The Premnagar Basti, also known as the Chick-Chatai Wali Basti, is an at least 45-year-old settlement of BPL migrant labourers, most of which has now been destroyed. 86 of the 250 or so jhuggi-jhopdis that made up the urban village remain protected, entitled to rehabilitation in a 2-decade old low-income housing project called the Ashiana Scheme, as per the state government.

Unlike many similar demolitions of marginalised populations’ homes, the demolition of the Premnagar Basti was initiated not for the purpose of clearing public land, but at the behest of local industrialist Gulaab Singh. In 2013, the Central Market Welfare Association (CMWA) of the market complex opposite the basti filed a lawsuit against the Haryana government and its urban development authority, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), complaining that the very existence of the Premnagar Basti was affecting their business adversely. Singh is the president of this association, and also the owner of the Sector 12 market complex.

The same year that the CMWA filed the lawsuit demanding Premnagar’s demolition, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill was passed in Parliament, repealing 1894’s Land Acquisition Act such that every acquisition would require the government to pay compensation to its occupants, or rehabilitate them. Essentially, it meant that there is no such thing in Indian law as a ‘legal forced eviction’ or a ‘legal forced demolition’.

The act was enforced the following year in 2014, but the CMWA’s case was temporarily dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at the time, as the occupied land in question was not public property at all, but disputed private property that the government had been attempting to acquire for three decades.

Premnagar’s impending demolition has terrorised its residents through much of the last decade, ever since HSVP acquired the land in the mid 2010s (HSVP’s present estate officer, Rakesh Saini, alongside GMDA Nodal Officer and Town Planner R.S. Batth declined comment on the exact date, or any other technical or legal details). Wednesday marked the end of a decade long battle, despite the fact that till date, not a single family has been rehabilitated or compensated by the HSVP as required by the 2013 Act.

In fact, the Ashiana Scheme apartments in sector 47, where the HSVP now promises to house 86 families currently protected from demolition, have sat empty for 15 years. These flats are in a state of utter disrepair, with the HSVP having failed to allot even one of 1,088 flats since the project’s completion in 2010. In 2023, the HSVP announced that these flats would be demolished! The land was set to be resold for high-end commercial use, which the HSVP felt better suited its ‘premium value’; just this year, it was announced that they would not be demolished after all, and Rs. 9 crores  were then allotted for their repair!

In the High Court’s final judgement regarding Premnagar given in January earlier this year, 204 families had been marked as eligible for rehabilitation in these inhospitable Ashiana Scheme apartments. Now, this number has arbitrarily shrunk to 86, and not a single allotment letter has been given to any of them either.

The demolition drive, which employed the use of a massive armed police force, water cannons, detention vans and a bulldozer—blocking Old Delhi Road for regular commuters through the hours of 10 and 6—was overseen by GMDA’s Nodal Officer for ‘removal of illegal encroachments’, R. S. Batth, a somewhat notorious figure for his attempts at internet fame—through the act of demolition itself.

Batth’s Instagram account, @r_s_batth_dtp, consists largely of vertical short-form videos of himself overseeing various demolition drives in addition to participation in Savarna religious events, with the former ranging from the destruction of street food vendor stalls to the huts and homes of slum dwellers. Batth has built a loyal Instagram following, with over 2,71,000 followers and at least 6 fan pages, and a corresponding internet infamy within less than a year of taking office, seemingly entirely at the cost of Gurugram’s urban poor.

On the 8th of October, as sick children were dragged from their homes and men and women beaten with sticks as they were made to watch their homes being razed to the ground, Batth could be seen recording videos of requesting victims of demolition to have tea or water to calm themselves down. These videos, along with closeups of bulldozer action, were then quickly uploaded to his Instagram page, receiving applause from his following.

Surprisingly though, there are forms of attention that Batth does not in fact, enjoy. When reporters from Sabrang India asked him about the legality of the demolition with reference to the 2013 Act, how, if at all, he planned to rehabilitate the people whose homes he’d demolished as constitutionally required, or why the 120 remaining families earlier promised rehabilitation were suddenly dropped from the list. Batth declined comment on each question, and requested that ‘technical questions’ be directed to HSVP’s Estate Officer, Rakesh Saini instead.

“I am not questioning your legal knowledge. Please ask all these technical questions to the Estate Officer and not me,” said Batth. Saini himself also declined comment on the matter, saying that he would prefer if the matter were discussed with him privately instead.

Interestingly, both authorities also failed to answer how many homes it was that they’d set out to demolish. “It is not possible to say the exact number,” said Saini. “It is somewhere around a hundred and fifty.”

Barring the 86 protected homes, marked out by yellow spray paint on bamboo walls and notices pasted everywhere the eye could see, at least 170 homes would have been planned to be demolished. Till the evening, 50 or so homes were destroyed by the Haryana government, with many families not even being permitted to retrieve their belongings.

“That is 50 year’s worth of possessions,” said Reema Devi, resident of one such home, weeping on the street with her granddaughters beside her. “They expect us to get rid of it in a day.”

“This is all the fault of Mukesh Sharma,” she then added. The BJP MLA had campaigned around Premnagar intensely, promising an end to the battle for Premnagar which had begun during Congress’ tenure.” He promised us this wouldn’t happen. That we would be rehabilitated within two months of his taking office,” said Reema Devi.

While Sharma has never since revisited Premnagar,  nor had he replied to the petition sent to him by residents of the basti informing him of the unjust processes of demolition being carried out over there and seeking remedy for the same, he has come very close: On 25th September, Sharma visited the popular Sheetla Mata Mandir merely 2km away from the Premnagar basti, to inaugurate a new building within the temple, and to ensure that no one would sell meat within a four-hundred metre radius of it. These achievements are boasted of on his very own website, mukeshsharma.in.

The following day, the police and demolition authorities were set to return to finish their incomplete task of razing over a hundred more homes, but as of 9th October, at time of writing, no further action is taking place. It seems as if now that Batth’s videos have gone viral, the urgency to ‘clean up’ the streets of Gurugram has ceased.

The homes of a few poor Dalit families have little value to the incumbent government beyond cheap publicity stunts and monkey-fights with the opposition; Congress’ mayoral candidate, alongside their advocate, Abhay Jain were both present at the sight of demolition and spoke vehemently against the drive, requesting that the government at least ‘let Diwali pass’ in peace for the families, most of whom make livings through artisan work and seasonal employment. Both left immediately after the police lathi-charged the basti’s protesting crowd, gathered protectively around the urban village.

“At this point, I don’t understand anything. I don’t know what to do,” said Muskan, an 18-year-old preparing to become a software engineer, who was one of the key voices among the basti’s youth who have been fighting the demolition threats since the judgment of January 16.

“After today, it feels like nothing we can do matters.”

Muskan was among many young women who very nearly escaped violent detention as police forcefully cleared the homes on the outer periphery of the basti. Her friend, a young girl named Shivani was among five people falsely imprisoned without food or water in a detention van outside for the entire duration of the demolition drive, which continued from early afternoon till the evening. Four of these five detainees were women.

“We did nothing. We weren’t violent, we weren’t obstructing anything.  We just asked them not to raze our homes,” said Shivani from behind the grills of the detention van. All the detainees were released past sunset.

For now, the 86 families marked for rehabilitation wait in limbo — their allotted homes in the Ashiana Scheme still locked, decaying, and unfit for habitation. With no timeline or written assurance from the HSVP, uncertainty looms large. Many fear that once the media attention fades, their protection too will quietly dissolve, leaving them next in line for eviction.

(The author is a scholar of religion at Jamia Millia Islamia and a freelance journalist from New Delhi. Additional fieldwork by Vishnu Khanawalia, a reporter and activist from New Delhi.)

The post ‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006 following decades of struggle by forest-working peoples to redress the exclusionary legacy of colonial and post-colonial forest laws. The FRA acknowledges the rights of individual and community access to land, housing, and to minor forest produce, and grants the Gram Sabhas authority to manage and protect forests. The intent of the FRA was to transfer authority from the centralised forest-administrative bodies (like the Forest Department) to local communities and to make the Gram Sabha’s consent a precondition for the approval of any forest diversion. And de-centralisation was recognised as key to protection of both land rights and forest protection.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, enacted in 1980 –and hurriedly amended in 2023 without debate– has a centralised approach to conservation and, following amendments in 2023, has gone further still to consolidate centralized control over forest land. The amendments narrowed the definition of the term “forest” and included broad exemptions for strategic and commercial projects, and also authorised the regularization of diversions under the law. The amendments to the FCA have dismantled community consultation, removed environmental protection, and ultimately weakened the requirements to divert land from indigenous peoples in favour of land acquisition for development. The FCA now enables diversion of forest land for national security and infrastructure development, particularly in border areas, and weakened the requirement for Gram Sabha consent, designed to make community consultation a formality after the diversion has occurred.

It is crucial at this junction to recall the eviction order, passed by the Supreme Court in February 2019 that became the ground for nationwide and lasting protests by forest dwellers and Adivasis. The intent and impact of the order would have been to displace as many as one crore forest community members. Hence, its passage became yet another pivotal moment in the struggle for land and forest rights in India. The order triggered mobilisation among Adivasi and forest community members and immediate civil society response at the nation level, notably the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Within two weeks, national civil society intervention (close to a dozen and a half interim applications were finally filed) led to the Court staying its eviction order. This move was also necessitated after an affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that requested a full reconsideration of the case. The matter still awaits hearing before the Supreme Court, and demonstrates the ongoing struggle over the rights of statutory recognition against conservation. On October 24, 2025, again, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) has –once more–sharply rebutted a plea which has challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the legal validity of the 2012 Rules, made under the law, The Indian Express has learnt. In a counter affidavit filed before the SC in the same matter, the Centre has not only defended the legal validity of the Act but also stressed that the law goes beyond mere land ownership regularisation and aims to restore dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity of forest-dependent communities.

AIUFWP is a national, women-led membership union representing forest-dwelling communities, agricultural workers, and Adivasis. It creates leadership for grassroots communities, especially among Adivasi women, advocates for distributive justice, and works with stakeholders across India to secure legalisation and recognition of community based customary forest rights. CJP operates as a legal rights and advocacy organisation, in close alliance with the AIUWFP by supporting ground-level training and legal interventions. CJP is both drafter and co-petitioner in the detailed interlocutory application (IA) filed before the Supreme Court in 2019. This IA detailed the historic disenfranchisement of India’s indigenous peoples that led to the enactment of the 2006 law, the systemic grievances with claims being denied, due process failings and the deliberate bypassing of Gram Sabhas, and violations of the statute scheme for the Forest Rights Act, 2006 by the forest administration. It also emphasised that mass evictions (not mandated in the law itself) were without constitutional justification and violated natural justice and legal protections.

In the follow-up hearings, the Supreme Court, going well beyond its original order, required states to file affidavits investigating state processes concerning the assessment of forest rights claims and about claims that were denied altogether. Determining whether community land rights are properly granted is now a question of what the Court would deem sufficient transparency in state action.

Apart from this crucial matter (Wildlife First, in which Adivasi unions and others have intervened), at the same time, the apex court of India –another bench–is considering challenges to amendments made to the Forest (Conservation) Act enacted hurriedly in 2023, which would broaden the chasm between statutory protection (under the FRA 2006) and state sovereignty (under the FCA). As publicly noted in one of the recent bench observations, the principle basis for halting mass evictions focused on the unresolved policy and law contradiction between the tenurial and welfare entitlements granted by the Forest Rights Act and the hard restrictions allegedly imposed for sake of conservation by the Forest (Conservation) Act. Thus, this continuing litigation is sitting at the crossroads of India’s obligations—to forest-dwelling peoples and conservation—creating a tension and dispute between rights-based justice and regulatory control the recurrent subject for adjudication in the future.

Criticism of the FCA amendments is directed specifically to their consequences in the North-East, where a multitude of forests are not recognised officially by the state yet serve as crucial in-state clearings for indigenous communities or communities in general. The amendments have bypassed (pushed aside) Gram Sabhas, authorised less participatory governance, and fostered concerns regarding green credits and monoculture afforestation. The Godavarman judgment (1996) expanded the definition of “forest” to include unclassified and community forests; however, the newly repealed law does not recognise large areas subject to exploitation.

The approach of the Supreme Court has fluctuated over the years: see for example the direction of the Wildlife First case, and then the Niyamgiri judgment acknowledged consent from Gram Sabhas prior to forest diversion. Nevertheless, the legal condition for indigenous rights is presently ambiguous and somewhat unpredictable on fore use, where the discretion of execution has taken priority over community rights and constitutional guarantees.

The exclusion of indigenous communities from forest governance has a historical precedent, as far back as colonial rule where laws regarded them as encroachers instead of custodians of land and resources. The FRA can be understood as an acknowledgement and a corrective action towards this injustice, recognising the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to land, resources, and self-governance. The FRA was a multifaceted, energising outcome for these communities after decades of mobilising their rights and advocating for their access to and enjoyment of forests as an acknowledgment of their livelihoods and to democratise forest governance and restore dignity to marginalised communities.

In many ways, the expansion of centralised governance through The Forest (Conservation) Act has been legitimized via the Supreme Court’s Godavarman judgement of 1996, an important case that greatly expanded the administrative definition – and control over the meaning of “forest.” Centralization directly contradicts the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), which creates firm ground for a decentralised, community-based rights agenda of forest management. The tension is not simply administrative or logistical but is an observed and constitutionally established tension in the power relationship between the executive and authoritative and empowered Gram Sabhas, flooring the foundational conflict of purpose between development, conservation, and indigenous rights.

The Godavarman judgment explicitly stated, “…the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership.” (Godavarman v UOI, 1996). By contrast, the FRA 2006 frames the legal mandate as, “…to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; in order to correct the historical injustice done to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.”

The 2023 FCA amendments, with a narrower definition of what qualifies as “forest,” and less opportunity for Gram Sabha participation, are yet another movement towards executive power, effectively disenfranchising the FRA’s commitment to decentralisation and democracy. This constitutional tension is yet to be resolved and is at the forefront of ongoing litigation and policy discussions concerning forest governance, development priorities, and the protection of indigenous and community rights.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a renewed and comprehensive framework that reconciles the inherent community and historic rights of communities over land/the commons and those of “the state” that seeks to unilaterally claim land for corporate development. Such a people’s right driven scheme would be one that upholds constitutional protections, revives community governance, and ensures community participation in environmental assessments. It will take the reversal of community jurisdiction and accountability of the state to limit logging in India’s forests, and the Supreme Court’s intervention could be a new beginning. India will only be able to protect its forests when it also protects the rights of those who have historically cared for them; by reaffirming the primacy of Gram Sabhas, transparency in impact assessments, and a stronger legal basis for rights recognition.

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

Image Courtesy: business-standard.com

References:

• India: Legacies and Challenges of the Land & Forest Rights Movement Booklet
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-act-2023-a-challenge-to-adivasi-land-rights-and-environmental-protections/
• https://cjp.org.in/what-is-the-forest-rights-act-2006-and-how-are-we-defending-it/
• https://cjp.org.in/sokalo-gond-and-nivada-rana-lead-the-campaign-for-forest-rights-in-sc/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-rights-case-sc-directs-states-to-file-compliance-affidavits/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-bill-north-east-to-bear-the-brunt/
• https://thewire.in/environment/the-forest-rights-act-and-the-battle-for-indias-forests
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-frawildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest-dwellers-background/
• https://www.sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/the-forest-%28conservation%29-amendment-act%2C-2023
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-amended-green-law-is-full-of-red-flags-forests-amendment-act-2023/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/arguments-on-february-28th-2019/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest0dwellers-arguments-on-september-12th-2019/
• Godavarman v UOI, 1996, Supreme Court of India

The post Supreme Court examines Forest Rights Act 2006 versus Conservation Law, makes national headlines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A calculated campaign of vilification: CJP

In its complaint, CJP alleges that a “coordinated campaign of caste-based vilification, violent provocation, and criminal intimidation” directed at CJI Gavai—India’s second Dalit Chief Justice. It asserts that the content uploaded by Ajeet Bharti’s channel is not merely hate speech but “digital violence designed to demean a constitutional authority through caste-based insult and explicit threats.”

“This is not just abuse,” the complaint states, “but a direct and calculated assault on the dignity and personal safety of India’s highest judicial functionary, and consequently, a grave threat to the independence of the Indian judiciary itself.”

Factual background: Documented pattern of hate

The complaint highlighted that the creator of these videos, Mr. Ajeet Bharti, is a person with known antecedents of disseminating hateful and divisive statements. His broader social media profile is already under active surveillance and investigation by Indian law enforcement for similar offenses. As per complaint, the criminal nature of the content in question is not a matter of CJP’s interpretation but is confirmed by direct police action. On October 8, 2025, police in the state of Punjab have officially booked Ajeet Bharti in over a dozen First Information Reports (FIRs). The official grounds for these criminal proceedings are his “casteist” and “provocative” remarks made on social media targeting Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.

The majority of the accused are from outside Punjab and have been charged under non-bailable sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with other relevant laws.

The videos hosted on the YouTube platform are not isolated incidents but are part of a wider, documented campaign of hate by an individual whose activities are already subject to serious legal action by multiple state authorities i.e. Punjab and Noida Police. This established profile of spreading hate speech adds profound gravity to the content and heightens the urgency for its immediate removal.

Shoe hurled at CJI B.R. Gavai during live court proceedings

Tensions rose after October 6, 2025, when Advocate Rakesh Kishore hurled a shoe at the CJI during a Supreme Court hearing, shouting “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahega.” The Bar Council of India immediately suspended Kishore, calling his act “prima facie inconsistent with the dignity of the court.”

Despite the outrage, the complaint notes that Ajeet Bharti amplified the aggression. This episode came just a week after Bharti’s earlier broadcast on September 29, where his panel had already invoked open calls for violence against the Chief Justice.

Deleted Post by Ajeet Bharti

Detailed legal examination of the videos by CJP

In its complaint, CJP has very carefully examined the transcript of this podcast, premiered on September 29, 2025, and October 6, 2025 from the Ajeet Bharti’s YouTube channel [@ajeetbharti] and highlighted their relevant timestamps and context, unequivocally establishing grounds for immediate action against the channel.

The first video, “S2E2: CJI Gavai Vs Sleeping Hindus | Sonam Wangchuk A Deep State Project | Kaushlesh, Anupam, Ajeet,” was uploaded on September 29, 2025.

Barely a week later, on October 6, Bharti livestreamed “Shoe Attack on CJI Gavai: Leftist Baying for Ajeet Bharti Blood | Ajeet Bharti LIVE.”

The videos are called “a continuous chain of hate speech, culminating in physical aggression and social intimidation.”

Timeline of incitement:

• September 29, 2025 – Bharti’s podcast calls for explicit violence against the CJI: “One Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and smash it against the wall.”
• October 6, 2025 – A week later, a lawyer physically attacks the CJI in the Supreme Court, proving, the complaint says, “that YouTube’s inaction turned speech into assault.”

The complaint situates this within a historic pattern—where dehumanising propaganda precedes violence against Dalit and Adivasi communities. “This hate speech,” it warns, “is not isolated; it draws from India’s long history of caste oppression, social boycotts, and pogroms fuelled by rhetoric portraying Dalits as subhuman.”

The flashpoint of incitement

At in the first video, one of the speakers says: “If Gavai ji bumps into someone somewhere… one Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and smash it against the wall with such force that it breaks into two pieces.”

The complaint calls this a “direct call to commit assault”—not metaphor but provocation. Moments earlier, another participant had sneered: “What is the punishment in the IPC for spitting on Gavai’s face? Hindus can’t even do that.”

The complaint observes that such remarks “normalise public humiliation of a sitting Chief Justice and encourage copycat behaviour.” Later, at, a panellist declares: “The amount of inherent inferiority I have seen in Gavai… you have reached the topmost post and you still have it.”

In the complaint, this line “weaponises caste psychology to demean Dalit achievement” and qualifies as an offence under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

“He (CJI) drinks Neel in the morning”, derogatory remark against CJI

The October 6 livestream, the complaint argues, crossed every boundary of legality and decency. At, Bharti sneers that “The judge doesn’t understand the dignity of his post and reaches court after drinking ‘neel’ and distributing ‘Ambedkar Neel Vachanamrit’ instead of giving orders.”

Here, “neel” (blue)—the emblem of Dalit and Ambedkarite assertion—is distorted into a slur. Minutes later, Bharti escalates to grotesque caste imagery: “He dried the leather of a dead cow in the scorching sun of the slum, smeared it with sewer blackness, and while picking garbage, joined pieces of ‘L’ and ‘V’ to make Louis Vuitton shoes.”

The complaint describes these lines as “abhorrent, dehumanising, and a deliberate resurrection of the language of untouchability.” The complaint stresses that such statements insult not just Justice Gavai but the entire Dalit community, reducing symbols of dignity into “the vocabulary of filth and servitude.”

By broadcasting and monetising this content, YouTube, it argues, has “hosted, profited from, and algorithmically promoted material amounting to cognisable offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.”

From digital hate to real violence

When, days later, the lawyer hurled a shoe/object at the CJI, Bharti’s livestream turned the assault into spectacle. At in second video on October 6, he remarked “If judges continue to make such anti-Hindu statements, then what happened in court today can happen on the streets tomorrow.”

CJP calls this “not commentary but endorsement”—a public justification of violence.

“The sequence of events provides a stark and undeniable correlation between specific incitement broadcast on YouTube platform and the subsequent act of violence,” the complaint stated, warning that such narratives normalise courtroom desecration and seek to punish judicial independence—particularly when embodied by a Dalit judge.

Police action, platform silence

CJP alleges that despite multiple FIRs and legal summons against Bharti, YouTube has taken no suo-moto actions.

“By continuing to host these videos,” the complaint writes, “YouTube is facilitating the spread of content from an individual under investigation for caste-based offences.”

The complaint alleges YouTube of “double standards”—acting swiftly against hate speech in Western contexts but remaining inert when the target is a Dalit Chief Justice in India. Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, intermediaries must remove unlawful content upon notice—an obligation the Complaint says YouTube has ignored.

Legal and ethical violations

The complaint cites violations under multiple Indian laws—including Sections 109, 117, 152, and 342 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the SC/ST Act, as well as Supreme Court precedents which recognise hate speech as a precursor to violence.

Failure to act, the complaint warns, “undermines India’s constitutional promise of equality and the independence of its judiciary.”

“The continuous dissemination of derogatory and inciting content against the Chief Justice of India,” the complaint asserts, “is not merely an attack on an individual, but a direct and insidious assault on the very foundation of India’s constitutional democracy—the independent judiciary.”

Global standards, local silence

CJI reminds YouTube of its international responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the EU Digital Services Act, which demand swift removal of hate and incitement.

“YouTube cannot adhere to one set of standards in Europe and another in India,” the complaint notes. “Corporate self-regulation must not end where profit begins.”

CJP’s four-point prayer to YouTube

CJP’s complaint concludes with a clear four-point prayer to YouTube, asserting that failure to comply would be treated as complicity in the alleged offences, the complaint demands the immediate removal of both inflammatory videos and the permanent suspension of the @AjeetBharti channel to halt the dissemination of further hate; furthermore, CJP calls for an internal investigation into the platform’s moderation failures and a compliance response within 72 hours detailing the steps taken to address the grave legal and ethical violations cited in the complaint.

The complete complaint may be read here:

Related

CJP approaches Twitter over sexually violent content against Muslim women

CJP Impact: YouTube responds to CJP’s complaint, takes down hate filled content!

CJP Impact: Twitter suspends 21 accounts threatening Muslim women with sexual violence

The post CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On one hand, a minor Dalit girl was a victim of a brutal gang-rape in Mainpuri, while in Prayagraj, a Dalit man died under suspicious circumstances in police custody. In the third incident, a Dalit youth in Amroha was attacked with a sword for objecting to alcohol consumption. These cases not only highlight the severity of the crimes but also raise concerns about the slow pace of justice and the safety of victims.

Mainpuri: A 14-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gang-raped

A shameful incident has emerged from Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh, where a 14-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gang-raped by two middle-aged men. The accused also made a video of their actions and shared it on social media. The incident, which took place in a village under the Kurawali police station area, came to light after the video went viral.

According to the police report filed by the victim’s mother, the two accused, Mahavir Yadav (50) and Navinchandra Yadav (40), threatened and pulled the girl into a field where they took turns raping her. Frightened, the girl initially didn’t tell anyone, but the video’s spread forced her to reveal the ordeal to her family, The Mooknayak reported.

On the complaint of the victim’s mother, a case of gang-rape has been registered against both the accused at Kurawali police station. The police have formed two teams to arrest them. The incident has also sparked social and political outrage.

Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad condemned the incident on social media platform X, stating, “This is the result of feudal, social, and caste-based oppression.”

He demanded the immediate arrest of the accused, additional legal sections for making and circulating the video, and a fast-track trial to ensure quick punishment.

Prayagraj: Custodial death in Prayagraj, PIL filed in High Court

The death of a Dalit man, Hira Lal, in police custody at Nawabganj police station in Prayagraj is also under scrutiny. While the police claim he died of a heart attack, his family alleges he was tortured to death in the police station. The Allahabad High Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation into the matter.

The petitioners have demanded ₹25 lakh in compensation for the family and a High Court-monitored investigation.

According to the lawyer for the petitioners, Charlie Prakash, “This is a case of brutal custodial death and murder by the police within the police station premises, in violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).” The High Court has directed the state government to file a response within two weeks. It is alleged that Hira Lal’s body was not handed over to his family and was cremated by the police at Daraganj Ghat, as The Mooknayak reported.

Amroha: A Dalit youth was attacked with a sword for objecting to alcohol consumption outside his home

Another case of caste violence has surfaced in the Bachhraun police station area of Amroha, where a Dalit youth was attacked with a sword for objecting to alcohol consumption outside his home. The incident took place on August 17 when Shivam Singh, a resident of Musallepur village, asked a group of men led by Siddhant Devra not to drink outside his house.

Enraged, the accused summoned more associates and attacked Shivam and his father. The sword attack on Shivam severed a vein in his hand, leaving him critically injured. He was hospitalised for 15 days, and doctors have stated that the damaged vein will no longer function.

Azad Samaj Party chief Chandrashekhar Azad raised the matter on social media platform X, demanding the immediate arrest of the accused and warning of a mass protest if strict action is not taken.

जिला अमरोहा के बछरांव थाना क्षेत्र के मुसल्लेपुर निवासी शिवम जाटव पर एक महीने पहले जातंकवादियों ने जानलेवा हमला किया। शिवम का हाथ बुरी तरह जख्मी हो गया, नसें कट गईं और अब उसका हाथ काम करना बंद कर चुका है। इलाज में परिवार के लाखों रुपये खर्च हो चुके हैं। यह घटना अत्यंत पीड़ादायक…

— Chandra Shekhar Aazad (@BhimArmyChief) September 16, 2025

The events in Mainpuri, Prayagraj, and Amroha represent not only physical violence but also a grave violation of human rights. There is a need for strict action in these cases to ensure that the perpetrators are punished and the victims receive justice. It is time for both the government and society to work together to address this serious issue and ensure that no one has to face violence and oppression because of their caste.

Related

Anti-Dalit Crime: Dalit Family brutalised in Ghaziabad

Caste Atrocity in 2025: Normalisation, neglect and the crisis of accountability

Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse

The post Unending Violence: Caste atrocities haunt Uttar Pradesh’s Dalit communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to local police, the issue began on September 13, when the bike of a Dalit boy collided with a car carrying Rajput men. The boy was allegedly slapped by the car’s occupants. When he and his mother later went to the accused to raise the issue, they were reportedly beaten, reported The Observer Post.

Sensitive Content
This media contains sensitive content which some people may find offensive or disturbing

Link: https://x.com/ambedkariteIND/status/1967797182863683665

Later that evening, the situation worsened. A group of men allegedly entered the Dalit family’s home, held them hostage, and beat them. Women in the family were also among those assaulted.

The next day, on Sunday evening, violence spread in the village. Clashes broke out between members of the Dalit and Rajput communities, leading to stone-pelting and disruption of peace. Police forces were deployed immediately to contain the situation.

“Stone-pelting was reported around 8 PM. Our teams reached the spot and brought the situation under control,” said Acting Assistant Police Commissioner of Mussoorie, Amit Saxena. He added that CCTV footage from the area is being reviewed to identify those involved, as reported

According to report, at least six individuals have been detained so far. A First Information Report (FIR) has been registered under multiple sections, including provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Senior officials confirmed that leaders from the Bhim Army also visited the village, which added to the tensions.

The Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) has been deployed, and multiple police teams are stationed in the area. Despite the presence of law enforcement, locals report ongoing fear.

“We are afraid. Even with police around, the atmosphere remains tense,” a villager told reporters on condition of anonymity, reported The Observer Post.

Authorities say they are monitoring the situation closely and will take strict action against those found guilty. The case has once again brought focus to the deep-rooted caste divisions and the urgent need for effective enforcement of protective laws.

Related:

Caste Atrocity in 2025: Normalisation, neglect and the crisis of accountability

Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse

Rajasthan’s rape crisis: a string of horrific crimes challenges the state’s record on women’s safety

The post Anti-Dalit Crime: Dalit Family brutalised in Ghaziabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 18, during the hearing on connected writ petitions, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi expressed his strong reservations, remarking:

“3,000 bighas! The entire district? What is going on? 3,000 bighas allotted to a private company? We know how barren the land is… 3,000 bighas? What kind of decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what? Your need is not the issue—the public interest is the issue.”

According to LiveLaw, the counsel for Mahabal Cement argued that the land allotted comprised only barren areas and was required for the company’s operations. However, the bench did not accept this contention and directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to produce the records and policy basis for granting such an unusually large tract of land.

The court underscored that Dima Hasao is a Sixth Schedule district under the Constitution of India, where priority must be given to safeguarding the rights and interests of the tribal communities. It further observed that the proposed allotment site in Umrangso falls within an environmentally sensitive zone, home to hot springs, migratory bird habitats, and diverse wildlife.

In its order, the Court noted:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3000 bighas which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The real story is tribal land rights in Assam

Several users, including the official handles of the Congress and CPI(M), claimed that the land was being handed over to the Adani Group. The conglomerate was forced to issue a formal statement on August 18, calling the claims “baseless” and clarifying that it has no connection with the cement company in question.

This misattribution, however, distracted attention from the real conflict: the struggle of tribal villagers in Sixth Schedule areas of Assam against land allotments that threaten their customary rights.

Notably, Newslaundry had earlier documented local opposition to other projects in Dima Hasao, including Ambuja Cement’s limestone mining project, spread over 1,200 bighas and linked to the Adani Group, which too has faced stiff protests from villagers fearing displacement.

The Company at the Centre: Mahabal Cement

The dispute at the heart of the viral video involves Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd., which received an allotment of around 3,000 bighas in Umrangso – an environmental hotspot known for its hot springs, migratory bird stopovers, and diverse wildlife.

As per a report in Newslaundry, since December 2024, 22 residents of Nobdi Longku Kro and Chotolarpheng villages have been challenging the allotment in court. They allege that the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council (DAHC) granted the land without following due process.

A sixth schedule district and tribal land customs

Dima Hasao, established as a Sixth Schedule district in 1951, is administered by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC), which manages land rights and governance for the predominantly tribal population.

The district contains both surveyed and un-surveyed land. While surveyed land falls under council administration, un-surveyed land is governed by tribal customs, where gaon buras (village headmen) distribute land and collect taxes on behalf of the council.

As per the report in Newslaundry, the petitioners contend that their families have lawfully cultivated and lived on these lands since 1975, paying taxes through gaon buras. The land, they say, is communal property under tribal custom.

But in 2024, villagers were informed by revenue officials that their land had been acquired for Mahabal Cement. Some residents claim that the local patwari coerced them into signing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and accepting cheques of ₹2 lakh as compensation.

On May 16, 2024, residents of Nobdi Longku Kro submitted a formal objection letter to the DAHC, accusing officials of using “coercion” and “disinformation” to force through an “involuntary acquisition.”

The court battle

The legal fight over the land began earlier. In November 2024, a PIL filed by an activist on behalf of the villagers was disposed of by the Gauhati High Court, which said residents could return if new circumstances arose. By December, villagers filed a fresh petition.

• On February 2, 2025, the High Court directed authorities to explain how such a vast tract of land – 3,000 bighas – was allotted to Mahabal Cement. It also asked the DAHC to update the court on land demarcation related to the allotment.
• By April 2025, the DAHC submitted an affidavit stating that a resolution had been passed in January to provide alternate land to the affected residents. A March 6 notification confirmed the re-allotment of plots about 500 meters away, in equal proportion to what was acquired, along with compensation for agricultural use.
• Meanwhile, Mahabal Cement filed a separate writ petition, complaining of “disruption” of its cement project. The court later clubbed both petitions for joint hearing.

It was during the August 12 hearing of the merged petitions that Justice Medhi’s remarks went viral. The court observed:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3,000 bighas, which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The Bench also stated:

“This Court directs Shri C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NCHAC to obtain the records containing the policy to allot such a huge chunk of land measuring 3000 Bighas to a factory. The aforesaid direction has been given by taking into account that the district is a 6th Scheduled District under the Constitution of India where the priority has to be given to the rights and interest of the tribal people residing there. Further, the area involved is Umrangso in the district of Dima Hasao which is known as an environment hotspot containing hot spring, stop over for migratory birds, wild life etc.”

While the company claimed the land was granted through a tender-based mining lease, the bench questioned whether such a decision was compatible with Sixth Schedule protections for tribal rights and the ecological sensitivity of the area.

The matter has now been listed for September 1, 2025, with the court directing the NCHAC to produce the full policy records behind the allotment.

The complete order may be read here.

Shutdown called in Tinsukia as tribal groups resist state cabinet move

As per a report of The Hindu, massive protests broke out in Diphu, the headquarters of Karbi Anglong district, on Wednesday (August 20) as tribal groups opposed the Assam government’s move to hand over tribal land to large corporate houses.

Karbi Anglong is one of three districts in Assam governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which safeguards tribal rights and provides autonomy to local councils.

The protest in Diphu was led by All-Party Hills Leaders Conference president Jones Ingti Kathar, with demonstrators raising slogans against Tuliram Ronghang, the BJP-led Chief Executive Member of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council area.

Assam Jatiya Parishad president Lurinjyoti Gogoi, who joined the rally, accused Mr. Ronghang of colluding with corporate houses and “betraying the interests of tribal and indigenous communities.” He contrasted the “₹200-crore mansion” allegedly linked to Mr. Ronghang with the “makeshift huts” where hill tribals continue to live, accusing the BJP of endangering the cultural and economic survival of these communities, according to The Hindu report.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Gauhati High Court questions allotment of 3000 Bighas of land to private cement company in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The organisation warned that Saikia’s remarks undermine the rights of tribal people in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR), Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao, and other protected tribal belts and blocks. It said the comments had “deeply hurt” the sentiments of tribal communities and demanded that Saikia withdraw his statement and publicly assure that he would not interfere with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule or the protections under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Until such a clarification is made, the boycott will remain in force.

The controversial statement

On August 2, 2025, Saikia asserted that the Sixth Schedule autonomous council provisions and the Tribal Belt/Block land policies could not function simultaneously, declaring: “Sixth Schedule and the tribal belt and block—two land policies—will not operate together. Two laws will not operate in one region. One law must be applicable.”

He further suggested that amendments to the Sixth Schedule would allow people from cities such as Guwahati and Dibrugarh to buy land in protected tribal areas, and claimed that the Tribal Belt/Block safeguards under Chapter X would not apply within Sixth Schedule areas.

AATS response

Rejecting these assertions, AATS said such proposals threaten the constitutional safeguards that were specifically created to protect the territorial, cultural, and socio-economic rights of Assam’s indigenous tribes. The organisation has demanded an unconditional withdrawal of Saikia’s statement, failing which their boycott will continue.

The video may be viewed here:

Related:

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

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

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

The post All Assam Tribal Sangha calls for boycott of BJP Assam chief over ‘anti-tribal’ remarks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 28, 2025, Kavin Selva Ganesh, a 27-year-old Dalit software engineer from Arumugamangalam near Eral in Thoothukudi district, was hacked to death in broad daylight in KTC Nagar, Tirunelveli. The accused, S. Surjith (21), allegedly attacked Kavin with a sickle over his relationship with Surjith’s sister, Subashini, a Siddha practitioner. Kavin and Subashini had been in a long-term inter-caste relationship, which Surjith and his family, belonging to the dominant Maravar community (MBC), vehemently opposed.

Surjith is not just an ordinary civilian — he is the son of two serving Sub-Inspectors in the Tamil Nadu Armed Police, Saravanan and Krishnakumari, both of whom were also named as co-accused in the FIR. Despite this, the couple was only suspended and has not been arrested, triggering public outrage. The FIR has been filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

According to Kavin’s mother, S. Tamizhselvi, who filed the police complaint, her son had received repeated threats from the accused’s family. On the day of the incident, Surjith reportedly lured Kavin under the pretext of their parents wanting to meet him and then brutally attacked him with a sickle, chasing him down and killing him less than 200 metres from the hospital where Subashini worked. Eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, and multiple media reports corroborate these details.

Petition filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)

On July 30, 2025, a citizen petition was submitted at the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) headquarters in New Delhi by Shailendar Karthikeyan, law student seeking urgent intervention in the caste-based killing of Kavin Selva Ganesh. He met the Personal Secretary to the Chairperson and submitted detailed documentation, including press clippings. During the interaction, the petitioner was informed that the Commission had already taken suo moto cognizance of the case.

While a formal number was not assigned to the newly submitted petition, the representation was accepted and acknowledged by the Commission. The petitioner urged the Commission to treat the matter with utmost urgency and to include the following demands in its proceedings:

1. Immediate arrest of the accused’s parents — Sub-Inspectors Saravanan and Krishnakumari — who are named in the FIR.
2. Constitution of a fact-finding committee to investigate the role of caste bias and police complicity.
3. NCSC’s ongoing monitoring of investigation and prosecution, including regular status reports from the State Government.
4. Provision of witness protection to the victim’s family, who continue to fear retaliation.

The petition can be accessed here 

Arrest, CB-CID transfer, and body acceptance

In a significant turn of events, Saravanan, a serving Sub-Inspector and father of the main accused Surjith, was arrested by Tamil Nadu police in connection with the caste-based killing of Kavin Selva Ganesh. The arrest came soon after a petition was filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), though it is unclear if the two are directly connected. The case has since been transferred to the CB-CID, reflecting its seriousness and the growing demand for an impartial investigation. Following Saravanan’s arrest, Kavin’s family ended their five-day protest and accepted his body from the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital, where Minister K.N. Nehru and Collector R. Sukumar paid their respects. Notably, the family had earlier rejected the state’s ₹6 lakh compensation, insisting that they sought justice and not money by demanding the immediate arrest of both police officers named in the FIR.

Deafening Silence from Political Leaders

The response from Tamil Nadu’s mainstream political parties has been largely muted, drawing criticism from activists. Only leaders of VCK (Thol Thirumavalavan), NTK (Seeman), and Puthiya Tamilagam (K. Krishnasamy) have issued strong public statements demanding separate legislation to curb honour killings. The silence of ruling and opposition parties has left Dalit voices further isolated.

A Broader Pattern

This is not an isolated incident. Tamil Nadu has seen a disturbing pattern of caste-based honour killings from the 2016 murder of Sankar in Udumalpet to the more recent cases in Cuddalore and Krishnagiri. In most cases, justice has been delayed, and police bias is often evident.

The murder of Kavin Selva Ganesh is a stark reminder that caste continues to determine who gets to love, who gets to live, and who gets away with murder in this country.

Related

Kausalya’s Courageous Fight for JusticeWoman takes own family to court for Dalit husband’s murder

CJP files complaint with NCSC, 11 anti-Dalit incidents highlighted since July 2023

The post Petition filed with NCSC seeks justice in Tirunelveli honour killing of Dalit techie appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Somnath Suryawanshi was arrested in December 2024 for allegedly participating in protests and riots that erupted in Parbhani district on December 11, following the desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. A resident of Pune and a student at a law college in Parbhani, Somnath was taken into custody and, after a brief remand, shifted to judicial custody. He died on December 15, allegedly as a result of injuries sustained from police torture during his time in lock-up.

Mother’s plea ignored for months

His mother, 60-year-old Vijayabai Venkat Suryawanshi, has been waging a determined legal battle since December 18, 2024, when she filed a formal complaint demanding registration of an FIR against the officers responsible for her son’s death. In her statement, Vijayabai recalled receiving a phone call informing her that Somnath had died of a “heart attack.” But what followed only deepened her suspicion.

While she was en-route to Parbhani, officials told her the body had already been shifted to the Aurangabad Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). On the way, she was intercepted by the Parbhani police and taken to the SP’s office, where she alleges a senior officer told her: “We didn’t kill your son. He died of a heart attack. We can help you. If you take the body, we’ll offer police training to one of your sons.” 

She refused the offer and proceeded to Aurangabad, where a post-mortem was conducted. Social activists at the hospital informed her that the autopsy indicated multiple injuries consistent with custodial torture — contradicting the state’s version of a natural death due to illness.

Bombay HC recognises prima facie brutality

On July 4, 2025, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, acknowledging “prima facie material indicating custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights”, directed the police to register an FIR within a week. However, the Mahayuti-led Maharashtra government under Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis failed to comply. Instead, the state challenged the order before the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, upheld the High Court’s directive on July 30, observing that the FIR was not optional but necessary for enabling an impartial criminal investigation.

As per the report of The Statesman, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, clarified that registration of an FIR should not be interpreted as assigning guilt but as initiating a fair investigation under the law.

Presented facts and successfully argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for Vijaybai Vyankat Suryawanshi.

The Supreme Court maintained the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to file FIR and launch investigation as per the application made by Vijaybai on… pic.twitter.com/m8CdCtfqh2

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

On July 4, The Aurangabad Bench of the Hon’ble Court of Bombay had ordered to register an FIR against the police responsible for the custodial death of Somnath Suryavanshi and the brutality in Parbhani.

But the State of Maharashtra appealed against the order of High Court in the… pic.twitter.com/DhG6PHRvmU

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

Detailed report may be read here and here.

Allegations of torture and postmortem findings

In her FIR, Vijayabai has alleged that Somnath was subjected to three days of continuous custodial torture at the New Mondha police station. Activists have also corroborated her account, noting that the post-mortem report documented fractured bones and internal injuries, directly contradicting earlier government statements that claimed he had pre-existing respiratory issues and died of chest pain.

This claim was echoed by Chief Minister Fadnavis in the legislative assembly shortly after the new Mahayuti government was sworn in. He maintained that Somnath had a “serious respiratory illness” and had died of “natural causes.” However, these claims were debunked when the post-mortem revealed evidence of blunt force trauma, broken shoulder bones, and signs of sustained physical assault.

Detailed report may be read here and here.

Prakash Ambedkar’s legal intervention and political fallout

The case received a significant boost when Prakash Ambedkar, chief of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) and grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, took up the cause and personally argued the matter before the courts. “Somnath shed his blood for the Constitution of this country. He was murdered for standing up for its values,” Ambedkar said in a press briefing after the SC order.

He added that the FIR will pave the way for a broader investigation into custodial violence in Maharashtra. “This case may become a benchmark for custodial death investigations. We are now demanding that the JJ Hospital doctors who issued secondary medical opinions without court orders also be made accused. The role of doctors must not be overlooked in shielding police impunity,” he said.

Ambedkar also questioned the legality of the “combing operation” carried out in Parbhani after the desecration incident, during which multiple Dalit homes were raided, and arrests made without due process. “All officers who were part of that illegal operation must be investigated,” he added.

मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाच्या औरंगाबाद खंडपीठाने सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशी हत्येप्रकरणी एका आठवड्याच्या आत पोलिसांवर एफआयआर दाखल करण्याचा स्पष्ट आदेश दिला होता. मात्र, आजपर्यंत तो एफआयआर दाखल झालेला नाही. त्यामुळे आता पोलीस आणि प्रशासनवर कोर्टाच्या अवमानाच्या (Contempt of Court) अंतर्गत… pic.twitter.com/uizaD3wmSC

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) July 30, 2025

What lies ahead?

With the FIR now registered under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced IPC Section 302 (murder), attention is shifting toward the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a Judicial Commission. Activists and lawyers have demanded that the probe be conducted independently of the Maharashtra police to avoid conflict of interest, given that police officials are the primary accused.

The delay in FIR registration — despite the HC’s clear order and the absence of any stay by the Supreme Court — has also raised questions about contempt of court and executive resistance to judicial directives, showing that the Parbhani police’s inaction between July 4 and August 1 could expose them to proceedings for wilful non-compliance.

Related:

Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias

Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

State-sanctioned brutality? Dalit communities targeted in Parbhani “combing operations”, women, children abused

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post Custodial Death of Dalit Law Student Somnath Suryawanshi: FIR registered after Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC directive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The leaders also denounced the Hindu right-wing Bajrang Dal’s “coercive role” in the arrest of Sister Vandana Francis and Sister Preeta Mary of the order of the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate. Both nuns, Preeti Mary and Vandana Francis, and Sukaman Mandavi from Narayanpur were arrested on Friday, July 25 after a local Bajrang Dal member, Ravi Nigam, filed a complaint with the police, saying that Mr. Mandavi had brought three women to the Durg railway station, from where they had to go to Agra with the two nuns.

Meanwhile, the Hindu reported that the Union Minister of State for Minority Affairs George Kurian said that the matter was sub judice and he was therefore not hazarding an opinion until the court processed the nuns’ arrest. He stated that BJP’s Kerala president Rajeev Chandrasekhar was “working closely with the Central and Chhattisgarh governments, as well as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, to secure the early release of the nuns.”

Even as Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan wrote a strong letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding justice for the “unfairly incarcerated” nuns, a delegation of left leaders led by leaders like Brinda Karat and Annie Raja has left for Chhattisgarh on the matter. Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan also stated the attacks against Christians in BJP ruled States had multiplied after Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power at the Centre. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee president Sunny Joseph, MLA, said Christians in the BJP-ruled States lived in fear of persecution.

A delegation of Left MPs led by senior Left leaders like
@BrindaKarat and @AnnieRaja are leaving for Chhattisgarh. Our struggle for democracy and secularism shall continue, inside and out of the Parliament. pic.twitter.com/dLVZxk0T3l

— A A Rahim (@AARahimdyfi) July 29, 2025

Nuns are “innocent”, say family members of tribal women

Even as the arrest of the Keralite nuns in Chhattisgarh made national headlines, siblings of the purported victims reject allegations of trafficking and forcible conversion; they say the tribal women were accompanying the nuns to Agra for a job with the consent of family members. However BJP’s Chhattisgarh Chief Minister has defended the arrest.

Only days after the Chhattisgarh Police arrested three persons, including two Keralite nuns, on charges of trafficking and forcibly converting a few tribal women, the latter’s family members have denied the police claim. Family members clearly stated that the women accompanied the nuns and a man from Narayanpur of their own volition, and that they are innocent.

However, Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai, on Monday (July 28, 2025), backed the arrests, saying that “through inducement, an attempt was being made [by the arrested persons] to engage in human trafficking and conversion”.

‘They are being framed’

The younger sister of another woman who was in Narayanpur also demanded the release of the nuns and said her sister left home on July 24, and that the family had converted to Christianity five years ago. Besides, post the arrests, all three families gave a written submission to the Narayanpur Police on July 26 saying that they were aware that the women were being taken for jobs, said Narayanpur Superintendent of Police Robinson Guria.

Related:

Targeted by Mob, Arrested without Cause: Two Catholic nuns jailed in Chhattisgarh despite consent documents and no evidence of conversion

The post As protests intensify in Kerala over arrests of nuns, family members of Adivasi women say nuns are innocent, left national leadership to visit Chhattisgarh appeared first on SabrangIndia.