at; the belief is, the rains are strong because she is rushing home to see her mother. Since the name Bordoisila has been drawn from the Bodo community, of Tibeto Burman origin, that goddess also, racially speaking, should have “small eyes”.

*

Prime Minister, I fully agree with you that a country which is aspiring to become a developed nation by 2047, must start its self-sufficiency journey on a war footing. You had implied China in your speech and I agree that we must stay away from using not just cheaper Chinese goods like Diwali lights and Holi colours and Lakshmi and Ganesha idols, but also all foreign goods that have a decent equivalent which is Made in India.

This country had seen a time when people had booked their HMT watches and waited for months for them to be delivered; same with India-made cars and scooters. But should that journey not start with you? Like it did with Gandhi when he gave a call to quit using foreign goods?

Therefore, if you still wear that Movado watch, that pair of Maybach sunglasses, that Mont Blanc pen, etc., which several media reports speak of regularly, please replace them with Made in India equivalents. Show the path.

*

And that western hat you wore while visiting a wildlife park?

I have a suggestion for its replacement too. In the Northeast, each community has its own hat; you can truly promote indigenous traditions and Made in India products if you choose to replace that cowboy-like hat with one from my region. The choices are too many, I promise.

Before I end, I must also say why I took the liberty to write an open letter to you. This is in keeping with my understanding of what you often say, India is not just the world’s largest democracy but the mother of all democracies. In such a democracy, a common citizen must then have the right to question her elected Prime Minister. So have I here, just as a common citizen who comes from the Northeast. I have questioned you about a sensitivity that you clearly overlooked in your May 27 public speech, and as a “small eyed” Indian, I am offended.

I hope you ponder over it and course correct, because India’s prime minister must not be seen just talking about the need for fellow Indians to treat people from the Northeast without discrimination; but must be seen doing so too, both in his words and deeds so that he becomes an example for others to emulate.

With best regards,

Yours sincerely,
Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty,
A humble citizen of India who is never allowed to forget that she has “small eyes”, but who manages to keep them open and look clearly ahead.

(Post script: Sir, looking at the times that we are in, I hope I don’t get arrested for writing an open letter to you. Getting trolled on social media would anyway follow, and who knows, fellow north-easterners belonging to your party may also be sent after me for taking umbrage at your comment, and I may eventually end up being called a ‘China sympathiser’.) 

Courtesy: The Wire

The post An Open Letter: ‘I Have Small Eyes, Mr Prime Minister’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Her family once owned 50 bighas of land (over 31 acres; 1 bigha = 0.6 acre), but today, those fields lie across the river.

In the past 60 years, the Ganga’s constant erosion and shifting course have forced her to move several times. Once a landowner, she now survives as a daily wage labourer, living in a roadside hut at the edge of the village with her husband and four children.

Devi’s story echoes across Bhojpur, where thousands of farmers have been repeatedly displaced by the river’s unpredictable flow. “One by one, our lands are being swallowed by the Ganga while many areas teeter on the brink,” she said.

For families across the affected villages, losing their land has meant a life of instability. They are forced into makeshift huts along the Buxar–Koilwar embankment while they survive day to day with little to no help from the state, says Sohan Gond, a farmer.

The River Redraws Lives

To understand the story of Bhojpur, one has to look at the geography of the region. Bhojpur shares a border with Uttar Pradesh, and the altered course of the Ganga along the two states has deepened long-standing tensions between farmers on both sides.

According to Dayashankar Singh, a resident of Sohra Tribhuani who has spent years petitioning both the courts and governments of Bihar and UP, much of the land once owned by Bhojpur farmers now not only lies across the river but also across the state line.

This situation has sparked confusion and disputes over who legally owns the land, Singh says. “When a farmer from Bihar steps onto his old land, strongmen from UP threaten and drive him away,” he added.

In 1970, the Ganga dramatically altered its course, shifting from Ballia in UP towards the Bhojpur border in Bihar, causing widespread erosion. Over the past 46 years, the river has moved nearly 10 kilometres south into Bhojpur, turning thousands of acres of once-fertile farmland into barren stretches of sand and silt.

“And the remaining fertile land is now embroiled in a border dispute between Ballia and Bhojpur,” added Singh.

A Conflict Older Than Independence

Historical records show that the shifting Ganga has changed the geography of at least 192 villages across Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Singh explained that the border dispute began under British rule and remains unresolved to this day.

From the colonial era through the late 20th century, contested ownership in the Diara region has often turned violent, with communities clashing over land rights. The Diara refers to tracts of land formed in the middle of the Ganga over decades due to the gradual deposition of sand.

In Sohra Tribhuani alone, nearly 5,600 bighas (3,500 acres) of land from the village and its surrounding areas were gradually submerged by the river and now lie across in UP. Despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue, including a demarcation attempt by the Trivedi Commission appointed by the government in 1960, no lasting solution has been achieved, said Singh.

Legal Red-Tape

Singh, who is also fighting for the restoration of his old land rights, explained that after the formation of the Trivedi Commission a significant portion of land in two maujas (a traditional revenue or administrative unit used in rural India) of the Barhara region—Mandrauli Kans (also known as Tribhuani) and Mohanpur—was transferred from Bihar to Uttar Pradesh, among other recommendations. These recommendations were accepted by the late Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and conveyed to the two state governments.

Later, the farmers of Bihar tried to apply for ryoti rights—legal tenancy rights that allow a person (called a rayat) to cultivate government-allocated land and claim ownership over it.

Although these rights are applicable across India, the farmers now had to approach Uttar Pradesh authorities since their land had shifted across the border.

However, they were denied the land rights

Singh said, “When we didn’t get ryoti rights from the Uttar Pradesh government, we were forced to approach the court. So, we filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court.” (Petition number 11720/86)

In 1997, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of the farmers, directing the Revenue Secretaries of both Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, along with the Surveyor General of India and district magistrates of Ballia and Bhojpur, to ensure that ryoti rights were granted to farmers of Mandrauli Kans and Mohanpur maujas within six months.

When no action was taken, the farmers filed a contempt petition (72610/98) against the officials. Following this, the Revenue Department of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification on March 25, 2000, officially including the two maujas in Uttar Pradesh.

Then, in 2007, the Ballia District Magistrate’s office published a notice in newspapers asking for verification of land records. “Farmers from Bihar promptly submitted their documents, but no action was taken. Later, in 2014, Rameshwar Singh from Sohra village filed a fresh petition in the Allahabad High Court, which resulted in a verdict in 2017—still, the Ballia administration remained inactive,” Singh said.

Frustrated by the ongoing delays, another Pawan Kumar Singh (60) filed another petition (10111/2017) in the same court. On October 4, 2017, the Ballia District Magistrate was ordered to collect documents from Uttar Pradesh farmers, but they failed to submit any. Seizing the opportunity, the Bihar farmers again submitted their land records, which the Ballia DM forwarded to the Bhojpur DM for verification.

However, the Bhojpur DM claimed that all land documents had been transferred to Ballia back in 1972, and no verification was possible. Since then, the Bihar farmers have been stuck between two district offices, still denied their raiyat (tenancy) rights.

“This is exactly why tensions keep flaring between farmers of Sohra and Padminiyabecause of errors made long ago by the survey officials…this is why we are still waiting for justice,” said Singh.

Landless Landowners

Due to ongoing conflicts, rightful landowners from Bihar are unable to farm their land, which remains under illegal occupation by strongmen from Uttar Pradesh, covering around 6,041 bighas.

Sohan Gond, a daily wage labourer from Sohra, said, “I’m landless today.” Forced to migrate for work, he struggles to find employment as he’s asked for caste and residence certificates—documents that the Bhojpur administration won’t issue since he has no legal claim to land. “My family of my wife, four children and I often survive without proper food, relying solely on daily wages of 300 to 350 rupees,” Gond says.

According to Singh, the situation remains unchanged due to the indifference of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh governments. “This despite the fact that there are court orders over the issue. Farmers are still unable to reclaim their land. And across the Ganga, the strongmen from Uttar Pradesh have been farming on their land for years,” Singh added.

Singh explains that, according to the Trivedi Commission, the boundary between Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was established in 1882 based on the course of the Ganga and Saryu rivers, with the stream between them serving as the official border.

“Under that understanding, the farmers’ ryoti rights were meant to be protected and should remain intact,” he said.

Fight Forward

Singh saif that for years, farmers have pooled donations to fight for their land rights in court, but no one has received justice so far. The government’s efforts so far have also been insufficient, he adds.

The social worker is now trying to take the issue to the Prime Minister through the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh. He said, “The government must choose one of two options: either pass a proposal in the Lok Sabha to transfer the disputed land to Bihar, or grant the farmers ryoti rights based on their submitted documents.”

On this matter, the current District Magistrate of Bhojpur district, Tanai Sultania, expressed ignorance and said that further action would be taken after receiving the necessary information.

Himanshu Praveen is a freelance journalist and a member of 101Reporters, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Living on Edge: Farmers in This Bihar District Battle River and Red Tape appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Be it Doyjan Bi, resident of Madhusailamari Part II village in Dhubri district, released on bail from the Kokrajhar Detention camp in May 2021, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor from the 1980s, resident of Satibargaon village, Chirang district released on bail in 2021, Mojibur Shaikh a daily wage earner earlier detained while he still battled for his citizenship rights in the Goalpara detention camp from where he was thereafter released on bail in 2023, Shamsul Ali, resident of Village No. 2 Goraimari, Chirang district who was released from the Goalpara detention camp in February 2020, all four are among the reported 145 unlawfully pushed out of India into No Man’s land are Indian citizens engaged in an ongoing battle for their citizenship rights. Then there is the fifth case on which there is available information, that of Khairul Islam, a retired 54-year old government school teacher from Morigaon district whose case is still pending in the Supreme Court of India (last hearing was in December 2024). All five are victims of the same arbitrary actions of the Assam police without any due process or notice.

Families of those unlawfully detained waiting for answers outside Matia Detention Centre

Despite desperate efforts by families, activists and advocates on the ground over the past few days, whereabouts of these five persons and close to a total of 145 persons are still unknown with clear indicators that they have been unlawfully “pushed” over the Indian border towards Bangladesh where they are vulnerable to firings from the Bangladesh forces or even the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). The area called ‘no man’s land’ between the Indian border along Assam and Bangladesh renders persons pushed there vulnerable to violence of multiple kinds. Firing both by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGD) and Border Security Force (BSF) India, makes unarmed helpless persons vulnerable.

From the night of Friday 23, Saturday 24, Sunday May 25 and Monday, May 26, bus-loads of Assam police, swooped down on residents in all 33 districts of Assam – from the Barak Valley, Central Assam, Lower Assam and North Assam—and forcibly rounded up, without notice or legal reasoning close to 300 persons, women and men. To date, no details of their whereabouts were made available to family or advocates despite efforts made at district police stations and even the Matia Detention Centre, violating settled principles of law, Constitution and judicial directives. Information meticulously collected by the CJP’s ground level team over the past few days, indicates that after the first detentions, about 150 persons were thereafter released. Unconfirmed sources further told us that as many as 145 persons (each one of them, Indians, and still battling for restoration of their citizenship rights in Indian Courts and Tribunals) have been pushed across the border where they are vulnerable to attacks in the no man’s land between India and Bangladesh. These actions have been taken without following any due process and no information being given to their families or advocates.

Matia Detention Centre: Tuesday May 27

For over six hours on Tuesday, May 27, CJP’s team members tried unsuccessfully to get information on all the detainees. Matters got tense after agitated and anxious family members, present outside the Detention Centre, many of whom had brought food and clothing for their loved ones, were arrogantly thwarted by authorities. Despite the Centre being under the jurisdiction of the Jailor, the Jailor was not allowed to meet the family members and activists with the Assam Border police taking full control of the Centre.

CJP’s Team reached the Matia Detention Centre early on Tuesday after close monitoring and visits to District level police stations and the Border Branch on Monday. When the team reached the main the gate of detention centre, a crowd of agitated family members of those detained was desperately trying to speak with the police at the gate. They received no satisfactory answers. They were all frustrated. Having travelled long distances from various districts of Upper Assam to Lower Assam, they had brought food, clothes and money to give their dear ones detained by police. They were met with a stone wall of non-communication, standing in the scorching sun, hopeless. Anxiously they awaited some reassurance that their family members were safe.

Family members of the people unlawfully detained stand outside Matia Detention Centre

Soon it became clear that the police had been instructed to give no information at all. The CJP team had through its legal researchers prepared a detailed memorandum which it handed over to the authorities. This outlined details of the violations of the law on arrest, detention, judicial directives that were taking place. After first accepting it the authorities declined to take a copy or even give an acknowledgement. A copy of this may be read here.

Repeated efforts were made by us to present judgements and judicial precedents to the authorities, the police at the gate but they were adamant in their refusal to discuss the niceties of the law. The police officials at the gate were in constant touch with their “superiors” through phone calls, with the chain of command going up to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But there was no response. When Nanda Ghosh, the state in charge, CJP team insisted on speaking to the Jailor, the police became aggressive, physically pushing the team back. The adamant refusal to entertain an advocates/citizen’s memorandum reveals a new turn in the way authorities deal with the Indian people, a scant respect for the law, Constitution and procedure. Finally they said that the whereabouts would be given after seven days!

The plight of family members was insufferable: an aged mother, a wife with a seven-month old baby, a younger brother, aged father, all anxious about their near and dear ones. CJP’s team offered them refreshments. Thereafter, moving to a nearby shady spot, for further inquiries and discussions amongst themselves, they also found local reporters there also making inquiries. Given that distances in Assam are arduous and the Matia Detention Centre remote, as late as 5 p.m. in the evening the team left taking some of the family of the victims of this unlawful detention along. Doyjan bi’s husband who also came with the hope to give her some dry food and two garments, had also brought her some money. But he returned to Goalpara with the team, disheartened. The tiny hope of Assam’s marginalised to share an evening meal with their loved ones together was cruelly snatched away by the Assam government in the dead of the night.

Outside Matia Detention Centre; food, clothes brought by family members for those unlawfully detained

By mid-afternoon on May 27, the Border Security Force (BSF) released a press note claiming actions against attempts at infiltration. “In a significant operation on the morning of 27th May, 2025, Border Security Force successfully thwarted an infiltration attempt by a large group of Bangladeshi nationals from the Indo-Bangladesh Boundary in South Salmara Mankachar district, Assam. 2. In the early hours of May 27, 2025, vigilant BSF troops deployed at Indo-Bangladesh International Border in district South Salamara Mankachar, Assam observed suspicious movement of Bangladesh nationals approaching towards International Boundary from the Bangladesh side with intention to cross into Indian Territory.” The entire text of the BSF press release may be read here.

So far we have confirmed details of unlawful action on at least six victims, though reports from villages and agitated families indicate that at least 145 persons are still untraceable after this “combing operation” that started on Saturday night. Reportedly, the Assam Border Police have arrived at homes of persons who are “Declared Foreigners” by Assam’s controversial Foreigner’s Tribunals (FTs), those who have been released on bail, arrested them and taken them back to the police station. After these arbitrary acts, no information on those detained/arrested, their wellbeing or whereabouts was passed or shared with anyone, including their family members, who had been waiting in distress outside police stations all night. There are also unconfirmed digital media reports that the DGP of Assam, Harmeet Singh has issued instructions to police stations in the state to prepare a list of “suspected citizens” under their jurisdiction.

As soon as the CJP team got distress calls about this arbitrary action by the police, our team started to reach out to affected communities, those battling the restoration of citizenship cases in courts and also those detainees released on bail to ensure they are aware of the dangers that await them. Repeated and desperate attempts by Doyjan’s husband to get information on her well-being and whereabouts from the police from 6 p.m. on Sunday night have been unsuccessful. The same is true of the others, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor whose home was burnt down during ethnic clashes in the state, Mojibur Sheikh and Shamsul Ali all of whom were released on bail with the assistance of the CJP team. Details of these may be read here, here, here and here.

Meanwhile, Khairul Islam, a 54 year old retired school teacher, alleged in a video interview (see below) also reported by Scroll.in, that he was among 14 people “pushed” into Bangladesh by India’s Border Security Force on Tuesday morning, May 27. (Since the happenings reportedly happened in the dark of the night, observers say that the darkness prompted the cross fire between the BSF and the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).

English Translation below:

Assalamualaikum, my name is Md. Khairul Islam. I’m a primary teacher and a resident of Assam, a state in India. Specifically, I live in Khandapukuri village under Mikirbhita police station and post office in Morigaon district, Assam. The Mikirbhita border police brought me to the Matia Detention Camp in Goalpara on 23rd May.
Yesterday, they brought me here right before Asar namaz and I got beaten up badly for not wanting to come. They hit my hands and other parts of my body and it really hurt. I repeatedly told them thousands time that I’m a teacher, begging them to show some respect to a teacher, but they didn’t listen. Instead, they kicked me and roughly pushed me into the car.
They tied my hands behind my back like a thief, forced me into the vehicle with others, and we arrived here around 4 am, just as the Fajar namaz was sounding. Our group of 14 people passed the border line by BSF around 4 a.m.
What is the name of your school?
I work in Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
Where did they pick you up from – the border or somewhere in the city?
They picked me up from my home and then put me in the camp.
Is your home near border?
No, far from the border.
How long have you been living in India?
My parents were born in India, even before India gained independence. We’re residents of India.
What is the name of your school?
The name of my school is Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
What did they tell you when they sent you over to this side?
We can’t say anything, we’re afraid of the guns. We’re scared they’ll shoot us. Lastly me, they tied my hands. I thought I wouldn’t be able to cross it, that they’d kill me. I prayed a lot.
Do you have any ID card?
No, they kept them all. They kept them all in the camp. I bought 8,000 rupees with me for food and my luggage they kept everything.
Did your family know everything?
My family might not know anything about it yet, maybe they’ll know it if someone informs them.

The leadership of All Assam Students Union (AASU), Assam Jatiya Yuva Chatra Parishad (AJYCP), and Lachit Sena has strongly supported the government’s inhumane, undemocratic, and unconstitutional actions during this humanitarian crisis.

However, independent voices like Arindam Dev, Faruk Laskar and Mrinal Kanti Shome who are part of the Forum For Social Harmony and Asom Majouri Sramik Union have strongly and publicly condemned this inhuman sweep operation by the present Assam government. The state unit of the CPI (M) has also condemned these unlawful actions of the authorities.

Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam.  Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level.  Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!

Meanwhile, an advocate with the Indian National Congress (INC), Aman Wadud has approached the National Human Rights Commission yesterday, Tuesday May 27, in an Urgent Complaint wherein he requested the NHRC to:

1. Take suo motu cognizance of the arbitrary re-arrest and detention of Indian citizens and previously released declared foreigners in Assam as of 23.05.2025.
2. Issue urgent notices to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, and Director General of Police, Assam, seeking a status report on the basis of re-arrest, list of detainees, and legal justification
3. Intervene to prevent forced deportation, without due process and judicial oversight.
4. Direct the Government of Assam to immediately release those re-arrested individuals who have not violated any conditions of their earlier release and restore their liberty.
5. Recommend formulation of a humane and transparent policy on dealing with cases of disputed citizenship, in compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Recommend compensation and rehabilitation for individuals unlawfully detained for years and again subjected to re-arrest without cause.

The copy of this complaint may be read here.

Related:

Indian again! Matleb Ali’s fight to prove Indian identity ends with CJP’s intervention

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

The post Assam Border Police cracks down on residents battling citizenship rights without due process, pushes 145 locals over the border? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Most children from poor and marginalised families study in these government-aided schools. In fact, a large number of school-going children from families living in the worsening socio-economic situation are not entering the field of education.

The point is that education for the poor has reached rock bottom. What will be the consequences of this state of affairs?

The state government’s apathetic attitude toward education has created an atmosphere of fear. Not only the general public and guardians, but also officials in state and Union ministries discussed the education scenario in West Bengal at the end of April 2025. Both sides reportedly expressed “deep” concern over the dwindling number of students at the primary and upper primary levels.

The Basis for ‘Deep’ Concern

The number of mid-day meals that students partake is being considered a criterion at the government level. The decline in the number of students receiving mid-day-meals is a picture of decline among students in government-sponsored primary and upper primary schools. Students of both these levels receive mid-day meals.

In addition, parents seem reluctant to admit their children to government schools. Although there are exceptions, but this is broadly a state phenomenon, several school teachers this writer spoke to, said. Why?

During the last Left Front regime in Bengal from 2006-2011, about 50,000 teachers and non-teaching staff were recruited through specific examination (District Primary School Councils took the exam for primary teachers, and four regional School Service Commissions arranged for high and higher secondary teachers and non-teaching staff). A large portion of these recruitments were of primary school teachers.

“ The district primary school councils used to recruit teachers through examinations within a specific period of time”, Jyansankar Mitra, former Chairman of Bankura District Primary School Council, told this writer.

“The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) was constituted in November 1997 under the West Bengal School Service Commission Act. The Act was enacted on April 1, 1997, and came into effect on the same day. The Commission is responsible for recruiting teaching and non-teaching staff in government- aided schools in West Bengal.  Since then, teachers have been recruited to high and higher secondary schools through examination almost every year” said Professor Biswanath Koyal, first Chairman of Western Zone of WBSSC, whose jurisdiction was Bankura, Purulia, undivided Pashchim Medinipur, and Purbo Medinipur.

According to the Right to Education Act 2009, the Ideal student-teacher ratio should be 30: 1. In 2008, this ratio was 35: 1

Biman Patra, district secretary of All Bengal Primary Teacher Association, Bankura district committee, the largest primary teachers’ organisation of Bengal and Panab Mahato, his counterpart in Purulia, said due to the severe shortage of teachers, the current ratio had risen to 70:1.

After the Trinamool Congress came to power in 2011, the government recruited primary teachers in 2014 and 2016.  There are allegations of widespread corruption in recruitment of those who were appointed in 2017 after the 2016 exams. The matter is sub judice in the Calcutta High Court.

As of now, the jobs of over 32,000 primary teachers are hanging in uncertainty. Significantly, On April 3, the Supreme Court, having reached the conclusion that there was multiple corruption in the recruitment of teachers and non-teaching staff in high and higher secondary schools through WBSSC in 2016, cancelled the entire panel. As a result, 25,752 teachers and non-teaching staff lost their jobs.

There are similar allegations in the primary recruitment sector. In fact, many schools do not have enough teachers against the requirement. On the other side, a large portion of those who are in teaching positions are uncertain about the continuity of their jobs.

“Overall, it can be said that there has been an institutional crisis in the education sector in the state. This is having a devastating impact on students, teachers and parents in the area”, Panab Hazra, a librarian at Sidhu-Kanhu University of Purulia and Subikash Choudhury, former head of the department of economics, Bankura Christian College, told this writer.

“Despite financial difficulty, I have admitted my son to a private school, because I do not know when the government schools will close. The teachers are not adequate. I do not know if those who are  there, will continue”, said Mainuddin Mandal, a bread hawker in Vhikurdihi village of Bankura district. He hawks bread brough from Chandigarh in Punjab.

His wife, Rehena Bibi, said “We are struggling to run our family only for our children’s future. We have to somehow survive. We spend Rs 3,000 a month (in a private school) for my child in Class 4.” She said many parents were opting for this instead of government schools for the future of their children.

In Bagmundi area of Purulia district, this writer met a migrant worker, Ramesh Sardar. When asked, he said, “What will happen if my son completes his schooling? Will he get a job? Is there any job here? Several educated youths are sitting idle, counting their days. They are highly frustrated.”

He said he had admitted his son, Bachhu, in a high school. He studied up to Class 7. “There is only one teacher, how can this teacher manage four classes? What will students learn? Nothing. It is better to learn some manual labour skill from an adolescent age and find work in other states. At least, he will be able to eat and survive, and look after the family in the near future”.

A few days ago, some male and female agricultural labourers, along with their school- going children from Bankura, Purulia and Jhargram districts, were seen waiting at the Bankura bus stand under the scorching sun for buses to return home after harvesting boro paddy from various villages in Hooghly and East and West Bardhaman districts.

“There is no work in the area, matikatar kaj (MGNREGA work) has been closed for four years, and panchayats do not respond regarding our work. We have to survive somehow, so we go wherever we find work. Who do we leave our sons and daughters with? So, we take them along,” Urmila Lohar from Tilaboni village in Purulia, said.

When asked, all of them said that “education of our children are no longer on our minds. We have to survive first, then study.”

“This painful picture is common among jobless poor and marginalised families across West Bengal”, said Amiya Patra, leader of the Khetmajur Union and Sagar Badyakar, assistant secretary of the union’s Bengal unit.

Teachers Trying Hard to Bring Children to School

During the Left Front regime, there was a Village Education Committee (VEC) in every area. That committee consisted of an elected representative from the local panchayat/municipality, a member of the Opposition party, ICDS (Integrated Child Development Scheme) workers, an education expert of the area and teachers. The committee would discuss the ongoing situation of education in the area and take necessary measures.

“After the Trinamool Congress came to power, that VEC was dissolved. There is no discussion on education issues of the area even in the education standing committee at the block level. Only one meeting is held a year, that too related to school annual sports,” said Patra.

Rupak Mondal, district secretary of ABPTA, Jhargram district, along with several male and female teachers from Bankura, Purulia and Jhargram, confirmed that the two years of school closure during the Covid pandemic was still having a major impact. In families, where children did not attend school after it re-opened in 2022, the younger brothers and sisters have been following suit.  Many of them have left government schools and have enrolled in private ones. That trend is continuing.

It is a fact there is severe shortage of teachers as well as of officials in the education department, who are responsible to monitor the condition of schools. In this situation, several teachers have been visiting the homes of villagers and are trying to bring their children back to school.

“We go to different houses in the village and look for expectant mothers. We tell them in advance that when the child is born, he/she should be admitted to our government school. We observed that if a child takes admission in a private school his/her brother and sister will follow that path. But the fact is that in many families, the youth are not getting married because they don’t have jobs. As a result, the number of child births is decreasing” said Amit Goswami, headmaster of Kenjakura Primary school. Bankura.

“There is reluctance among parents to admit their children to government schools. The shortage of teachers is a big reason. Child birth is also decreasing in remote areas. We have asked the government to think deeply about this issue and take proper needful measures”, said Tuhin Banerjee, a primary teacher in Dubraji village of Bankura and district leader of Trinamool’s Shikhsha cell.

The District Information System of Education (DISE), which records all information regarding a school, according to the RTE Act, regarding meeting of specific criteria or if an educational institute is not given the DISE code number. During the Left Front regime, private schools did not get that code. Now it is being given to private schools in large numbers. As a result, the number of private schools is increasing.

Despite struggling to support their families, many low-income people are sending their kids to private schools, which has turned into a status symbol, said several teachers and guardians. Many parents also complained that the syllabus of government schools was not “good” and “up to date”. Also, there are fewer teachers in government schools.

On the other hand, private schools offer opportunities to study many subjects, including computers. Several parents feel this is one the key reasons for low enrolment in government schools.

Significantly, many government school teachers also are admitting their children to private schools. This is also having an impact on the people’s mind. As a result, students from financially backward families study in private schools till the primary level, but when they enter high school, they face problems in adapting to the environment. Not all families are able to afford the high cost of private education. Hence, many are forced to drop out midway.

Situation in Upper Primary Schools

Upper primary schools were built during the Left Front regime considering the geographical location of the area so that children do not have to go to high schools located far away to study from Class 5. They could study in the local area up to Class 8. After reaching Class 9, the boys and girls could travel to a distant high school.

“The Madhyamik Shiksha Kendra (MSK) that are built for grades five to eight are provided with adequate teachers”, said Fatik Goswami, former headmaster of Radhamadhab Madhyamik Shiksha Kendra of Kumidya village in Bankura. After TMC came to power, new teachers were not appointed in upper primary schools. As a result, the number of students kept decreasing.

Six MSKs have already been closed in Ranibandh of Bankura district. On January 7 this year, the Bankura district administration issued an order for shutdown of seven more MSKs. This includes Kumidya Radhamadhab MSK School.

“Had the government appointed adequate teachers in this school, students would have continued their education”, lamented Mrityunjoy Banerjee, headmaster of the school. He and a  teacher, Ramsankar Patra, appealed for saving the school at any cost.

“There have been no adequate teachers for years. How can we send our children to a school that lacks educators? Many have already dropped out,” said Bulu Dasmohonto of Kumidya village.

The newly established upper primary schools, which are called new set-ups, do not have the necessary number of teachers. Therefore, the number of student admissions is low, said a teacher in-charge of a newly set up a girls school in Indpur block.

Several guardians said after studying there were no job opportunities here. Several boys who studied in upper primary are already realising this and have dropped out of school to try other jobs. Several are already registered as migrant labourers.

Number of Students Taking Mid-Day-Meals

To meet the nutritional needs of students, the Left Front government in West Bengal was among the first to introduce mid-day meals in the country in primary and upper primary levels. Later, it was introduced across the country.  In this context, the number of students receiving mid-day meals has become a definitive indicator of enrolment.  During Left Front rule, in the 2010-11 academic year, 72,40,341 students received mid-day meals. After 14 years under the TMC regime, only 46,83,053 students are receiving mid-day meals.  This indicates a decline of 26,57,288 students in primary education — a 35% decrease compared with 2010-11.

The number of students has dramatically decreased at Shibarampur Primary School in Bankura .

The situation is even worse at the upper primary level. In the last academic year, 40,41,666 students were admitted to upper primary in the state. As per state government figures, 23,66,232 students are receiving mid-day meals in upper primary schools. This means enrolment at the upper primary level has decreased by 42%.

When asked, Jagabandhu Banerjee, the District Inspector of School, admitted that the number of students admitted to primary schools had decreased. A section of people was moving to urban areas, he said, adding that therefore, the number of students in villages was decreasing. Efforts are being made to solve this crisis, he added.

The writer covers the Jangalmahal region for ‘Ganashakti’ newspaper in West Bengal.

(All pictures by Madhu Sudan Chatterjee)

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Bengal: Is Govt-Aided School Education Heading For Privatisation? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While Modi took credit for the same and the Army spokesperson elaborated that there was a request from Pakistan authorities for cessation of hostilities and India responded in the affirmative to bring a halt to the potential bloodbath of more Army personnel and civilians on both sides.

The government decided to tell the Indian side of the story by sending various all-party delegations abroad. Many MPs from Opposition parties were included. One such was the delegation to the US headed by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. What type of brief these delegations were given becomes clear from the statement of Tharoor in the US.

Tharoor, a former diplomat, stated in the US that, “while the intent behind the Pahalgam terror attack was to divide people, it brought people together in India, irrespective of their religion or any other divide…There was an extraordinary amount of togetherness cutting across religious and other divides that people have tried to provoke. The message is very clear that there was a malignant intent… “.

Have all the delegations been given a brief like this? This narrative clearly has lots of truth in it, as all Indians, including Hindus and Muslims, came together to condemn the dastardly act in Pahalgam. Kashmir.

However, still lurking under all this is the continued hate being spread against Muslims. Even before the Pahalgam tragedy, the hate directed against Muslims was rising. After this tragedy, this hate manufactured against Muslims is peaking further. In an article last week, I did give a partial list of hate actions against this hapless community. These events have been chronicled by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

Another article comments that “Even as India mourned lives lost in the terrorist attack, a coordinated campaign unfolded, offline and online, with one message: that Muslims were a threat to Hindus, that a similar fate awaited all Hindus, and that Muslims needed to be punished through violence and boycotts.

The most disturbing of these was the arrest of Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who heads the political science department there. In a very pertinent post he stated,” “I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi,” adding that “they should also demand that the victims of mob lynching, arbitrary demolitions [of houses], others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens”. Several rights groups have pointed out that there has been a rise in violence and hate speech against Muslims in India in the past decade.”

Following this there were complaints against the Professor by the Haryana State Women’s Commission “that Mr Mahmudabad’s social media posts had “disparaged” the two women defence officers and “undermined their role” in the armed forces.”  It is beyond one’s comprehension as to how this post disparaged the women defence officers or undermined their role in the Indian Army?

The other complaint was filed by a ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) youth activist. Ali Khan was arrested based on these complaints and approached the Supreme Court, granting him provisional bail. The apex also gave a judgment that asked him not to write on this matter and to deposit his passport.

The SC judgment stated that Ali Khan’s post is “dog whistling” and that it may transmit contentious messages subtly. We know “dog-whistling” is the most used label for coded speech that carries contentious meaning indirectly. The judge doubted the time and motivation behind the posts though granting interim bail was very gratifying.

Even Vijay Shah, a BJP leader and minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, who commented that Sofiya Qureshi is the “sister of terrorists” was heavily reprimanded by the court. This remark by a BJP leader was the most hateful comment possible against the outstanding Army officer. As such, this was clear ‘dog whistling’ by Shah. While the court rejected his apology, his arrest has been put on hold.

What is a dog whistle? Prof Ali Khan’s post is not a dog whistle to be sure. It is an expression of the anguish of the minority community. On the contrary, it is Shah whose dog whistle borders on open articulation of hate. Prof Ali Khan, in a sensitive manner, has shown us the mirror as to how the nation is treating its minorities. Shah has shown openly as to how every occasion is used to sow hatred against the minorities.

A Professor from a minority community should not be taken to task for talking about bulldozers and lynching which has become part of India’s ‘new normal’ and, despite the court’s disapproval of bulldozers, state governments many a times have resorted to its use.

Also, two satirists, Neha Singh Rathore and Madri Kakoti, the former a singer and the latter known as Dr Medusa online, were booked for their social media posts critical of the Modi government in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.

In a way, what Vijay Shah has done is largely condoned by his party, no suspension, no expulsion and no arrest. The open hate against minorities from the top BJP leadership to down below is not only quietly accepted, it also acts as a stepping stone for their political career.

Just to recall in the prelude to the 2019 Delhi communal violence, those calling for peace and harmony, such as Umar Khalid, Sharjil Imam and others are rotting in jail for over five years, their cases not even coming up for hearing, while a Union minister of state, Anurag Thakur, got promoted to full Cabinet rank after he made the people shout ‘Goli Maro…’ slogans’.

The norms of our civility and the Constitution are being slowly eroded by politics that wears the clothes of religion. What democracy needs is the likes of Ali Khan, Umar Khalid, Neha Singh Rathore and Himanshi Narwal, who, in a truthful manner, are calling for peace and also showing a mirror to our society.

The writer is a human rights activist, who taught at IIT Bombay. The views are personal.

The post Pahalgam Tragedy: Indian delegations abroad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What makes the judgment significant—but also contentious—is not merely its procedural holding, but the manner in which the Court treated the petitioner’s evidence. While the ruling rests on established precedents such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), it marks a notable shift from earlier Supreme Court positions that accepted minor discrepancies in names, dates, or residence as tolerable when weighed against the totality of credible documentary evidence.

As citizenship in Assam continues to be adjudicated through overlapping forums—FTs, NRC processes, and constitutional courts—this judgment bears important implications for legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and the fate of thousands accused of being ‘illegal immigrants.’ The case becomes a useful lens through which we may compare evolving judicial approaches to documentary evidence and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India

Factual matrix

Rofiqul Hoque, the appellant, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (FT), Jorhat, Assam, on March 4, 2017 under a reference by the Border Police. The basis: he had allegedly entered India illegally after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. He contested this decision before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the FT’s findings. In 2018, however, the petitioner’s name appeared in the draft NRC. He filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, arguing that such inclusion rebutted the FT’s conclusion.

Submissions by the parties

Appellant’s contentions:

• Inclusion in the draft NRC should have overriding effect and demonstrate that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
• The FT and High Court adopted a “pedantic” approach, rejecting evidence on grounds of minor discrepancies in age, name spellings, and address.
• Change in village domicile does not imply change in citizenship.

Respondents (Union of India and Assam government):

• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof is on the proceedee.
• NRC inclusion is neither determinative nor binding upon the FT or the State.
• Discrepancies in documentary evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioner’s claimed lineage.

Legal issues framed by the SC

1. Whether the findings of the FT and the High Court suffered from legal infirmity or ignored credible evidence?
2. Whether inclusion of the appellant’s name in the draft NRC can nullify a prior declaration by an FT?

Court’s Findings: Scrutinising evidence, procedure, and statutory framework

The Court’s reasoning rests on two central legal foundations:

• The burden of proof placed on the alleged foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The non-binding nature of NRC inclusion for persons already declared foreigners, as per the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India.

On the merits of evidence and the burden under Section 9: The appellant relied on a combination of official records to establish his Indian citizenship through ancestry:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016 purportedly featuring his grandfather (Joynal Abdin), father (Majut Ali), and mother (Sopia Bibi).
• A duplicate school certificate issued in 2014, showing his date of birth as 20.07.1996 and naming his parents.
• An income tax PAN card issued post-2017, and inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC.

Despite this, both the Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court held the petitioner failed to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 9. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stressing that the proceedee must prove:

1. Presence of ancestors in India before March 25, 1971, and
2. His linkage to those ancestors through credible, consistent documents.

The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s case wanting on the following counts:

1. Village discrepancy:

• • The appellant claimed descent from Joynal Abdin of Daobhangi village, Dhubri district.
  • Voter records showed Joynal Abdin in Kekurchar village, Sivasagar district, with no affidavit or evidence explaining this change.
  • There was no plea or corroborative document to establish a migration history, which would have reconciled the apparent inconsistency.

“The Tribunal as well as the High Court have considered these documents and have found that those earlier voter lists relate to a person located in some other village than the one of which the appellant claimed to be a resident. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries.” (Para 15)

2. Name and lineage doubts:

• • The Court questioned whether Joynal Abdin in 1966 and 1993 voter lists was the same person. Ages did not align; e.g., he was listed as 38 in 1966 and 70 in 1993 (should have been ~65).
  • The father’s name appeared inconsistently, and the mother’s name (Sopia Bibi) was absent in crucial documents.
  • The voter lists also showed unnatural age jumps, e.g., Majut Ali’s age was 30 in 1993 but 45 in 2010—missing consistency.

“Additionally, the High Court noticed that as per the affidavit of the appellant, Joynal Abdin Seikh was a resident of Daobhangi village whereas in the voter list of 1993, Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar village, which is altogether different from the village of which the appellant claims to be a resident. Further, the High Court noticed that in the 1993 voters list, the name of the mother of the appellant, namely, Sopia Bibi, is conspicuous by its absence.” [Para 5 (vi)]

“As regards the voters list of 2010, the High Court observed that here Majut Ali’s age is shown as 45 years whereas in 1993 list it was 30 years therefore, in the 2010 voters list, it ought to have been 47 years. Besides above, there was a noticeable change in respect of the place of residence because in 1993 list, the village of domicile is shown as Kekurchar whereas in 2010 voter list it is Daobhangi.” [Para 5 (vii)]

3. School certificate deficiency:

• • The certificate was a duplicate, issued ten years after the appellant allegedly left school.
  • No explanation for delay in issuance or production.
  • Crucially, the headmaster was not called to prove its contents, failing the test under the Evidence Act.
  • Hence, the document’s probative value was discounted.

“Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.” (Para 15)

The Court emphasised that these deficiencies went beyond mere clerical errors. They showed a lack of effort by the appellant to resolve material inconsistencies through affidavit, oral evidence, or additional linkage documents.

On NRC inclusion and its legal consequence: On the question of whether the appellant’s inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the earlier FT declaration, the Court delivered an unequivocal “No.”

It relied heavily on:

• Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and
• The three-judge bench decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604.

As noted by the SC in its order, the Citizenship Rules clearly state that:

“…the names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list.” (Para 23)

In para 25–27, the Court emphasised:

• The Registering Authority under NRC has no power to override a quasi-judicial order of a Foreigners Tribunal.
• Even if a person’s name is erroneously included, that inclusion is legally ineffective unless the FT order is reversed by a higher court.
• The “competent authority” under the Citizenship Rules refers specifically to the Foreigners Tribunal, not administrative officers.

Therefore, even though the appellant’s name appeared in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court held that:

“In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” (Para 27)

This closed the door on the appellant’s attempt to claim citizenship via NRC inclusion.

4. Final holding and consequences

After a detailed evaluation of both factual inconsistencies and legal standards, the Supreme Court held as follows:

• The FT’s findings, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, were not legally flawed, arbitrary, or perverse.
• The appellant’s inclusion in the draft NRC had no legal effect, given his prior declaration as a foreigner.
• The appellant had failed to prove his Indian citizenship, either by establishing consistent lineage or through rebutting the FT declaration.
• The interim release order granted in 2019 (based on NRC inclusion) was vacated.

“In light of the discussion above, and our conclusions on the issues referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The release order which was passed at an interim stage stands discharged. Consequently, the appellant shall be treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” (Para 30)

Notably, it is imperative to highlight here that the Court refrained from commenting on whether the NRC itself was legally flawed or reliable. Its approach was purely technical: an FT order, once passed, takes precedence unless overturned by a superior court—not by administrative inclusion.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Previous judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies

While the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque adopted a stringent approach, other judgments have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of documentary discrepancies, recognising the challenges faced by individuals in rural and marginalized communities.

1. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2014)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in his father’s name across various documents. The Tribunal noted variations such as “Samed Ali,” “Abdul Samed,” and “Samed.” The Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that such variations are common in rural areas, particularly among the Muslim community, and held that these discrepancies were not significant enough to draw an adverse inference regarding the petitioner’s citizenship.

“In so far discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father is concerned, it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly among people of Muslim community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name such as in the name of the petitioner’s father. The discrepancy in the name as noticed- Samed Ali, Abdul Samed and Samed, is not so great as to draw adverse inference regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. On the ground of there being such discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father, petitioner could not have been declared as a foreigner.” (Para 11)

The Court also addressed discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, noting that minor differences in age declarations are expected in rural settings and should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

2. Mamata Bhowmik v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2019)

The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, which rejected a certified copy of the 1966 voter list on the grounds that it lacked a physical signature and did not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Gauhati High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment, noting that the document was digitally signed and legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

“The certified copy also contains a further note that the certificate is digitally signed and, therefore, needs no physical signature… the certificate is legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.” (Para 3)

The Court emphasized the need for Tribunals to consider the authenticity and legal validity of documents, even when presented in digital form, and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

3. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (Supreme Court of India, 2019)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in the spelling of his grandfather’s name and differences in the villages listed in various documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran, however, found that the appellant had successfully established his lineage through consistent documentation of his father’s and grandfather’s identities, despite minor spelling variations. The Court held that such minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the appellant’s claim to citizenship.

“Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather’s identity, father’s identity etc. has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” (Para 4)

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Foreigners Tribunal, thereby affirming the appellant’s Indian citizenship.

4. Mohammad Iddrish Ali v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2020)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner despite submitting multiple documents, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970 bearing his father’s and uncle’s names. The Tribunal disregarded these documents, citing the absence of the petitioner’s name in the 1975 voter list. The Gauhati High Court bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia found that the Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence and emphasized that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in Tribunal proceedings.

“Reverting to the case in hand, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a tribunal. Nothing is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed a fresh opinion, highlighting the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence in such cases.

5. Jagat Bahadur Chetri v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2023)

An 85-year-old resident of Assam was declared a foreigner based on a reference by an election official, despite evidence of his birth in Assam in 1937 and decades of service as a civilian employee in the military. The Gauhati High Court criticised the “non-application of mind” by the election official and set aside the Tribunal’s ruling, ordering compensation for the petitioner.

“If Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth is Dibrugarh and there is no material that subsequent to his birth, he migrated to the specified territory and thereafter re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971, we are of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to have referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner Jagat Bahadur Chetri is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.” (Para 4)

“It appears that the enquiring officer had not done its duty in the proper earnest and there can be no reason why the petitioner Jatat Bahadur Chetri would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.” (Para 5)

“However, for causing inconvenience to the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any application of mind, a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (rupees ten thousand) is imposed on the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to be paid to the petitioner.” (Para 7)

This case highlights the importance of due diligence and the consideration of an individual’s lifelong ties to the country in citizenship determinations.

6.  Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2024)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner based on minor discrepancies in the spelling of names and dates in official documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such variations are common and often arise due to differences in language, pronunciation, and clerical errors. The Court emphasized that these minor inconsistencies should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)

“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)

The Court also highlighted that the authorities must have a material basis for initiating proceedings under the Foreigners Act and that arbitrary or baseless suspicions cannot justify such actions. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, restoring the appellant’s citizenship. (Detailed analysis of the same judgment may be read here.)

Tightening the evidentiary threshold?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India underscores a marked shift toward evidentiary stringency in citizenship adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946. By upholding the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, the Court reasserted two core principles: (1) that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee under Section 9, and (2) that inclusion in the NRC—particularly a draft list—does not override a quasi-judicial declaration of foreign status.

What makes this decision legally significant is its departure from earlier jurisprudence that acknowledged the lived realities of individuals from rural and marginalized communities—realities that often produce inconsistencies in names, ages, and addresses in official records. Judgments such as Sirajul Hoque, Md. Rahim Ali, and Md. Anuwar Hussain adopted a more flexible, contextual reading of documentary discrepancies. In contrast, Rofiqul Hoque takes a formalistic approach, requiring strict evidentiary coherence even when documentary irregularities might stem from administrative lapses rather than wilful deceit.

This evolving judicial posture has far-reaching implications. It raises the evidentiary threshold for proving citizenship, heightens the risk of wrongful exclusion, and underscores the primacy of FT decisions over NRC data, regardless of administrative errors or procedural opacity in the latter. Going forward, both legal practitioners and claimants must place greater emphasis on reconciling all documentary inconsistencies through affidavits, oral testimony, and corroborative records.

In essence, Rofiqul Hoque reinforces the authority of Foreigners Tribunals and sets a cautionary precedent: in the current legal regime, technical lapses—even those reasonably explained—may carry irrevocable consequences for individuals seeking to prove their citizenship in Assam.

Image Courtesy: scobserver.in

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence appeared first on SabrangIndia.