More than 200 renowned Adivasi-mulvasi leaders, representatives of people’s organisations, traditional self-governance representatives, academics, and activists have issued a joint statement appealing to Adivasis and all Jharkhandis to observe coming Tuesday, June 9, the martyrdom day of Dharti Abba Birsa Munda, across every corner of the state by commemorating his Adivasi culture, struggles, and the Ulgulan. Most critically, they have urged them to declare a solemn pledge to protect his legacy from manuvadi organizations such as the RSS, the Janajati Suraksha Manch, and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram.

The signatories to the appeal include prominent socio-political leaders such as former minister Geetashree Oraon, former MLAs Bahadur Oraon and Mangal Singh Bobonga, Jyotsna Kerketta, Devkinandan Bedia, Kumar Chandra Mardi, Demka Soy, Ramesh Jarai, Rajni Murmu, Sukhnath Lohra, Durgawati Oraon, Aloka Kujur, Binsay Munda, Hari Kumar Bhagat, Kalicharan Birua, Dinesh Murmu, Sadhu Ho, Jaikishan Godsora, and Vasvi Kido; as well as renowned intellectuals like Jacinta Kerketta, Joseph Bara, Anuj Lugun, and Nitish Khalkho.

Other representatives from numerous organisations have also signed the appeal, including the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Samiti, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, Sarna Sagom Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Adivasi Moolvasi Adhikar Manch (Bokaro), Bharat Jakat Majhi Pargana Mahal (Ramgarh), Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanvay Samiti (Khunti), Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha (West Singhbhum), Adivasi Ho Samaj Sewanivrit Sangathan (Chaibasa), Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Adivasi Samanvay Samiti, Birsa Sena, Adivasi Ekta Manch, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha, Sanyukt Gram Sabha, Yuva Jhumur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, JOHAR, OMON Mahila Sangathan, and Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha.

The appeal has also been supported by several national activists and intellectuals working on Adivasi rights issues, such as Nandini Sundar, Bela Bhatia, Prafulla Samantara, and Ishwar Ahire. The entire list is attached to the appeal.

The appeal draws specifically attention to the ‘Janajati Sanskritik Samagam’ organised in Delhi on May 24, 2026, by the Janajati Suraksha Manch—an organization affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). During this event, speakers—particularly Amit Shah—repeatedly addressed the Adivasis as ‘Vanvasis’. Throughout the gathering, not once was Birsa Munda’s struggle for jal, jangal, jameen emphasised and remembered nor was his fight against the exploitation by dikus, commemorated.

The signatories believe that the RSS and its affiliated organisations deliberately avoid using the term ‘Adivasi’ because they view tribal communities co-optively as ‘Vanvasis’—occupying the lowest rung of the Hindu caste hierarchy. On one hand, these organisations are actively seeking to erase the independent identity of Adivasis by propagating the slogan “Sarna-Sanatan Ek”. On the other hand, they are attempting to fracture the collective solidarity of Adivasis by demanding the delisting of Christian Adivasis from the official list of Scheduled Tribes. The RSS, according to the signatories, is appropriating Birsa Munda’s name and legacy to serve its own agenda: to reduce Adivasis to mere ‘Vanvasis,’ to dismantle their collective unity, to plunder their natural resources, and to obliterate the heritage of the dharti aba.

The appeal asserts that Birsa Munda’s Ulgulan—waged for the sake of jal, jangal, jameen and against the British colonialists as well as all forms of exploitative dikus—laid the very foundation of the state of Jharkhand. However, the Sangh is actively engaged in an attempt to rewrite this history. The BJP-led Raghubar Das government, in particular, even attempted to dismantle the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act—a landmark legislation born out of the Ulgulan movement. In the very Munda Disum where Birsa Munda had first raised the clarion call of Ulgulan, the Raghubar government went so far as to label thousands of Adivasis as ‘anti-nationals’. The Modi government, too, state the group, is systematically working to erode the autonomy of Adivasis and to strip them of their constitutional and legal rights. Furthermore, these Manuvadi organizations have consistently opposed the demands of Adivasis for formal recognition of their distinct religious systems and for the inclusion of a separate religious code for them in the national census.

Therefore, prominent figures have appealed to all Adivasis and Jharkhandis, as well as all proponents of Adivasi identity, to safeguard Birsa’s legacy from the RSS and to convey the truth to the people on this death anniversary.

Names of all Signatories may be read here:

1. Geetashree Oraon, Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Ranchi
2. Bahadur Oraon, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
3. Mangal Singh Bobonga, Ex-MLA, West Singhbhum
4. Jacinta Kerketta, Poet and writer, Ranchi
5. Anuj Lugun, Poet, East Singhbhum
6. Jyotsana Kerketta, Adivasi Mulvasi Manch, Khunti
7. Kumar Chandra Mardi, Gaon Ganrajya Parishad, East Singhbhum
8. Neetisha Xalxo, Assitant Professor, Dhanbad
9. Basavi Kiro, Indigenous Women India Network, Ranchi
10. Devkinandan Bedia, Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha, Ramgarh
11. Joseph Bara, Historian, Ranchi
12. Prabal Mahto, Film Maker, West Singhbhum
13. Ramesh Jerai, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
14. Rajni Murmu, Adivasi feminist organization, Deoghar
15. Aloka Kujur, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
16. Sukhnath Lohra, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
17. Durgawati Oraon, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
18. Binsay Munda, Paramparik Gram Sabha Samanway Samiti Jharkhand, Khunti
19. Chandramohan Birua, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
20. Demka Soy, Jharkhand Andolankari Morcha, East Singhbhum
21. Dinesh Murmu, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
22. Hari Kumar Bhagat, Concerned citizen, Latehar
23. Jaykishan Godsora, Research scholar, West Singhbhum
24. Kalicharan Birua, Manki Munda Swashasan Vyavastha, West Singhbhum
25. Krishna Lohar, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
26. Ajay Bankira, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
27. Anant Kumar Hembrom, Activist, West Singhbhum
28. Anupam Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
29. Asman Hembram, Adivasi Andolankari Morcha Kharsawan, Seraikela-Kharsawan
30. Bablu Munda, Sayukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
31. Bahadur Hans, Sarna Sagom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
32. Basingh Hassa, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
33. Chandra Prabhat Munda, Adiwasi Samanway Samiti Khunti, Khunti
34. Chunulal Soren, Ekta Parishad,Jharkhand, Hazaribagh
35. Deepak Ranjeet, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
36. Jaisingh Bodra, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
37. Jamadar Kairam, Birsa Sena Noamundi, West Singhbhum
38. Kamal Purti, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, West Singhbhum
39. Laldeo Soren, Bharat Jakat Manjhli Pargana Mahal, Ramgarh
40. Mangal Singh Kuntia, Adivasi Ho Samaj Sevanivrit Sangathan, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
41. Manik Chand Korwa, Samudayik Van Prabandhan Federation Garhwa, Garhwa
42. Mukta Hans, Sarna Sagam Samiti Khunti, Khunti
43. Narayan Kandeyang, Jharkhandis Organization for Human Rights (JOHAR), West Singhbhum
44. Pramod Khalkho, Adivasi Ekta Manch and Jan Sangharsh Samiti Chainpur, Gumla
45. Renu Oraon, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Latehar
46. Sadhu Ho, Deshauli Foundation, West Singhbhum
47. Sanjay Horo, Sarna Sangom Samiti Khunti, Khunti
48. Shyamal Mardi, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Saraikela Kharsawan
49. Siddharth Honhaga, Bhagwan Birsa Munda Red Cross Volunteers., West Singhbhum
50. Somnath Pareya, Birsa Seva Dal, East Singhbhum
51. Sukhram Hansda, Adivasi Mulvasi Adhikar Manch, Bokaro, Bokaro
52. Sukhram Pahan, Sanyukt Gram Sabha Khunti, Khunti
53. Sunil Hembram, Jharkhand Jantantrik Mahasabha, East Singhbhum
54. Sunil Soren, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
55. Sunita Boipai, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
56. Sunita Lakra, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
57. Tarkan Munda, Munda Adivasi Samaj Mahasabha Khunti, Khunti
58. Tej Munda, Adibashi Bhumij Munda Samiti Kukru Balak, Seraikela-Kharsawan
59. Vibhishan Jerai, Birsa Changul Malhar Club, Devgaon, West Singhbhum
60. Ajay Ekka, Adivasi Kshetra Yuva Manch, Simdega
61. Ajit Kumar Tirkey, Jharkhand organization for social harmony, East Singhbhum
62. Aman Kumar Marandi, Concerned citizen, Dhanbad
63. Anjana Besra, Activist, Khunti
64. Ashim Ashish Tigga, Tribal Journalist Association, Ranchi
65. Bineet Mundu, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
66. Elina Horo, Adivasi Women’s Network, Ranchi
67. Gadadhar Tiyu, Kendriya Ho Samaj Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha
68. Gautam Minj, OMON Mahila Sangathan Noamundi, West Singhbhum
69. Jagmohan Singh Angaria, Activist, West Singhbhum
70. James Herenj, Activist, Latehar
71. Jennifer Baxla, Activist, Ranchi
72. Jugal Munda, Jaura Sika Akhara, Khunti
73. Kailu Baskey, Concerned citizen, Sahebganj
74. Krishna Tudu, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
75. Lakhan Mardi, Jhalak (majhi Baba), Seraikela-Kharsawan
76. Madan Mohan, Jharkhand Navnirman Abhiyan, East Singhbhum
77. Manita Deogam, Activist, West Singhbhum
78. Mathiyas Suren, Adivasi Association Noamundi, West Singhbhum
79. Mission Soy, Adivasi Ho Samaj Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
80. Nelshan Munda, Adivasi researcher, Khunti
81. Parmeshwar Manjhi, Concerned citizen, Bokaro
82. Rahul Oraon, HEC Hatia Vishthapit Parivar Samiti, Ranchi
83. Sadhu Charan Samad, Activist, West Singhbhum
84. Saroj Soreng, Concerned citizen, Simdega
85. Suresh Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
86. Abdus Subhan, Activist, Sahibganj
87. Abhinash Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbum
88. Abhishek Kujur, Student, Ranchi
89. Ajay Minj, Activist, Gumla
90. Albinus Lakra, Activist, Simdega
91. Ambika Yadav, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Seraikela-Kharsawan
92. Anamika Hansda, Activist, Godda
93. Ankit Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
94. Arpana Kandulna, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
95. Ashok Verma, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
96. B B Choudhary, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Jharkhand, Ranchi
97. Badal Kumar Singh, Jharkhand Navnirman Dal,Gumla, Gumla
98. Balma Purty, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
99. Balram Karmakar, Birsa Sena, East Singhbhum
100. Bharat Birua, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
101. Bharti Barjo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
102. Binod, Adivasi Mahasabha, Simdega
103. Biplab Gorai, BGVS, East Singhbhum
104. Blacius Ekka, Activist, Simdega
105. Deepak Dholakia, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Delhi
106. Deepak Laguri, Student, West Singhbhum
107. Deepti Mary Minj, Concerned citizen, Simdega
108. Divya Vani Tirkey, Adivasi Yuva Chetna Manch (AICUF/AYCM), Ranchi
109. Dorothy Fernandes, Aashray Abhiyan, Patna
110. Emil Kandulna, Activist, Ranchi
111. Eric Murmu, Teacher, Deoghar
112. Faisal Anurag, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
113. Gangaram Jerai, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
114. Gabriel Bodra, Activist, West Singhbhum
115. Gautam Kumar Bose, Jharkhand Qaumi Ekta Manch, East Singhbhum
116. Geeta Godsora, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
117. George Monippally, Van Adhikar Manch, Latehar, Latehar
118. Jagat, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
119. Jano Purty, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
120. Jawahar Mehta, Activist, Palamu
121. Jayman Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
122. Jitendra Baraik, Activist, Ranchi
123. Jitendra Oraon, Concerned citizen, Latehar
124. Jitendra Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
125. Jivan Hembram, Majhi Baba, East Singhbhum
126. Joseph Kisku, Activist, Dumka
127. Jyoti Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
128. Jyoti Behan, Mahila Mukti Sangharsh Samiti, Chatra, Chatra
129. Kamal Pahan, Concerned citizen, Khunti
130. Kamil Purti, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
131. Kamlesh Korwa, Concerned citizen, Garhwa
132. Khetro Mohan Birua, Activist, West Singhbhum
133. Kiran, Sambhava injor, Ranchi
134. Kiran Veer, Visthapit Mukti Vahini, Seraikela-Kharsawan
135. Kita Sinku, Activist, West Singhbhum
136. Kumari Leena, Human Rights Activist, Ranchi
137. Madhu Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
138. Manimala, Journalisr, Delhi
139. Manthan, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, East Singhbhum
140. Mathias Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
141. Michael Jojo, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
142. Mikhael Hassa, Activist, Khunti
143. Mugli Kandeyang, West Singhbhum
144. Mukesh Hembram, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
145. Narendra Kumar, True Gandhian Group, Bokaro
146. Nawin Lugun, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
147. Nikita Hemrom, Bagaicha, Ranchi
148. Nimesh, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
149. Om Prakash, Azadi Bachao Andolan, East Singhbhum
150. Pius Topno, Student, Khunti
151. Ponderam Kayam, Yuva Jhumur, West Singhbhum
152. Poonam Deogam, Sprouts Child Grooming Center, West Singhbhum
153. Praphul Kujur, Activist, Ranchi
154. Praveer Peter, Sajha Kadam & Sadbhav Manch (NAPM), India
155. Prince Gill, JCM, East Singhbhum
156. Prof Yogendra, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Ranchi
157. Raj Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
158. Rajendra Champia, Activist, West Singhbhum
159. Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, Chennai
160. Rajshree, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
161. Ram Sundi, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
162. Rashmi Sinku, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
163. Ravi Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
164. Rita Kandey, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
165. Rose Madhu Tirkey, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
166. Rose Xaxa, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Gumla
167. Sanjana Mehta, Student activist, Garhwa
168. Sarita Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
169. Satish Munda, Activist, Seraikela-Kharsawan
170. Saurabh Sinha, Activist, Deoghar
171. Savita Kachhap, Social activist and Research Scolar, Ranchi
172. Shailendra Sinku, Student, West Singhbhum
173. Shakha Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
174. Shashi Shekhar Singh, Citizens for Democracy’s, Delhi
175. Shivam Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
176. Siraj Dutta, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, Ranchi
177. Solomon, Concerned citizen, Dumka
178. Soumya, Concerned citizen, Ranchi
179. Subhash Barjo, Student, West Singhbhum
180. Sunil Champia, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
181. Sunil Kumar Bansingh, Activist, East Singhbhum
182. Sushila Minj, Concerned citizen, central
183. Thakur Baske, Concerned citizen, East Singhbhum
184. Vicky Beck, Activist, Ranchi
185. Vijay Kandeyang, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
186. Vijay Kumar Barwa, Concerned citizen, Latehar
187. Vikas Das, Concerned citizen, Khunti
188. Vikash Kumar, Activist, East Singhbhum
189. Vikram Minj, Activist, Latehar
190. Vishwanath Azad, Ekal Nari Sashakti Sangathan, Hazaribagh
191. Vivek Vishal, Concerned citizen, West Singhbhum
192. Ananta, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
193. Ashok Vishwarai, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini (JASWA) / Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
194. Ashok, MKSS, Pali, Rajasthan
195. Avinash Kadam, Shramik Mukti Dal, Thane, Maharashtra
196. Bela Bhatia, Human rights lawyer, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
197. Bimal Ekka, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
198. Sricharan Behera, Campaign for Survival and Fignity, Odisha, Khurdha
199. Shambhu Nath, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Begusarai, Bihar
200. Ishwar Ahire, Manjur Sangharsh Vahini, Dhule, Maharashtra
201. Jag Narayan Mahto, Concerned citizen, Delhi
202. Joshy Jacob, Samajwadi Janaparishad, Kottayam, Kerala
203. Nandini Sundar, Sociologist, Delhi
204. Narbhinder Singh, Association for Democratic Rights Punjab, Tarn Taran, Punjab
205. Nelson Xess, Concerned citizen, N&M Andaman
206. Nootan, CDNP, Wardha, Maharashtra
207. Prafulla Samanthara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
208. Ranjana Kanhere, Activist, Nandurbar
209. Richa Singh, SKMS, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh
210. Sanjay Kumar Lakra, Concerned citizen, South Andaman
211. Shalini Gera, Lawyer, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
212. Somar Singh Bhokta, Mazdoor Kisan Samiti and Jaswa, Gaya Ji, Bihar
213. Sujata Gothoskar, Nari Atyachar Virodhi Manch, Mumbai, Maharashtra
214. Umakanta Naik, Lokmukti Sangathan, Jharsuguda, Odisha
215. Vinod Vikram, Janmukti Sangharsh Vahini, Allahabad (UP)
216. Virendra Kumar, Loktantrik Rashtra Nirman Abhiyan, Mumbai

Related:

How Not To Remember Birsa Munda 

Adivasis protest BJP’s ‘insult’ to freedom fighter Birsa Munda

Jharkhand Adivasis celebrate Birsa Munda Jayanti on Jharkhand formation day

The post Appeal by Adivasi-Mulvasi leaders to Jharkhandis: Protect Birsa Munda’s legacy from the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujjar Bakkerwal community is a recognised Scheduled Tribe (ST) community and has lived in forest areas for centuries, sustaining their livelihoods, while maintaining a close relationship with nature and forest resources. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Jammu & Kashmir in 2021 recognized the legitimate rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers over their traditional lands, traditional migratory routes and habitats.
In view of these legal protections, any forceful eviction, intimidation, or use of violence and demolition of the houses of tribal families is a matter of serious concern. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), and following its provisions is mandatory for all authorities.

The signatory organisations have demanded an immediate inquiry into the incident, repair and reconstruction of their demolished houses, protection of the affected families, and strict action against responsible officials regarding this grave violation of the rights of tribal communities.
The statement further says that “it is unacceptable that a sub divisional magistrate who carried out these demolition is faking ignorance of a parliament enacted law. The officer has been directed under FRA, a special Act of the Parliament in 2006 that the rights of the nomadic tribe should be protected. Government departments and authorities are supposed to help the forest communities to claim their rights. To the contrary, in Jammu, a government officer has uprooted dozens of families without any authorisation and violated the law of the land.”

AIWFP and others have demanded that Section 7 of the FR Act should be immediately invoked against the erring official and the person should be immediately punished for violation of this central Act. They have also urged the administration to ensure that no eviction takes place and that the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act are fully implemented.

The AIUFWP is an Adivasi and Forest Dwellers Union and it has stated that they stand in solidarity with the Gujjar nomadic community and reaffirm our commitment to the protection of rights of forest dwelling communities, environmental justice, and the constitutional rights of all marginalised communities.

Related:

J&K: “Tribals Bachao” protest intensifies over govt move to declare upper castes as ST

J&K to implement Forest Rights Act by March 2021

Bakerwal girl was Brutalised Because She Was a Muslim; Period

The post Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a group of 50+ interfaith coalitions, led by Dalit leaders and advocates met with several legislators, many of whom instantly agreed to support this bill, understanding why caste equity is so important in New York State. One key meeting was with Senator James Sanders who helped introduce this bill last year, and who spoke with immense power about the need to recognise the solidarity between Black folks and Dalit communities. “Anyone who is against this [bill] doesn’t know your own history”, he said!

Ms. Swati Sawant who has been working on this bill for over three years gifted him a statue of Babasaheb and explained the connection between Black and Dalit shared histories.

Iconic writer and campaigner, Yashica Dutt, whose 2024 published Coming Out as a Dalit, is a powerful individual account that throws a spotlight on systemic injustice in India and its growing impact on US society, took a leading part in this campaigning effort.  Writing about this on her Facebook-meta page, Yashica said that she documented that day in detail “for a video to be produced later.” She also spoke about her book Coming Out as Dalit and talked about how it points to the existence of caste, right here in the United States.

The campaign has asked all those who live in New York to support A6290/S6531! Besides, at the click of a button, any person can send their letter to their New York State lawmaker in less than a minute — https://sikhcoalition.quorum.us/campaign/nycasteequity/thanks

SabrangIndia had previously reported, how in July 2025, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California in its ruling on July 18, in response to an allegation by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) that had claimed that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans,” dismissed HAF’s contention. HAF had attempted arguments to the effect that the California civil rights department’s enforcement of anti-caste policies violated the “constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans.” This claim had been dismissed by a US District Court.

Academics and civil rights activists had then too welcomed a landmark judgment by a US federal court upholding the California civil rights department’s constitutional authority to defence caste-oppressed individuals through state action.

Related:

In a ‘major win’ for anti-caste activists, a US Federal Court upholds California Govt’s authority to act against caste oppression

Unsealed: Suhag Shukla’s Deposition in Hindu American Foundation’s Failed Defamation Case Against Us

Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative

The post New York: Support Bill to end caste discrimination, campaign intensifies appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Expressing deep concern over the implications of such orders, the Court underscored that they strike at the dignity of the accused and proceed on an impermissible assumption of guilt at the pre-trial stage. It further warned that such “caste-coloured and oppressive” conditions have the potential to generate serious social friction and risk bringing disrepute to the judiciary. Notably, the Court acknowledged that the pattern emerging from the cases gave rise to a perception of caste bias, observing that there appeared to be substance in reports suggesting that such conditions were disproportionately imposed on individuals from marginalised communities. Invoking the constitutional vision of a casteless society, the Bench referred to Articles 14, 16, and 17, reminding courts of their duty to safeguard equality and dignity, especially for the most vulnerable.

The suo motu proceedings were triggered by a detailed media reports published over the past weeks by Article 14, which brought to light a troubling pattern in bail jurisprudence emerging from Odisha. While early reports identified at least eight cases between May 2025 and January 2026 where courts, particularly in Rayagada district, had imposed cleaning duties as bail conditions, further investigation revealed that the practice was far more widespread. According to Bar & Bench, a single judge of the Orissa High Court had passed at least 50 such orders between April and September 2025, directing accused persons in a wide range of cases to undertake cleaning work at police stations, hospitals, temples, roads, and other public spaces for fixed durations.

Ground reportage by Article 14 added a critical socio-political dimension to these findings, documenting how many of those subjected to such conditions were Dalit and Adivasi individuals, several of whom had been arrested in connection with protests against a proposed bauxite mining project in Odisha’s Tijimali region. The report highlighted concerns that these bail conditions were not only legally untenable but also carried the imprint of caste-based stigma, compelling members of historically marginalised communities to perform labour long associated with social oppression. It is against this backdrop—where questions of liberty, dignity, caste, and judicial discretion intersect—that the Supreme Court has now stepped in, transforming what began as a series of individual bail orders into a moment of constitutional reckoning.

The proceedings

Taking serious exception to the practice, the Supreme Court of India termed such conditions “obnoxious” and reflective of a deeply troubling caste bias within the justice system.

“We are deeply disappointed and disheartened, and express our strongest disapproval at the manner in which the Odisha State judiciary has, in fact regressed to a colonial mindset by imposing such onerous, degrading and humiliating conditions, which are ex-facie violative of human rights. Such conditions, far from advancing the cause of justice, strike at the dignity of the accused, and proceed on the premise of guilt, which is completely impermissible in law,” the Court observed, as per LiveLaw.

Declaring the impugned bail conditions “null and void”, the Court categorically directed that no court in the country should impose such conditions in the future.

“We are of the considered view that no other State judiciary shall also ought to impose such caste-coloured and oppressive conditions, which have the potential to generate serious social friction,” the Bench noted, directing that its order be circulated to all High Courts across India.

The Court further acknowledged the disturbing implications of the pattern revealed through media reports, noting that the overwhelming number of those subjected to such conditions belonged to marginalised communities.

“There seems to be some force in the reportage that no such conditions are being imposed by the State judiciary in cases where the accused are from the privileged sections of society. Assuming such conditions were imposed inadvertently or without any premeditated bias, the nature of the conditions are so abhorrent, cruel, degrading and unknown to the law, that there is a potential to cast a serious aspersion suggesting that the Odisha judiciary is afflicted by caste-based bias,” the Court observed, reported LiveLaw.

Invoking the transformative vision of the Constitution, the Court explicitly referred to Article 17, which abolishes untouchability, and emphasised the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

“A judiciary is entrusted with the duty to safeguard these constitutional guarantees and is expected to jealously protect those who are most vulnerable. Over the course of 75 years of the Constitutional journey, the judiciary has transformed the principle of equality into a potent instrument in the hands of citizens, ensuring that the might of the State cannot transgress fundamental rights,” the Bench underscored.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a suo-moto case registered on the basis of multiple media reports highlighting the controversial bail conditions.

Addressing the Advocate General of Odisha, Pitambar Acharya, the Chief Justice made his disapproval unequivocally clear:

“Unfortunately, the High Courts and some trial courts in Odisha are imposing some bail conditions which are obnoxious, reflecting caste-based bias, and bringing a bad name to the judiciary. Directing the accused to clean the police station for two months—this should not be a condition a judiciary should be imposing in 2026.”

From “isolated orders” to a pattern of judicial practice

Initial reporting by LiveLaw indicated that the trigger for the Supreme Court’s intervention was a set of bail orders, including a May 28, 2025 order of the Orissa High Court directing one Kumeswar Naik to clean the premises of the Kashipur Police Station daily between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. for two months. The report also identified at least eight such orders passed between May 2025 and January 2026, largely emanating from trial courts in Rayagada district.

However, a deeper investigation by Bar & Bench fundamentally alters the scale of the issue. According to its analysis of e-courts data, Justice S.K. Panigrahi of the Orissa High Court alone passed at least fifty bail orders between April and September 2025 incorporating similar “community service” conditions.

These were not confined to a narrow category of offences. Rather, they cut across the criminal spectrum—from theft and cheating to grave offences including murder. Nor were they limited to a single type of institution. The directions required accused persons to clean police stations (the most frequent site), hospitals, temples, village roads, ponds, and even a bank branch in one instance.

The structure of these orders was strikingly consistent:

• Mandatory cleaning duties for 2–3 hours daily, typically between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.;
• Fixed durations ranging from one to three months;
• Detailed specification of location and time, often leaving little room for practical flexibility.

Crucially, as Bar & Bench notes, no other judge of the Orissa High Court appears to have adopted such a practice, raising further questions about the individual exercise of judicial discretion.

Bail or punishment?

At the heart of the controversy lies a foundational principle: bail is not punishment. Under established criminal law doctrine, bail conditions are preventive and procedural—not punitive. Their purpose is limited to ensuring that the accused:

1. Appears for trial;
2. Does not tamper with evidence;
3. Does not influence witnesses;
4. Does not commit further offences.

The imposition of compulsory labour—particularly labour that is unrelated to these objectives—sits uneasily, if not entirely incompatibly, with this framework.

The legal tension becomes sharper when viewed in light of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. While the BNS introduces “community service” as a recognized form of punishment, this is explicitly a post-conviction measure, applicable only upon a finding of guilt and only for specific, relatively minor offences.

As highlighted in Bar & Bench, and reinforced by a June 2025 decision of the Kerala High Court, community service cannot be transposed into the bail stage. To do so effectively collapses the distinction between accusation and conviction—between presumption of innocence and adjudicated guilt.

Moreover, the absence of proportionality is stark. Identical cleaning conditions were imposed on individuals accused of vastly different offences, without any discernible calibration based on the gravity of the alleged crime or the circumstances of the accused.

When Context Matters: Anti-mining protests and criminalisation of dissent

The controversy cannot be understood in isolation from its socio-political context, meticulously documented in Article 14’s ground report.

A significant number of the affected individuals were arrested in connection with protests against a proposed bauxite mining project in the Tijimali hills of Odisha. The project, linked to Vedanta Ltd., has been resisted by local communities—primarily Dalits and Adivasis—on grounds of displacement, environmental degradation, and alleged violations of statutory safeguards under laws such as the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA).

According to Article 14, since 2023:

• At least 40–50 individuals have been arrested in connection with these protests;
• FIRs have invoked serious charges, including rioting, obstruction of public servants, and even attempt to murder;
• Protesters have alleged coercion, fabricated consent processes, and police intimidation.

Within this broader pattern, the imposition of onerous and humiliating bail conditions begins to resemble not merely judicial overreach, but an extension of state response to dissent.

The Caste Dimension: Labour, stigma, and constitutional morality

Perhaps the most constitutionally troubling aspect is the social profile of those subjected to these conditions.

As Article 14 documents:

• Of eight identified cases involving such bail conditions, six accused were Dalits and two were Adivasis;
• Many were associated with grassroots resistance movements;
• The imposed labour—cleaning public spaces, particularly police stations—carries deep historical associations with caste-based occupational hierarchies.

For individuals like Kumeswar Naik, a Dalit protester, the bail condition translated into a daily ritual of enforced humiliation—returning to the very police station where he had been detained, to perform cleaning work under judicial mandate.

Many have argued that such orders are not neutral. They operate within, and risk reinforcing, a social structure where certain forms of labour have historically been imposed on marginalized communities.

This raises serious constitutional questions:

• Does compelling such labour violate Article 21’s guarantee of dignity?
• Does it amount to “forced labour” under Article 23, even if framed as a bail condition?
• Does the disproportionate impact on Dalit and Adivasi accused implicate Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination)?

The answers to these questions go beyond doctrinal legality—they engage the idea of constitutional morality itself.

Judicial innovation or judicial overreach?

Indian courts have, in the past, experimented with “creative” bail conditions—ranging from planting trees to distributing books. While such measures have occasionally been justified as reformative or restorative, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against conditions that are:

• Unconnected to the purpose of bail;
• Disproportionate or excessive;
• Infringing upon fundamental rights.

What distinguishes the Odisha cases is not merely creativity, but compulsion—and the nature of the work imposed. Cleaning police stations, hospitals, or temples under court order is not symbolic. It is labour—mandated, time-bound, and enforceable.

The fact that these conditions were often imposed uniformly, without individualized reasoning, further strengthens the case for constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion: Bail, dignity, and the rule of law

The Supreme Court’s suo moto intervention, reportedly prompted also by representations from civil society, including a letter signed by over 80 lawyers and activists, signals institutional recognition that the issue transcends individual orders. At its core, the controversy forces a return to first principles.

Bail is the juridical expression of the presumption of innocence. It is not a site for experimentation with punishment, nor a vehicle for moral correction, nor an instrument—directly or indirectly—of social discipline. When liberty is made conditional upon labour—especially labour that carries historical stigma—the line between justice and coercion begins to blur.

By declaring such bail conditions “null and void” and prohibiting their future imposition, the Supreme Court has not merely corrected a set of problematic orders—it has drawn a clear constitutional boundary.

The judgment serves as a powerful reaffirmation that:

• Bail cannot be used as a site for punishment;
• Judicial discretion is not unbounded;
• Dignity is integral to liberty;
• And the criminal justice system must remain free from caste prejudice—whether explicit or structural.

Related:

Police action in Odisha’s Rayagada district condemned, Adivasi rights paramount: CCG

Fractured Fault lines: Violence, governance gaps, and rising tensions across Odisha

Odisha: 18 months, 54 incidents of communal hate crimes, 7 mob lynchings

Publicly Tortured, Forced to Eat Cow Dung: No arrests in Odisha Pastor assault case

The post “Obnoxious and Caste-Coloured”: Supreme Court strikes down Odisha bail orders mandating cleaning work, declares them void appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The following report synthesises five harrowing accounts of caste-based hate, meticulously documenting how the intersection of social dominance, administrative apathy, and ritual purity continues to deny the Dalit community their fundamental right to life and liberty.

Dalit youth found dead in Tamil Nadu after going missing; family alleges killing linked to inter-caste relationship

Tamil Nadu (Pudukkottai)

On April 21, in Nadupatti village of Kulathur taluk in Pudukkottai district, 20-year-old R. Hariharan, a Dalit youth, went missing after receiving a phone call. Two days later, on April 23, villagers grazing cattle near a forest area found a body floating in a water-filled quarry. The body was identified as Hariharan.

Hariharan had been in a relationship with a 19-year-old girl belonging to a dominant caste. Around five months earlier, the couple had attempted to elope. Following this, both families were called to Keeranur police station, where a compromise was reached and the couple was separated.

After the recovery of the body, Vellanur police registered a case under Section 194 of the BNSS on April 24, treating it as a suspicious death, based on a complaint filed by Hariharan’s father, P. Rajkumar (50). The family refused to accept the body and demanded that a murder case be registered. A post-mortem examination was conducted, and the body was handed over to the family on April 27.

Hariharan’s father, P. Rajkumar, stated that “The murder was committed by the family members of the girl belonging to another caste, because Hariharan had a love affair with her” as The Mooknayak reported

On April 25, the FIR was altered to include Section 108 (abetment of suicide) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The accused named in the FIR include the girl’s father Rajendran, her brother Shanmugasundaram, and another person, Krishnan.

The case is currently being investigated by the Pudukkottai town Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).

Members of Dalit community asked to bring their own plates & water for temple

Gujarat (Junagadh)

On April 29, during the Pran Pratishta ceremony of a Ram temple in Bhutadi village of Visavadar taluk in Junagadh district, members of the Dalit community were invited to participate in the event.

Approximately ten Dalit individuals were invited by the organising committee. However, the invitation included conditions requiring them to eat separately after others had finished and to bring their own plates and glasses.

They were also told that “Bring your own plates and glasses from home… stay outside the temple premises during the core rituals” as reported by The Mooknayak

Ajay Chatur Boricha, aged 25, filed an FIR at Visavadar police station regarding the conditions imposed. Following this, members of the Dalit community refused to attend the event. The planned mass feast in the village was cancelled, while the temple consecration ceremony proceeded as scheduled. Police registered a case against five individuals: Babu Uka Hapani, Narendra Bhanji Siroya, Ramnik Samji Sorathia, Atul Bhikha Siroya, and Phula Popat Siroya. The case was registered under relevant sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the BNS, 2023.

Newly married Dalit couple were allegedly denied entry in temple

Madhya Pradesh (Khargone)

On April 26, in Khargone district, a Dalit couple, Nirmal Kanade and his wife, attempted to enter a Hanuman temple to offer prayers. The temple was initially found locked. After police intervention, the couple was allowed entry. Following this, a panchayat consisting of members from the Banjara and Patel communities held a meeting.

The panchayat declared a social boycott against the couple and two other Dalit families associated with them.

According to the New Indian Express, The decision included a financial penalty.

“The panchayat announced that anyone engaging with the three families or selling anything to them would have to pay a penalty of Rs 11,000” as reported

Following the announcement, local shopkeepers stopped selling goods to the affected families. Nirmal Kanade shared a video describing the situation and seeking assistance. Police later intervened and stated that the matter had been resolved through discussions, and restrictions were lifted.

“Now, Dalits will also take out wedding processions riding a buggy” remark against Dalit wedding procession

Uttar Pradesh (Shahjahanpur)

On April 20, in Lai Kheda village under Tilhar police station area in Shahjahanpur district, a wedding procession arrived from Bareilly at a Dalit household. During the procession, a local individual, Rajpal Yadav, made a remark that now Dalits will also take out wedding processions riding a buggy.

Following this remark, an argument took place which escalated into a physical clash between groups.

Police stated that two processions had reached the same location at the same time, contributing to the situation. An FIR was registered against Rajpal Yadav and four others under provisions of the BNS and the SC/ST Act.

Two individuals were detained in connection with the incident, as reported.

Dalit youth dies after assault at Amreli hospital canteen following dispute over leftover food and caste inquiry

Gujarat (Amreli)

On April 20, at Shantaba General Hospital in Amreli district, 24-year-old Mahesh Premji Rathore from Gopalgram village died after being assaulted. Mahesh had been at the hospital to care for his 70-year-old uncle. While eating at a free canteen, he felt unwell and threw away a portion of leftover food. The canteen operator, Bharat Acharya, demanded a fine of Rs 50 for wasting food. When Mahesh gave a Rs 500 note, Acharya refused to return the change and questioned him about his caste and village.

After learning that Mahesh belonged to a Dalit community, Acharya and others allegedly assaulted him using plastic pipes. Mahesh lost consciousness and died three days later.

According to The Mooknayak His father, Premji Rathore, stated:

“My son was killed for a mere 50 rupees. He was beaten with plastic pipes until he stopped breathing… we will not take the body until murder charges are filed against all accused.”

The family refused to accept the body until appropriate charges were filed. The Special Atrocity Court sought a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report to determine whether Section 302 (murder) should be applied or not.

Notably, across incidents reported from Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, a pattern of caste-based discrimination, violence, and exclusion continues to be recorded in different forms. These cases involve restrictions on access to public spaces, conditions imposed during community events, social boycott, and physical violence following everyday actions such as relationships, temple entry, or participation in social functions. The recurrence of such incidents across regions indicates ongoing concerns regarding the implementation of legal protections and safeguards available under existing laws, including provisions addressing caste-based offences.

While FIRs, arrests, and investigations have been reported in these cases, the sequence of events indicates that such incidents continue to occur within society despite the availability of stringent laws against offenders.

Related

The Double Stage on Campus: Caste, crisis & UGC equity regulations (2026) controversy

An Adivasi woman once in bonded labour now serves her village as a Sarpanch

Telangana: Stop forcible ‘re-location of Chenchu Adivasis from Amrabad Tiger Reserve

The post Systematic Exclusion: Caste-based atrocities across Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, MP, and UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These demands have surfaced following concerns “regarding rights violations of this community

 In the context of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, in Nagarkurnool district of Telangana; both the Adivasis and activists-in-solidarity have strongly asserted the legal and democratic rights of the Chenchu community in the Nallamalla forests. 

According to a press note issued by a solidarity forum, a series of actions last week – including 

1. The letters sent to various Central and state authorities and meetings with senior state officials, 
2. The Hyderabad civil society round table, on April 17, in which a large number of Chenchu Adivasis spoke resolutely against involuntary relocation and 
3. In the Prajavani meeting with Mr. Chinna Reddy, (Vice-Chairman of State Planning Board), where Chenchu adivasis were assured that their rights would be safeguarded and district forest officials were asked to comply with law. 

Some of the key demands in all these meetings and representations include 

1. An immediate end to issuing cheques and forcible relocation, in violation of law, 
2. Pursuing the harmonious co-existence model in Amrabad Tiger Reserve and ensuring the democratic participation of communities in forest governance 
3. Withdrawal of fabricated cases against Chenchu Adivasi leaders and 
4. Full compliance with all the relevant laws including the Forest Rights Act, 2006; especially community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (as amended in 2006), Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. 

As is well known, Chenchus are a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) residing in the Nallamalla forests of Telangana, since generations. They are recorded as one of the ancient food gathering communities with rich traditional knowledge of forest produce, medicinal plants and live in close association with nature. As also recommended by Sir Christoph Von Haimendorf in 1940, their cultural significance with Nallamala forest should be rightly recognized, by declaring the region as a ‘Chenchu Conservation Bio-Reserve’, in order to protect their socio-cultural rights and their natural habitats. 

However, states the press release, the introduction of ‘Project Tiger’, has resulted in persistent efforts to forcibly relocate them from their natural habitats. The latest threat to their co-existence in the forest has been by way of cheques being issued in March 2026, by senior ministers of the state government, as part of Amrabad Tiger Reserve ‘Relocation package’. It is a gross injustice that without appropriate consultation and consent, as mandated by law, the Chenchu Adivasis are sought to be removed and relocated outside the Schedule-V Area, where they would have no access to wild foods or forest produce and where they will lose all their Scheduled Area constitutional safeguards. 

In this context, many Chenchu community members from affected villages of Sarlapally, Vatwarlapally, Kollampenta, Rayuletupenta, Uppununtala, Kudichintalabayalu came to Hyderabad on April 17, 2026 to submit petitions to the Chief Minister, through the Prajavani Grievance Cell, against the involuntary relocation and excesses of the Forest Department. They also shared their struggles and perspectives with many civil society and citizens groups, during a well-attended round table consultation on the same day. The youth and women gave very clear and cogent reasons as to why they do not want to leave their forest and how there was no proper consent or consultation with their Gram Sabhas. As Chiguru Nagamma of Kommanipenta said, “We have seen how our forefathers were displaced for other projects and whatever money came was wasted on liquor, so we do not want any money or land somewhere else. We will survive in the forest that has sustained us”. 

For example:

Tirupathaiah of Sarlapally gave examples of how basic development activities are not being allowed in their villages and how even the banks or government departments are refusing to give them loans or benefits of schemes because they are under ‘relocation’. Mallikarjun, the ex-Sarpanch, spoke about how their forest rights under the RoFR Act are pending and that shifting them outside the Scheduled Area would make them lose all their constitutional entitlements under PESA, FRA, LARR and LTR Acts. Guravaiah stated that he filed several detailed RTIs and appeals seeking information about the relocation details, but did not receive proper responses. 

The youth expressed their anguish that they are being criminalised with false cases for speaking out for their rights. They said that, along with state officials, some ‘pro-conservation groups’ are also creating a false narrative of ‘voluntary relocation’. They claimed that most of the people whose consent was taken so far, are not Adivasis and they are non-local people, who want to benefit from the package. The Chenchu women said that their men are being given petty jobs (such as forest watchers) to put pressure on their families for giving consent to relocate. This is a deliberate attempt to divide the Chenchus and create friction among them. However, they very clearly conveyed that they will not give consent to any relocation package and would continue to co-exist with the wildlife in harmony, as that is how the Chenchus always survived in the forest.

Speakers at the consultation also raised many legal concerns including non-implementation of the Forest Rights Act, non-recognition of community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus. They spoke on the deliberate misinterpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act to displace Chenchus in the name of making the forests ‘inviolate’, violations under PESA and lack of prior informed consent procedures, non-implementation of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (LARR). The recent relocation of Adivasis from Mysampet and Rampur in Kawal tiger reserve where the displaced community became landless wage labour still awaiting the promised land and cash compensation is a classic example of non-compliance with legal and statutory accountability mechanisms in relocation.  

Veteran civil rights activist Prof. Haragopal said that the State wants Chenchus out of the forest, both because Adivasi regions are mineral resource rich, but also because the capitalist order wants to extinguish the selfless and community way of living of Adivasis. Other activists who were present and spoke at the Consultation in solidarity include Usha Seethalakshmi, K. Satyavathi, Sajaya K, Dr. Ramkishan, Sandhya V, Ashalatha S, Bhanu Kalluri, Girija, Ravi Kanneganti, Shankar, Kalpana, Meera Sanghamitra, Sanjeev, Soumitri, Ravichander etc.  

The efforts over the past three months, by the Community Forest Rights Working Group of Telangana also resulted in the formation of the Chenchu Solidarity Forum (CSF), on the eve of Earth Day. As an independent citizens’ collective to support the struggles of the Chenchu Adivasi communities, co-existence and democratic governance in Nallamalla forests and ensure their rights, guaranteed by various laws and the Constitution, are not violated. 

Key demands submitted to the Telangana government are:

• Immediately stop issuing cheques and stop the process of unconstitutional relocation of the Chenchus living in Amrabad tiger reserve area.
• Implement the Forest Rights Act including recognition of Community Forest Rights and Habitat Rights, settlement of pending IFR claims and resurvey of claims rejected and pending.
• The forest department has to place in public domain the mandatory report as per WLPA (with 2006 amendment) of the scientific study conducted in consultation with the Chenchus, that proves ‘irrevocable damage to wildlife’ by the Chenchus.
• The forest department should make public the details of core and buffer zone demarcations, details of consultations conducted with concerned Gram Sabhas and details of conditions on which consent was obtained, including details of Social Impact Assessment report, R&R Plan, Gram Sabha resolutions and consent letters.
• Government must share the details of notifying villages in core and buffer zones in Amrabad Tiger Reserve. 
• Strengthen the governance of forests through co-existence of Chenchus with their forests and wildlife using the Constitutional and legal mechanisms of the PESA, FRA, LARR for community centred conservation which is globally recognized as the most sustainable form of Conservation and Climate Protection. 
• Withdraw all the false criminal cases on the Chenchu youth, community leaders and intimidation tactics to prevent them from voicing their concerns. 
• Safeguard the Nallamalla ecosystem and declare the Nallamalla forests as Chenchu Conservation Bio-Region Reserve.

Related:

Thousands of Adivasis demand the implementation of FRA 2006

Breaking: All Intervention Applications defending FRA, 2006 admitted by SC

Woman, Van Gujjar, Forest Dweller – the roles & intersectionalities in Mariam’s life

Mass protests & Sansad Gherao against continued Adivasi evictions

Compilation of Forest Rights Act, Rules, and Guidelines

Frequently Asked Questions on the Forest Rights Act, 2006

Counter Affidavit filed by MoTa in support of tribal rights in the FRA

The post Telangana: Stop forcible ‘re-location of Chenchu Adivasis from Amrabad Tiger Reserve appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary thus quashed a 2021 order passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur, refusing to finalise the claims of 107 ‘Tharu’ community members for forest rights, specifically the right to collect and use minor forest produce for their livelihood. The Order of the High Court was passed on April 9, 2026.

In sum, in its order, the Committee, constituted under the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, had relied on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to reject the claim of the petitioners. The petition was filed by the NGO Udasa and 101 members of the Tharu community. The petitioners, residents of the Palia Kalan area in Lakhimpur Kheri and members of a Scheduled Tribe, had challenged a March 15, 2021, order that dismissed their claims to community forest rights.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the district-level committee’s rejection of their claims. They argued that as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to specific rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

It was the case of the petitioners that the Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted specifically for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. They contended that under Section 3 of the Act, their rights include the ownership, access, and use of minor forest produce traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.

Furthering this argument, the petitioners also relied on a 2013 Ministry of Tribal Affairs circular clarifying that the 2006 Act, being a subsequent statute, supersedes all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court found justification in their stance and noted that the 2006 Act aims to recognize and vest the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to ensure their livelihood and food security.

On a close reading of the case, the High Court observed that the district-level committee had fundamentally erred in its approach. The court noted that the committee failed to properly consider the intent and specific provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Instead, the authority had relied solely on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 to justify the rejection of the claims. The bench emphasized that the primary objective of the 2006 Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and to secure their livelihood and food security. Explaining this further, the Court clarified that with the enactment of this Act, the legislature had not created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather it had recognized the existing rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest owing to various historical reasons.

The court noted in its Order that:

“The objective of the Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and ensure their livelihood and food security, which cannot be overlooked.”

The judges also pointed out that the 2006 legislation was enacted specifically to address historical injustices and to provide a legal framework for the rights of these communities, making it imperative for committees to apply the Act’s provisions rather than relying on outdated interim orders It was against this backdrop that the Court found fault with the impugned order, which the bench said had not taken into account the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act and had only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order passed in 2000, prior to the enactment of the Act.

Following this, the court quashed the March 15, 2021, order and directed the concerned district authority to rehear the matter. The bench mandated that the petitioners be provided a full opportunity for a hearing and that a “reasoned order” be passed within a reasonable timeframe after a thorough examination of all relevant facts and records.

Furthermore, the court provided interim protection to the Tharu community members, clarifying that until the fresh decision is reached, the petitioners will continue to enjoy their existing forest rights without disruption.

In its Order, the Court highlighted that Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause, meaning that the central government recognizes and vests these rights notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Advocates Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh and Rajat Srivastava apeared for the petitioners. The judgement in Udasa and 106 others vs Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 others may be read here:

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

The post Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Further, the communication points out that in the past, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted clearance in 2004 for the diversion of forestland in the Niyamgiri Hills to enable a corporate entity to mine bauxite for an alumina refinery located nearby, also on forestland. This decision was subsequently set right by the Supreme Court of India. It was only when the Supreme Court intervened and insisted in 2013 that the concerned Gram Sabhas needed to give their consent under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), that the matter was placed before the Gram Sabhas. At the time, all the 12 concerned Gram Sabhas categorically denied permission for the mining project, affirming their cultural and spiritual rights to the area.

Now, 13 years later, regrettably, less than 50 km away from Niyamgiri, in Sijimali in Rayagada district of Odisha, also in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, efforts have been made to again illegally acquire the forest lands by fraudulent means. In December 2025, MoEFCC accorded stage I forest diversion clearance, based on the 2023 gramsabha resolutions, which are claimed to be fraudulent, with a stipulation that the diversion was subject to FRA clearance, the letter states. The Stage 1 forest diversion clearance given was itself flawed as the prior mandatory site visit was not undertaken and due process was not followed. In December 2023, it was claimed that the concerned Gram Sabhas had passed ‘unanimous’ resolutions in favour of the mining activities to be taken up by Vedanta, the same group which had attempted to take up mining in the Niyamgiri hills.  Villagers of Sijimali have alleged that the resolutions were fraudulent, that a number of non-residents took part in the Gram Sabha meetings, that minors and deceased persons were shown to be present, that consent was obtained through fraud and manipulation. Media reports[1] also mention that the Gram Sabha meetings never took place and that the police brought in people from elsewhere and recorded photographs and videos. In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats filed a writ petition in the Odisha High Court to quash the 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions. The Court disposed of the matter in March 2025 directing the Centre to take note of the concerns.  Despite this order, and regardless of local protests, construction of a three km. long approach road was started, with the presence of armed police. This is the background of the clashes.

The CCG states that the collective is “distressed by the fact that despite knowing that the Forest Rights Act was applicable to the land on which the mining would be taken up, the State Government chose not to follow the precedent of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court and ensure fair proceedings by seeking presence of a judicial officer at the meetings of the Gram Sabha.”

“Apart from the above, the principles of the 1997 Samatha judgement of the Supreme Court have also been violated.  In the matter of ‘transfer’ of tribal land to a ‘non-tribal person’, the court had held that without due consultation and benefit sharing, government land or forest land or tribal land cannot be transferred to private entities. It is amazing that the government, despite having the duty of protecting common property resources, seems to be bent upon handing these resources over to subserve private interests.  Such actions are also a clear violation of Article 39 of the Constitution which mandates the State to secure social and economic justice.

“The manner in which the Sijimali protests have been dealt with indicates complete violation of the spirit of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court. It shows scant regard for the Forest Rights Act.  It creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the resolutions of Gram Sabha, indicating that free, prior and informed consent of the Gram Sabha had not been obtained. It shows the State’s inability or refusal to learn from past incidents of tribal unrest which have, in several cases, led to the loss of tribal lives.”

The CCG has also pointed out that these days when we have a Mission Karmayogi to systematise capacity building at all levels, it should have been a fairly easy step to incorporate such a landmark Supreme Court Judgements in the training curriculum of the concerned officials, so that future investment proposals are handled with due diligence, without requiring people to go all the way to approach the Supreme Court again. Similarly, it should have been a routine item of administration in these days of Information Technology, that the individual and community rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are duly incorporated into revenue records and maps. All this brings us to the disturbing question of whether the new chapter referred to by Jaipal Singh Munda, of just and fair governance, is still a distant dream.”

On January 24, 1947, Jaipal Singh Munda, member of the Constituent Assembly, had stated, “The whole history of my (tribal) people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India… I take you all at your word that now we are going to start… a new chapter of independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected.”

Invoking this now 79 years later, the letter urges India’s woman Adivasi President that “they are hopeful that you will be concerned about the injustice that is being done, and that you will get the government to comprehensively re-examine the authenticity of the December 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions.  Pending a detailed enquiry, the stage I forest diversion clearance should be suspended and the physical work of road construction to Sijimali mining area should be stopped. The cases of the tribal persons who have been booked under various criminal law sections need to be reviewed by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. All steps must be taken to see that the gains of the Forest Rights Act, both in terms of individual and community rights, are consolidated to secure better livelihoods for all tribals and other traditional forest dwellers.”

The signatories are:

[1]   Report in the Hindu. 3.1.2026 https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/sijimali-bauxite-mining-gram-sabha-fraud/article70463304.ece

The post Police action in Odisha’s Rayagada district condemned, Adivasi rights paramount: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But what if we pause and think about the thousands of modern day slaves in India who continue to work under almost the same conditions? 

As India marks 50 years of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, cases of bonded labour still surface in states like Telangana. Many workers in sectors such as agriculture, brick kilns, fishing and construction remain trapped in debt and coercion. The only thing that has changed is that it is no longer the 3rd century BCE, but the 21st century. 

Pursala Lingamma’s story emerges from this reality. Once a bonded labourer, she later entered public life and today serves her village as its Sarpanch.

Pursala Lingamma, Sarpanch of Amaragiri village

“At night, our seth(master) locked our children in a separate room so that we would not run away. If we tried to escape, we would have to leave our children behind. That is how we remained trapped in slavery for nearly three decades.” – says Pursala Lingamma 

P Lingamma, once trapped in conditions of forced slavery, went on to become the Sarpanch of a village with hundreds of rescued individuals. Lingamma hails from Amaragiri village in Nagarkurnool district, Telangana. For over three decades, her family, along with 44 other families from the Chenchu tribe (an aboriginal community listed among the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in India) was trapped in bonded labour. 

“The community’s complete rescue was a miracle. We had to suffice in the given boat and equipment for fishery and had never imagined that we could ever be free. My parents and the whole community had lost all hope. ” – she adds. 

They were trapped by three local businesspersons who controlled most of the fishing trade in the area. Through debt and coercion, Lingamma’s family, along with many other families, were forced to sell the fish they caught at extremely low prices. While the market price was around Rs 60, they were made to sell it for just Rs5. They were denied access to fair markets and were even subjected to physical abuse, leaving constitutional guarantees only on paper.

Rescued from Bonded Labour 

However, the turning point came when a civil society organisation, the Foundation for Sustainable Development (FSD), stepped in. Established in 2004, FSD works to eradicate bonded labour across several Indian states, including Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha and West Bengal. 

“Due to migration and the search for a stable livelihood, these tribal groups, most of them illiterate, get trapped by local businessmen. They are often threatened and abused so that they do not speak against them.” – Dr. Kandasamy Krishnan, Executive Director of FSD and Convenor of the National Adivasi Solidarity Council (NASC)

Krishnan speaks about the deep fear among the survivors of Chenchu tribe in Amaragiri village. For generations, these families had been catching fish from the Krishna River and selling it locally for around Rs. 100 per kilogram. The same fish could earn up to Rs. 1,000 per kilogram in markets in West Bengal. In other words, they were getting barely one-tenth of its real value. Yet most of them were afraid to complain to officials, fearing they might lose even this small income, if they engage with officers. Krishnan adds that among the 106 people who were rescued, only two could read and write, which made it even harder for them to understand their constitutional rights and speak up against them in front of officers.

Lingamma’s Leadership Journey

Lingamma attended several leadership sessions conducted by the Foundation for Sustainable Development and waited for the right opportunity to show her abilities. She is one of the 2,900 rescued survivors by FSD, who has received leadership training. Today, many of them are leading participants in different fields such as local politics, markets, working at handicrafts and self-help groups. However, their journey, even after the rescue, is not easy. It is only their first step. 

For the first time, the position of Sarpanch in Amargiri village was reserved for a woman from a Scheduled Tribe. It was then that a cousin of Lingamma encouraged her to contest the election, thinking that the position could later be taken over by him. She hesitated at first, but eventually decided to step in and make use of the opportunity. However, she faced heavy criticism for contesting, especially because she was a woman and that too from the Chenchu tribe.

Lingamma says, “The village was already divided among different tribes. When I got nominated, it soon turned into a gender conflict as well. The toughest time for me was not the haunting decades of slavery, but the months before the election, when the men of my own community stood against me.” 

The villagers were deeply divided in their opinions about a woman’s capability to hold such a significant position in the political arena. They doubted a woman’s ability to conduct meetings with bureaucrats, negotiating and bargaining the interest of the community wisely. Many were sceptical, but she was confident. She went ahead and mobilised male voters by taking up their daily issues and also assured the women that she would be a strong and accountable leader. After conducting numerous local Sabhas to engage with opposing forces, the tribe slowly consolidated and she won the first election of her political journey. Later, despite being offered monetary bait of Rs10 lakh to transfer the real authority to her cousin, Lingamma declined to sell the trust of her own people. Today, she stands as an epitome of women’s empowerment for the whole of Amaragiri.

Developmental Road Ahead after Winning

Lingamma’s leadership as Sarpanch has played an important role in establishing the economic independence of Amaragiri. 

Lingamma is currently focusing on education and has been working to lay the foundation for school buildings in the village. She is also pushing for the establishment of a community hall for her community, which is still awaiting sanction. Along with this, she hopes to soon ensure access to drinking water and improve road infrastructure, as the village remains largely isolated from the outside world.

She says, “Amaragiri should not be known as a village of bondage, but for its progress and for the leadership of a tribal woman.”

Post-rescue, survivors have organised themselves into the Amaragiri Released Bonded Labourers Association (RBLA) in effort to secure government benefits, and launched initiatives like a fish-processing unit to ensure economic independence in their age-old profession. The Chenchu community of Amaragiri were able to obtain government funds as well, of approximately 40 lakh rupees, to start a Fishing Cooperative and purchase vehicles to take the fish to city markets. 

Her victory is historic, not just for her but for the entire community. It symbolises a complete reversal of decades of oppression and a beacon of hope for other marginalized communities. 

At the heart of this transformation stands Sarpanch P. Lingamma. 

Her journey is recently recognised in a feature by Eenadu, a Telugu newspaper, on March 18, 2026 titled “From Struggle to Recognition: An Inspiring Journey of Resilience.”

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, Lingamma was also among nine Elected Women Representatives from across the country who were felicitated by the Indian School of Democracy at the Constitution Club of India. ISD is a non-partisan organisation that works to nurture principled grassroots political leaders committed to strengthening Indian democracy.

(The author is a Political Science student at Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Delhi University, and an independent journalist writing on polity, governance, and social issues.)

Related:

Raid on Adivasi leader Manish Kunjam for ‘seeking investigation into the tendu patta bonu scam’, condemned by rights groups

Appeal to Political Parties, Visit Bastar, Initiate a Dialogue, Restore Fundamental Rights

Attack on Prof Sanjay Kumar Roundly Condemned

The post An Adivasi woman once in bonded labour now serves her village as a Sarpanch appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Next day, today, Friday 27, fourteen of hundreds of protesting students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) were sent to Tihar Jail after the late night brutal lathi charge by the Delhi police, attacking a student protest and long march aimed to march towards the Ministry of Education yesterday. Protesters have been demanding the resignation of Vice Chancellor (VC) JNU Ms Pandit who had made derogative remarks against Dalits and Blacks recently and also the restoration of the UGC Guidelines of 2026.

On Thursday (February 26), Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), along with other student organisations, organised a “long march” from the university to the Ministry of Education in Delhi. Students alleged that soon after their march began, Delhi Police lathi-charged them near the main gate of the campus. They said several students were detained and taken to the Kapashera and Sagarpur police stations. Videos and photographs that surfaced on social media showed that many students, including women, were injured in the police action.

The students’ march began around 3 pm from Sabarmati Dhaba inside the campus. Students joined the rally in large numbers, including members of JNUSU, All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF), National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and other student bodies.

You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming

14 JNU students sent to TIHAR JAIL
the state’s cowardice is on full display. They think iron bars break spirit, they are WRONG
​fight against BJP & Shantishri’s casteist regime will only INTENSIFY#JNU #jnusu pic.twitter.com/qJTC3DamOD

— Anjali (@anjali__27) February 27, 2026

जेएनयू में हज़ारों छात्र जब यूजीसी रेगुलेशन के पक्ष में और जातिवादी वाईस चांसलर की बर्खास्तगी की माँग के साथ शिक्षा मंत्रालय की तरफ़ बढ़े।
तब पूरी सरकार में कंपकंपी मच गई। दिल्ली पुलिस ने छात्रों के हाथ से बाबा साहब भीम राव अंबेडकर की तस्वीर छीन ली, हाथों में अपने… pic.twitter.com/2JyjjTrb8m

— Dhananjay (@SathiDhananjay) February 26, 2026

This protest began amid heavy deployment of security forces, including Delhi Police, across the campus. The main gate was completely barricaded to prevent the students from moving forward.

Before the march started, JNUSU president Aditi Mishra had told The Wire: “Our call today was directed at the Ministry of Education. We are demanding that the UGC Equity Regulations be implemented on the lines of the Rohith Act. We are also demanding the resignation of our Vice-Chancellor, Shantisree Dhulipudi Pandit, over her remark that ‘Blacks and Dalits are permanently drugged with victimhood’. We believe such a statement is unacceptable. We are also asking for the restoration of funds [to JNU and other universities], because continuous financial cuts are weakening public universities and affecting students directly.”

She had then added, “What we are seeing instead is a heavy police security presence. The university has been turned into what feels like a cantonment, with barricades placed every few metres, the Rapid Action Force deployed and water cannons and tear gas kept ready. FIRs are being filed against students simply for protesting.”

Despite the heavy police and security force presence and the main gate of the JNU being sealed off, the students remained firm on continuing their march. Around 4 pm, students moved the barricades placed outside the main gate and attempted to proceed with their march. Soon after this, police began detaining students participating in the march. During the process, scuffles broke out between them and the police.

The allegations of brutality included male persons, accused of masquerading as men in uniform assaulting women with pins and other weapons in gendered violence. Hundreds of police, paramilitary and other personnel were brought in to simply “handle a student’s protest.”

It was the obstruction of free movement by the Delhi Police who blocked and locked the JNU gates that began the altercation and thereafter police repression.

Danish, joint secretary, JNUSU, said, “We called for a peaceful march from JNUSU to the Ministry of Education. However, Delhi Police blocked JNU gates, putting locks on them. Around 500 to 700 policemen were deployed with heavy barricading, lathis, tear gas and water cannons. When students broke the locks and marched, the police launched a brutal lathi charge.

“Many students were hurt. Women students were dragged and their clothes torn. They [police] detained at least fifty of us and took us to Kapashera Police Station. Even now, many students, including me, are injured but have not received any first aid. There were also people in civil dress beating students brutally alongside the police. Students are still protesting at the main gate, and the police continue to beat them.”

Dhananjay, former JNUSU President speaks of this police brutality here

On Sunday, 22 February, a “Samta Rally” was organised on the JNU campus to protest against alleged anti-Dalit remarks made by Vice-Chancellor Shantishree Pandit. At the march, students demanded implementation of the new University Grants Commision (UGC) equity guidelines, and asked for the Vice-Chancellor to resign and issue a public apology for her statements.

However, after that march, tensions escalated and clashes broke out between two student groups. Left student organisations and JNUSU members accused members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) offshoot, student body Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), of pelting stones during the confrontation.

On Monday (February 23), the university administration registered a case against JNUSU office bearers over the “Samata Rally” and the alleged violence during the previous night’s protest Thereafter, JNUSU announced another march, and that was the one to be held on 26 February.

The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) also condemned the police action, describing it as brutal use of force against students at the JNU gate.

In a statement issued on today February 26, JNUTA said several students, including women, were injured and many detained, including two JNUSU office bearers. It raised concerns over reports that women detainees were taken to undisclosed locations and alleged that they faced further mistreatment in custody.

JNUTA said the police action appeared to be aimed at preventing students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education, and demanded the immediate release of all detained students, action against the officials involved and the withdrawal of police personnel from the campus gates.

The text of the JNUTA statement issued by Surajit Mazumdar (President) and Meenakshi Sundriyal (Secretary) reads:

“The JNUTA strongly condemns the brutal use of force by the Delhi Police against JNU students and the detention of several of them, including two JNUSU Office bearers. Reports indicate that several students, including women, have been severely injured in the police action at the JNU gate in which even the laws prohibiting male policemen from acting against women were brazenly flouted. The JNUTA is also extremely concerned at the wellbeing of those detained. There are several women among them and they have been taken to unconfirmed locations that are far away from the campus. Reports are also coming of them being subjected to further police beatings while in custody.

The police action today, and they also came armed with weapons, had the sole objective of preventing come what may the students from exercising their democratic right to march to the Ministry of Education. Prohibition of such marches, and then prosecuting those who march, and use of excessive force against them, have become part of the standard routine for the Delhi Police. In the process, it has become an instrument of not law enforcement but of authoritarianism and the curbing of constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights.

The JNUTA knows that the bankrupt JNU Administration led by the VC cannot be expected to discharge its duty as guardian of the students’ interests. After all, it is its own actions that have led to the current situation. The continuing refusal to act against her and even today’s police action, however, raises serious questions about whether her infamous casteist remarks and other actions in fact have the endorsement of the Ministry of Education. Is it that the Ministry did not want to answer the uncomfortable questions it would have had to face from JNU students?

The JNUTA demands immediate release of all the detained students and strict action against the police officials reponsible for transgressing the laws they are themselves bound by while enforcing them. The Police which is still at the campus gates must also leave immediately. We appeal to JNU teachers to remain vigilant and speak up against this violence and onslaught on democracy.”

Just a few days ago former JNUSU President, Dhananjay filed a complaint against the VC with the NCST. This may be read here.

Related:

JNU: Former JNUSU President complains against Vice Chancellor’s casteist & racist remarks

The Double Stage on Campus: Caste, crisis & UGC equity regulations (2026) controversy

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

The post JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed appeared first on SabrangIndia.