In many places, the festival passed peacefully. Families gathered after morning namaz, meat was distributed among relatives and poorer households, and local communities quietly adjusted practices to avoid confrontation. But in several cities and towns, Bakri Eid also became the centre of communal disputes over goats, housing societies, slaughter spaces, public prayer, and even the visibility of Muslim religious life itself.

The result was a festival that revealed two India’s simultaneously: one still capable of accommodation and coexistence, and another where Muslim festivals are increasingly subjected to suspicion, policing, and political contestation. Authorities across the country remained on high alert in the days leading up to Eid-ul-Adha. Police deployments were increased, livestock transportation was monitored, housing societies issued restrictions, and state governments reiterated cattle slaughter regulations. The atmosphere reflected the growing politicisation of Bakri Eid itself.

The festival under regulation

One of the clearest patterns this year was the extent to which Eid celebrations became governed through administrative control and legal regulation. As Moneycontrol reported in a detailed nationwide survey of cattle slaughter laws ahead of Bakri Eid, state governments issued extensive advisories and intensified enforcement drives around livestock transport, slaughterhouses, and sacrificial practices.

The report highlighted how India’s fragmented legal landscape around cattle slaughter shaped Eid observances differently across states. Maharashtra strictly enforced provisions under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, which bans slaughter of cows, bulls, and bullocks. Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat continued to enforce some of the country’s harshest anti-cow slaughter laws, with penalties extending to life imprisonment in certain circumstances. Assam intensified enforcement under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, while Karnataka reiterated provisions under its stringent 2020 anti-cattle slaughter legislation.

In Delhi, minister Kapil Mishra publicly warned that sacrifice of prohibited bovine species would invite criminal prosecution. Rapid response teams were formed across districts to monitor transport and slaughter activities.

Municipal corporations and local administrations across cities also insisted that qurbani be conducted only at officially designated spaces. In Mumbai, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation reportedly designated 109 authorised slaughter locations and discouraged sacrifice in residential societies and chawls.

Increasingly, the question was no longer merely what Muslims could sacrifice during Eid, but where, how visibly, and under whose permission.

Pandharpur and the other possibility

Yet even amid this tense atmosphere, there were moments that reflected a very different social reality. Perhaps the most striking example came from Pandharpur in Maharashtra. As reported by Hindustan Times, the town’s Muslim community voluntarily decided to defer goat sacrifice because Bakri Eid coincided with Adhik Maas Ekadashi, an occasion of deep significance for devotees of Lord Vitthal.

Members of the Muslim community told reporters that they wanted to honour the sentiments of Hindu pilgrims visiting the temple town. Some residents reportedly said that Muslims in Pandharpur had long-standing emotional and spiritual connections with the town’s religious culture and had similarly deferred sacrifice in previous years when such overlaps occurred. The symbolism mattered. At a time when Muslim religious practices were being intensely scrutinised elsewhere, Pandharpur offered a reminder that coexistence in India has historically depended less on legal coercion and more on negotiated accommodation and everyday mutual recognition. The story received wide attention precisely because it contrasted so sharply with the hostility unfolding elsewhere.

Mira Road: From housing dispute to communal flashpoint

The most widely discussed communal tensions around Bakri Eid this year emerged from Mira Road near Mumbai. What began as a disagreement by a few inside a housing society over goats being kept ahead of Eid soon escalated into a much larger communal controversy involving right-wing groups, police intervention, counter-protests, and allegations of deliberate provocation.

Detailed report by SabrangIndia may be read here.

Tensions erupted at Poonam Cluster Society after some residents objected to goats being housed within the premises. Muslim residents maintained that they had obtained municipal permission and pointed out that the practice had existed for years within the society. The dispute quickly moved beyond internal society negotiations.

As provided in our report, fringe elements associated with organisations such as the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad entered the scene. What followed was an escalation marked by religious sloganeering, clashes, and eventually one of the most disturbing incidents reported during this year’s Eid period: attempts to bring pigs into the housing society as a counter-protest to the legally valid presence of goats.

The symbolism was unmistakable. And yet, what happened afterward was equally important.

Three days later, the same society celebrated Eid peacefully under police protection. In a follow-up report, Hindustan Times quoted residents insisting that “outsiders” had aggravated what was initially a manageable internal disagreement.

Residents described years of communal coexistence inside the society. Muslim families explained that the temporary goat sheds had existed for years with proper drainage and regular cleaning arrangements. Hindu and Muslim neighbours reportedly exchanged Eid greetings despite the violence of previous days.

The Mira Road episode therefore became more than a local dispute. It illustrated how quickly ordinary disagreements over shared residential space can now be communalised through organised intervention and political mobilisation. At the same time, it also revealed the persistence of local social relationships that continue to resist complete polarisation.

Kalyan and the politics of religious space

Another major point of friction emerged in Kalyan, Maharashtra. As reported by The Hindu, police-imposed restrictions on animal sacrifice inside several housing societies and heavily barricaded the area around the historic Durgadi Fort complex during Eid prayers.

The site is politically and communally sensitive because a temple and mosque exist in close proximity within the fort complex. According to the report, temporary restrictions on temple access during Eid prayers led to protests by members of both Shiv Sena factions and Hindu organisations. Groups gathered nearby to recite the Hanuman Chalisa after prayers concluded, while demonstrations were organised around allegations that Hindu devotees were being prevented from entering the temple.

The issue carried deep historical resonance. The Hindu noted that the Durgadi Fort dispute has remained politically charged since the 1980s and is closely linked to the legacy of Shiv Sena strongman Anand Dighe. Bakri Eid here became not just a religious event but a symbolic battleground over ownership of public and sacred space.

Political language and “new Hindutva”

The tensions surrounding Bakri Eid also triggered overt political commentary. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut accused certain groups of attempting to communalise the festival through what he described as “new Hindutva.” According to reports published by News The Truth, Raut argued that Maharashtra historically represented a culture of coexistence and criticised what he viewed as selective outrage around Muslim animal sacrifice while remaining silent on sacrifices associated with other traditions.

His remarks reflected a broader political argument emerging this year: that opposition to Bakri Eid practices was no longer being framed merely through animal welfare or civic regulation, but increasingly through majoritarian identity politics. At the same time, Hindu nationalist groups repeatedly framed their protests around language of “public hygiene,” “society rules,” “religious sensitivity,” and “illegal sacrifice.”

The conflict was therefore rarely articulated openly as anti-Muslim hostility. Instead, it often appeared through the bureaucratic and civic vocabulary of regulation, sanitation, legality, and public order.

Varanasi and the economics of Eid

The tensions surrounding Bakri Eid were not only communal or political. They were also economic. In Varanasi, authorities sealed the city’s decades-old Benia Bagh goat market just days before Eid, triggering panic among traders. According to reports carried by Indian Express, the market — one of eastern Uttar Pradesh’s largest seasonal livestock bazaars — had functioned for nearly four decades before authorities abruptly shut it down citing sanitation complaints and overcrowding.

Traders alleged that they were given little warning and faced devastating losses after travelling from multiple districts with goats purchased on credit.

Several traders reportedly said they had mortgaged valuables and borrowed money at high interest rates to participate in Eid livestock trade and now feared financial ruin if they could not sell their animals.

The closure highlighted another dimension of Eid increasingly overlooked in public discourse: the festival sustains a vast informal economy involving livestock farmers, transport workers, traders, butchers, leather workers, and local markets. Administrative crackdowns therefore carry not only symbolic implications, but material consequences for livelihoods as well.

Prayer, surveillance, and preventive policing

Even public prayer itself became contested in some areas. Reports circulated from Agra that Hindu nationalist leaders planned protests over temporary free entry arrangements at the Taj Mahal for Eid namaz. Police responded by placing several individuals under house arrest to prevent escalation. Elsewhere, social media videos documented protests around Eid prayers and public recitations of the Hanuman Chalisa near Muslim gatherings.

The visible police presence across cities became one of the defining features of Bakri Eid this year. In Mira Road alone, dozens of police personnel were reportedly stationed around sensitive housing societies to prevent further escalation.

The scale of preventive policing reflected both administrative caution and the extent to which Muslim festivals are increasingly treated as potential law-and-order situations.

The festival that revealed the country

Bakri Eid in India this year cannot be reduced either to a story of communal harmony or one of inevitable communal conflict. Both realities existed simultaneously.

There were stories of accommodation: Muslims in Pandharpur postponing sacrifice to respect Ekadashi; local communities negotiating solutions quietly; residents insisting that coexistence mattered more than provocation; neighbours exchanging Eid greetings despite recent tensions.

But there were also unmistakable signs of a changing political climate: housing societies policing Muslim practices; right-wing mobilisation around goats and sacrifice; counter-protests involving pigs; increasing restrictions on where Muslims may pray or perform qurbani; administrative language increasingly framing Eid through surveillance and control.

The deeper significance of Bakri Eid this year lay not merely in the incidents themselves, but in what they revealed about the condition of public life in India.

Questions that once belonged largely to the private domain of religious observance — where goats may be kept, where sacrifice may occur, whether namaz may be offered in a particular place — are now increasingly contested in public and political arenas. And yet, despite everything, the festival still passed. Families prayed. Communities negotiated fragile peace. And in many places, ordinary people continued to protect coexistence even when political actors attempted to fracture it. Bakri Eid in 2026 therefore became a portrait of contemporary India itself: anxious, polarised, heavily policed — but still, in countless everyday ways, struggling to hold together.

Related:

Have Hindus always been Vegetarian?

No ‘Pakistan conspiracy’ in Noida labour unrest: Fact-finding report

CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal

Statues of icons of the Santhal Revolt, Sidhu Murmu & Kanhu Murmu vandalised in South Dinajpur village, BJP blamed

The post Between Celebration and Suspicion: How Bakri Eid passed across india in 2026 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

[Allahabad High Court judgement delivered on May 15, 2026]

“A group of dacoits clad only in undergarments allegedly carried out multiple robberies in Mustafabad and Sithauli villages [Uttar Pradesh]…Armed intruders reportedly scaled the wall of farmer Nizakat’s house in the early hours of Wednesday [May 20, 2026] and held his family hostage… When resisted, they assaulted the inmates, critically injuring six people…According to the police, the robbers beat women also for keeping a chicken dish at home, and told them to eat only vegetables.”

[The New Indian Express, May 21, 2026]

With RSS cadres in full control of the Indian State, June 2014 onward, the country has become a laboratory for a major dietary fabrication:  that vegetarianism is Sanatan to Hinduism. It is not that prior to Modi’s coming to power the concept did not exist, a substantial and powerful section of the ruling elite including Gandhi were vociferous believers in it. However, it was not a project for which Indian State worked vehemently.

The neo-zealots of vegetarian Hinduism argue that diet was not just nourishment for the body. It was a matter of spiritual realm which shaped “our thoughts, emotions, and karmic vibrations… The Vedas say, ‘Yad annam, tad manas’ which means ‘As is the food, so is the mind’ …Vegetarian food is considered sattvik-pure, calm, and balanced. It nurtures peace, compassion, and mental clarity. Non-vegetarian food, on the other hand, is tamasic- heavy, aggressive, and rooted in destruction. It dulls our spiritual perception and increases lower (read base) tendencies like anger, fear, and restlessness.”

[https://www.adityavastu.in/post/eating-non-veg-and-its-impact-on-karmikta]

With the beginning of Modi era, it became normal to ban sale and consumption of non-veg eatables for long periods during many religious festivals and many areas permanently declared out of bound for selling/consuming it. The issue of food was weaponized and both seller as well as consumers of non-veg cuisine were declared to be evil elements, a threat to Hinduism and society. Another sinister dimension added was that meat consumers were also attacked for indulging in beef-eating. There are countless incidents in public domain when non-veg consumers were attacked, lynched, their houses bulldozed, even burnt.

The zeal of RSS-BJP rulers in enforcing vegetarian Hinduism is to be seen and believed in dealing with foreign dignitaries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin visiting India in 2025 was chief guest at a lavish dinner thrown by India President on December 6, 2025) where only vegetarian cuisines were served. It was no different when EU delegation was State Guest on January 29, 2026, Seychelles President Patrick Herminie was chief guest at State dinner on February 9, 2026 and Vietnamese PM To Lam on May 6, 2026).

Only vegetarian menu of the banquet hosted by President Murmu for Seychelles President. For other dignitaries too it was only vegetarian menu with different dishes. As per a report in NDTV.

Across India, across educational institutions, businesses, railways and social-religious gatherings non-veg food has been banned. Debarshi Dasgupta (Strait Times, May 18, 2026) lamented the fact that in “Uttar Pradesh, a state also governed by the BJP, curated a list of local cuisines from each of its 75 districts and released it in May. It is a list that includes over 200 dishes, but, again, not a single one of them is meat-based. What makes this ludicrous is that more than half of the state’s population (53.6 per cent), according to a government survey, confirmed eating fish, chicken or other kinds of meat. It is also a state celebrated for its meat-based cuisines, particularly its capital, Lucknow, whose kebabs are legendary.”

Interestingly, the kebab “even found specific praise from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), when it added Lucknow to its ‘Cities of Gastronomy’ list in 2025. But when Minister of Culture and Tourism Gajendra Singh Shekhawat feted this decision on social media, he disingenuously used a poster of food items that were – no surprise here – entirely vegetarian”.

Pushpesh Pant, a renowned Indian academic and food historian as quoted by Dasgupta stated: “It is also a thinly disguised persecution of Muslims, many of whom are perceived to be butchers and vendors of meat and who supposedly are the beef-eaters.” As per a report in Asia News Network.

Varanasi Iftar-on-Boat Arrests

If we want to understand the gravity of weaponization against non-veg consumers and surrender of the State including judiciary, the case known as Varanasi Iftar-on-Boat Arrests needs to be taken note of. According to a detailed report by Shinjinee Majumdar in The Wire (March 27, 2026), the controversy started with a video of March 15 “in which 14 men — Azad Ali, Aamir Kaiki, Danish Saifi, Mohd. Ahmad, Nehal Afridi, Mahfooz Alam, Mohd. Anas, Mohd. Awwal, Mohd. Tahseem, Mohd. Ahmad alias Raja, Mohd. Noor Ismail, Mohd. Tausif Ahmad, Mohd. Faizan, and Mohd. Sameer — were seen breaking their Ramzan-month fast on a boat, allegedly consuming chicken biryani”.

The video was uploaded by one of the group members and soon went viral.  According to The Wire report: “A complaint filed on March 16 by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM)’s Varanasi president Rajat Jaiswal accused them of hurting religious sentiments by consuming non-vegetarian food on the river and disposing of waste into it. The police subsequently arrested 14 men under multiple charges, including hurting religious sentiments, public nuisance and polluting water. Days later, more serious charges — including extortion — were added, significantly raising the legal stakes.”

Jaiswal’s complaint on which Varanasi police took immediate action stated that eating non-veg while riding a boat at Ganga Mother was a grave sin. Moreover, after eating they washed their hands, dumping the waste, thus hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

The initial charges against the accused included: Section 298 BNS — Defiling a place of worship with intent to insult a religion, Section 299 BNS — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, Section 196(1)(B) BNS — Promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds, Section 270 BNS — Public nuisance, Section 279 BNS — Fouling water of a public spring or reservoir, Section 223(B) BNS — Disobedience of an order by a public servant and Section 24, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Later two more serious charges were added, Section 308(5) BNS — Extortion under threat of death or grievous hurt and Section 67, Information Technology Act — Publishing or transmitting obscene material (linked to the viral video).

With these additions, the potential punishment increased significantly — from a maximum of around six years (under the Water Act) to up to 10 years due to the extortion charge.

According to The Wire report, a Varanasi court had denied bail to the accused on March 23. They had earlier been remanded to 14 days of judicial custody on March 19, until April 1.

However, Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice of Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail with some conditions to the incarcerated Muslims on May 15. The Judge’s words in the judgement, however, amplified the majoritarian and politicized Hindutva construct of vegetarian Hinduism: “members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party, and during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food is said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who are then alleged to have thrown the remains into the River Ganges. This fact in the dispassionate opinion of the Court could rightly be said to hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community.”

[]

The far right propaganda machine of “vegetarian Hinduism” is currently running amok in India belying contents of both scriptures and historical study.

Manusmriti for Meat-eating

According to Hindutva ideologue, VD Savarkar Manusmriti is the go-to scripture after the Vedas for Hindus.

[Savarkar, V.D., ‘Women in Manusmriti’ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi) volume IV, Prabhat, Delhi, 2000, p. 416.]

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak sangh, an organisation that is the organizational and ideological fountainhead of the present regime ruling India, made demands that it is the Manusmriti that needs must be declared as the Constitution of India—this at a time when the Indian Constituent Assembly was enacting the Constitution.

[Editorial, RSS English organ, Organiser, ‘The Constitution, November 30, 1949.]

This scripture –Manusmriti–that has been substantively critiqued by Dr BR Ambedkar among many other scholars– glorifies the eating of flesh as we will see in the following.

*That land where the black antelope naturally roams, one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) the country of the Mlechas. (II/23)

*[A Brahmin should not eat] food given without due respect, nor (that which contains) meat eaten for no sacred purpose, nor (that given) by a female who has no male (relatives), nor the food of an enemy, nor that (given) by the lord of a town, nor that (given) by outcasts, nor that on which anybody has sneezed. (IV/213);

*‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas. (V/31)

*He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others. (V/32)

*A twice-born man who knows the law, must not eat meat except in conformity with the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his (victims). (V/33)

*After death the guilt of one who slays deer for gain is not as (great) as that of him who eats meat for no (sacred) purpose. (V/34)

*But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences. (V/35)

*A Brahmana must never eat (the flesh of animals unhallowed by Mantras; but, obedient to the primeval law, he may eat it, consecrated with Vedic texts. (V/36)

*A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state. (V/42)

[This selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu (Delhi: LP Publications, 1996; first published in 1886). The bracket after each code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above edition.]

Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Meat-Eating

The Arthsastra of Kautilya (Chanakya) is the second go-to book of governance for RSS-BJP rulers and cadres. How dear this treatise is to them can be gauged by the fact that the Modi 3.0 government while organising the Sadhna Saptah (April 2-8, 2026) and Mission Karmayogi declared it to be a basic book  for training Indian administrators along with the Vedas.

Interestingly, the Arthsastra has 67 references decreeing flesh eating. The amazing part is that it has a specific chapter titled ‘Superintendent of Slaughter House’.

[R Shamasastry (trans), Kautilya’s Arthsastra, Mysore Printing and Publishing house,     Mysore, 1915, Pgs 149-53]

According to the rules of the slaughter house, “of beasts of prey that have been captured, the Superintendent shall take one-sixth; of fish and birds (of similar nature), he shall take one-tenth or more than one-tenth; and of deer and other beasts (mrigapasu), one-tenth or more than one-tenth as toll…(Butchers) shall sell fresh and boneless flesh of beasts (mrigapasu deer or wild animal) just killed. If they sell bony flesh, they shall give an equivalent compensation (pratipákam)” [P. 138].

There is no ban on slaughter of cows, however, “cattle such as a calf, a bull, or a milch cow shall not be slaughtered…The flesh of animals which have been killed outside the slaughter-house (parisúnam), headless, legless and boneless flesh, rotten flesh, and the flesh of animals which have suddenly died shall not be sold. Otherwise, a fine of 12 panas shall be imposed [Pgs. 138-39]”.

People are allowed to keep stock of dried flesh, skins, tendons (snáyu)…in such quantities as can be enjoyed for years together without feeling any want. Of such collection, old things shall be replaced by new ones when received. [P. 55]

Referring to different kinds of animals, Arthsastra decrees: “When an animal dies a natural death, they shall surrender the skin with the brand mark, if it is a cow or a buffalo; the skin together with the ear (karnalakshanam) if it is a goat or sheep; the tail with the skin containing the brand mark, if it is an ass or a camel; the skin, if it is a young one; besides the above, (they shall also restore) the fat (vasti), bile, marrow (snáyu), teeth, hoofs, horns, and bones. They (the cowherds) may sell either fresh flesh or dried flesh.” [P. 147]

Kautilya’s cities were not inhabited by vegetarian folks as we find that the chapter ‘Building within the Fort’ allots sites for flesh traders; “To the south, the superintendents of the city, of commerce, of manufactories, and of the army as well as those who trade in cooked rice, liquor, and flesh, besides prostitutes, musicians, and the people of Vaisya caste shall live.” [P. 54]

The chapter titled ‘Superintendent of Store-House’ [p. 101] assigns a duty of collecting taxes/recovery of past arrears to the superintendent from dealers of ‟Clarified butter, oil, serum of flesh, and pith or sap (of plants, etc.)…Dried fish, bulbous roots (kándamúla), fruits and vegetables form the group of edibles (sakavarga)”. [Pgs. 102-103]

The same chapter while dealing with the contents of each meal of an ARYA, low Castes, women and children states: “For dressing twenty palas of flesh, [1000 palas make one tula] half a kutumba of oil, one pala of salt, one pala of sugar (kshára), two dharanas of pungent substances (katuka, spices), and half a prastha of curd (will be necessary). For dressing greater quantities of flesh, the same ingredients can be proportionally increased. For cooking sákas (dried fish and vegetables), the above substances are to be added one and a half times as much. For dressing dried fish, the above ingredients are to be added twice as much.” [P. 105]

Under the head ‘Superintendent of Cows’ the boss has the authority of classifying “cattle as calves, steers, tamable ones, draught oxen, bulls that are to be trained to yoke, bulls kept for crossing cows, cattle that are fit only for the supply of flesh…” [P. 146] According to Chanakya, “When an animal dies a natural death, they shall surrender the skin with the brand mark, if it is a cow or a buffalo; the skin together with the ear (karnalakshanam) if it is a goat or sheep; the tail with the skin containing the brand mark, if it is an ass or a camel; the skin, if it is a young one; besides the above, (they shall also restore) the fat (vasti), bile, marrow (snáyu), teeth, hoofs, horns, and bones. They (the cowherds) may sell either fresh flesh or dried flesh.” [P. 147]

It may be shocking for many animal lovers that the feed for bulls apart from including grass one tulá (100 palas) of oil cakes, 10 ádhakas of bran, 5 palas of salt (mukhalavanam), one kudumba of oil for rubbing over the nose (nasya), 1 prastha of drink (pána) added one tulá of flesh in the daily diet. [P. 148] Daily diet for horse included “50 palas of flesh”. [P. 150]

Likewise, the rations for an elephant (of a specific height) includes “50 palas of flesh” and elephant, watchmen, sweepers, cooks and others shall receive apart from cooked rice, a handful of oil, sugar and salt 10 palas of flesh. [Pgs. 155-158]

The chapter dealing with ‘Remedies against National Calamities’ prescribes a non-vegetarian remedy by stating “Persons acquainted with the rituals of the Atharvaveda, and experts in sacred magic and mysticism shall perform such ceremonials as ward off the danger from demons. On full-moon days the worship of Chaityas may be performed by placing on a verandah offerings such as an umbrella, the picture of an arm, a flag, and some goat’s flesh”. [P. 239]

The Arthashastra makes it clear that tax was collected on flesh. “They (the king’s employees) may demand of cultivators one-fourth of their grain, and one-sixth of forest produce (vanya) and of such commodities as cotton, wax, fabrics, barks of trees, hemp, wool, silk, medicines, sandal, flowers, fruits, vegetables, firewood, bamboos, flesh, and dried flesh.” [P. 274]

The animal flesh/serum was used as medicines/remedies also. “When the body of a man is smeared over with the serum of the flesh of a frog, it burns with fire (with no hurt)…When the body of a man is smeared over with the above serum as well as with the oil extracted from the fruits of kusa (ficus religiosa), and ámra (mango tree), and when the powder prepared from an ocean frog (samdura mandúki), phenaka (sea-foam), and sarjarasa (the juice of vatica robusta) is sprinkled over the body, it burns with fire (without being hurt). When the body of a man is smeared over with sesamum oil mixed with equal quantities of the serum of the flesh of a frog, crab, and other animals, it can burn with fire (without hurt)…paste prepared from the roots of páribhadraka (erythrina indica), pratibala , vanjula (a kind of ratan or tree), vajra (andropogon muricatum or euphorbia), and kadali (banana), mixed with the serum of the flesh of a frog, can walk over fire (without hurt). Oil should be extracted from the paste prepared from the roots of pratibala, vanjula and páribhadraka, all growing near water, the paste being mixed with the serum of the flesh of a frog. Having anointed one’s legs with this oil, one can walk over a white-hot mass of fire as though on a bed of roses. The paste prepared from the powder of the rib-bone of náraka (?), a donkey, kanka (a kind of vulture), and bhása (a bird), mixed with the juice of water-lily, is applied to the legs of bipeds and quadrupeds (while making a journey). The fat or serum derived from roasting a pregnant camel together with saptaparna (lechites scholaris) or from roasting dead children in cremation grounds, is applied to render a journey of a hundred yojanas easy. [Pgs. 458-60.]

Restrictions

“King should prohibit the slaughter of animals for half a month during the period of Cháturmásya (from July to September), for four nights during the full moon, and for a night on the day of the birth-star of the conqueror or of the national star. He should also prohibit the slaughter of females and young ones (yonibálavadham) as well as castration. Having abolished those customs or transactions which he might consider either as injurious to the growth of his revenue and army or as unrighteous, he should establish righteous transactions.” [P. 449.]

Beef Eating Essential for Brahmins in ancient (early) India

Swami Vivekananda, regarded as a philosopher of Hindutva by the RSS, while addressing a meeting at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (February 2, 1900) on the theme of ‘Buddhistic India’, declared:

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.”

[Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3 (Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1997), P. 536.]

He further stated that without eating beef, “no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin [a Hindu religious mendicant], a king, or a great man came into house, the best bullock was killed…” [Ibid., P. 174.]

This is corroborated by other research works sponsored by the Ramakrishna Mission established by Vivekananda. According to C. Kunhan Raja, a prominent authority on the history and culture of the Vedic period:

“The Vedic Aryans, including the Brahmanas, ate fish, meat and even beef. A distinguished guest was honoured with beef served at a meal. Although the Vedic Aryans ate beef, milch cows were not killed. One of the words that designated cow was aghnya (what shall not be killed). But a guest was a goghna (one for whom a cow is killed). It is only bulls, barren cows and calves that were killed.”

[Raja, C. Kunhan, Vedic Culture‟, cited in the series, Suniti Kumar Chatterji and others (eds.), The Cultural Heritage of India, vol. 1 (Calcutta: The Ramakrishna Mission, 1993), P. 217.]

Kunhan Raja countering the myth of vegetarian Hinduism stated:

“The Grhya Sutras prescribe different kinds of meat to be given to be given to children at the first feeding ceremony, for different results. Mutton, flesh of different kinds of birds, and other forms of meat were freely eaten by the higher Castes in those days, and still they were the most spiritual nation in the world.” [Ibid.]

One of the greatest researchers, scholar and an authority on Indian politics, religions and culture Dr. BR Ambedkar produced a brilliant essay on the subject titled ‘Did the Hindus Never Eat Beef?’

All those who are really interested in understanding the ‘Hindu Past’ must read this monumental work of Dr. Ambedkar. After studying a large number of Vedic and Hindu scriptures, he arrived at the conclusion that,

“when the learned Brahmins argue that the Hindus not only never ate beef but they always held the cow to be sacred and were always opposed to the killing of the cow, it is impossible to accept their view”.

[Ambedkar, B. R., ‘Did the Hindus never eat beef?’ in The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, vol. 7, (Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990, first edition 1948) Pgs 323-328.]

Also see the scholarly work by Professor DN Jha, The Myth of the Holy Cow, link: https://archive.org/details/TheMythOfHolyCowJha]

Interestingly, the findings of Ambedkar were that cows were sacrificed and beef consumed because COWS were HOLY.

According to Ambedkar:

“It was not that the cow was not sacred in Vedic times, it was because of her sacredness that it is ordained in the Vajasaneyi Samhita that beef should be eaten.” (Dharma Shastra Vichar in Marathi, Pg. 180). That the Aryans of the Rig Veda did kill cows for purposes of food and ate beef is abundantly clear from the Rig Veda itself. In Rig Veda (X. 86.14) Indra says: ‘They cook for one 15 plus twenty oxen’. The Rig Veda (X.91.14) says that for Agni were sacrificed horses, bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams. From the Rig Veda (X.72.6) it appears that the cow was killed with a sword or axe.”

Ambedkar concluded this essay with the following words:

“With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus, both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, ate not only flesh but also beef.”

[Ibid., Pgs 323-328.]

Anandmath: Sanatan/Hindu Sena consuming flesh

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee is also a Rishi (Holy Teacher) for the RSS-BJP combine. This writer’s otherwise his pro-British novel, Anandmath, is another important (read holy) treatise for votaries of Hindu nationalism. A leader of Santan or Hindu army, Jivananda comes to visit her sister, Nimi who serves him, “some clean, jasmine-white rice, some tasteful dal, a curry of wild figs, some fish netted  [sic] from her own tank and some milk”.

[Sen-Gupta, Nares Chandra (translator Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath), Abbey of Bliss, Padmini Mohan Neogi, Calcutta, P. 65.]

India as a global beef exporter/powerhouse under Modi

India has quietly emerged as global beef powerhouse. The country now ranks as the world’s second-largest beef exporter earning nearly 3.8 billion dollars or around 34,177 crore rupees worth of this meat, annually. Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra,, and Andhra Pradesh account for the bulk of these exports with Uttar Pradesh alone contributing nearly 60% of India’s beef shipments.”

[“India Becomes World’s Second-Largest Beef Exporter Amid Cow Vigilante            Violence”, Jan 02, 2026, https://www.deshabhimani.com/deshabhimani-english -/national-76192/india-beef-exports-cow-vigilante-violence-48452]

Fisheries export

Vegetarian India is making great strides in exporting seafood too, to the world.

According to a Government of India (GOI) press release dated April 3, 2026

“India’s seafood exports have recorded strong and sustained growth, expanding at an average annual rate of 7% over the past 11 years. Marine product exports have more than doubled during the period, rising from ₹30,213 crore in 2013‑14 to ₹62,408 crore in 2024‑25, driven largely by shrimp exports valued at ₹43,334 crore. India’s seafood exports span a wide and diversified basket, with over 350 varieties of products shipped to nearly 130 global markets.” [https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2248721&reg=3&lang=1]

Unholy use of the waters of the Holy Ganga

Hindutva’s claim vis a vis Holy Mother Ganga must be taken not just with a pinch, but fistfuls of salt. According to Government of India data Ganga water is supplied to Delhi, Patna, Rajgir, Gaya, Bodhgaya, Bhagalpur, and Nawada (Bihar), Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi and several cities in Western UP, Haridwar (Uttarakhand), and Kolkata (West Bengal). This supply is not for fulfilling some religious duties but for all kinds of cleaning, washing and sanitary purposes.

How is this tolerated? Is it not high time for the courts to intervene?

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

Related:

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

Unity not Hate: Commemorating the 168th anniversary of 1857 War of Independence

How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives

The post Have Hindus always been Vegetarian? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP stated in the complaints that the alleged hate speeches violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and attracted offences under provisions relating to promotion of enmity between groups, criminal intimidation, statements conducing to public mischief, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and incitement to violence.

The complaints concern speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani in Mumbai, Kalyani in Nadia district of West Bengal, and Junnar in Pune district.

Complaint against Nitesh Narayan Rane over Chandivali speech: May 12, 2026

In a complaint dated May 12, 2026, addressed to Shri Nikhil Gupta, Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, Addl. Commissioner of Police, West Region, Mumbai, and Senior Police Inspector, Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai, CJP sought registration of an FIR against BJP MLA and Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nitesh Narayan Rane for allegedly delivering a divisive communal speech during a Hindu convention held in Chandivali, Mumbai on May 3, 2026.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane utilised dehumanising language against Muslims, spread conspiracy theories regarding “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” and “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” and openly encouraged social and economic boycott of Muslims. The complaint alleged that the speech attempted to create fear and hostility by portraying Muslims as an existential threat to Hindus and India.

According to CJP, Rane repeatedly referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and urged the audience to confront them. The complaint reproduces the speech transcript, including the following statements:

“[They] should come to Maharashtra. This writhing of green snakes (referring to Muslims) must stop. That is why the saffron flag has been unfurled in Maharashtra, remember this.”

“And therefore, while moving around as a Hindu, do so with self-confidence. Move with courage. If any green snake is writhing here, take guidance from Tai and then give me a call.”

The complaint further stated that Rane repeatedly described India as a “Hindu Rashtra” and suggested that Muslims were attempting to convert India into an Islamic nation through organised conspiracies.

CJP also stated in the complaint that Rane attempted to create fear among Hindus by claiming that Muslims would prevent Hindu religious practices if their population increased.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“You won’t be able to perform puja in your home. This saffron flag won’t be able to fly here. You won’t be able to apply the Tilak on your forehead.”

“Mothers and sisters won’t be able to apply vermilion (Sindoor) on their heads.”

According to CJP, the speech also included references to alleged communal incidents in Palghar and Virar to reinforce hostility against Muslims. The complaint additionally highlighted Rane’s remarks calling for economic boycott of Muslims:

“So, when we are dealing with them, buying from them, or giving them jobs—first, if someone is sitting at a shop, even if the shop’s signboard says ‘Jay Shri Ram,’ sometimes Abdul is sitting inside.”

“First tell him, ‘Recite the Hanuman Chalisa for me first.’ If you recite the Hanuman Chalisa only then will I buy from you, otherwise I won’t.”

“Therefore, if jobs are to be given or purchases are to be made, it should only be for Hindus—this should be the stance of all of us.”

CJP stated in the complaint that these remarks amounted to explicit encouragement of discrimination and exclusion of citizens based on religion and constituted a direct appeal for economic boycott of Muslims.

A copy of complaint dated May 12, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Nitesh Rane over Malad Malvani speech during Ram Navami Yatra

In another complaint dated April 28, 2026, addressed to Maharashtra Police authorities, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Nitesh Narayan Rane over a speech delivered during the Ram Navami Yatra held in Malad Malvani, Mumbai, on March 26, 2026.

According to CJP, the speech promoted communal hostility, issued direct threats of violence, and attempted to alienate Muslims by declaring India a “Hindu Rashtra” and describing the locality as belonging exclusively to “saffron-clad” Hindus.

CJP stated in the complaint that Rane used references to “Pakistan” as a dog-whistle against Muslims and openly threatened those opposing Hindutva ideology.

The complaint reproduces the following portions of the speech:

“Perhaps some people here in Malvani have forgotten that this is our Hindu Rashtra, this is not someone’s Pakistan. If anyone tries to remove that saffron flag, we will not let their cylinder come up again. If anyone again looks at our saffron flag with dirty eyes, then their eyes will be taken out and played with like marbles.”

CJP alleged that these remarks amounted to open threats of violence and intimidation. The complaint further stated that Rane specifically directed slogans toward a mosque in the locality, thereby attempting to provoke confrontation and disturb communal harmony. The reproduced statement reads:

“That voice must reach the big mosque.”

According to CJP, such statements sought to intimidate the Muslim community and portray them as outsiders within the constitutional framework of India. The complaint also alleged that Rane invoked the authority of a “government with a Hindutva ideology” to suggest political backing for aggressive communal mobilisation.

A copy of complaint dated April 28, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Hari Mishra in West Bengal over hate speech during election campaign in Nadia

In a complaint dated May 6, 2026 addressed to the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police in Nadia district, West Bengal, CJP sought registration of an FIR under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against BJP leader Hari Mishra for a speech delivered during an election campaign in Kalyani, Nadia district, on April 23, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Mishra spread anti-Muslim conspiracy theories and falsely claimed that Hindu festivals could not be celebrated in Muslim-majority areas.

The complaint reproduces portions of the speech including:

“In any area where the Muslim population is above 30-35%, Saraswati Puja will not happen. In places like Malda and Murshidabad… you first have to take permission from the nearest mosque. A situation worse than Bangladesh is going to happen on the soil of West Bengal.”

CJP further alleged that Mishra falsely claimed that the Constitution of India did not function in parts of West Bengal. The reproduced transcript includes:

“The Constitution of India does not work in many parts of Malda and Murshidabad. In about 25-30% of the areas in Malda and Murshidabad, the Constitution, rules, laws, and regulations of India do not apply.”

The complaint also referred to statements linking demographic change with political exclusion: “The day Muslims reach above 40-45%, not a single Hindu MP, MLA, counselor, or chairman will remain in West Bengal.”

According to CJP, these remarks sought to portray Muslims as a threat to democratic institutions and communal coexistence and were intended to create fear and polarisation during the election period.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Complaint against Harshu Thakur in Junnar, Pune over speech delivered at Virat Hindu Sammelan

In a separate complaint dated May 6, 2026, addressed to the Additional Director General (Law & Order), Maharashtra, the Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Junnar Division, CJP sought registration of an FIR against Harshu Thakur over a speech delivered at the Virat Hindu Sammelan held in Junnar, Pune district, on April 19, 2026. CJP stated in the complaint that Thakur spread anti-Muslim rhetoric through references to “Forest Jihad,” “Love Jihad,” and “Land Jihad,” while also making statements encouraging militarised responses and targeting Islamic institutions and burial practices.

The complaint reproduces the following statements:

“Wherever there is open land, there are graves. If you start funding madrasas, then only terrorists will be produced there. Mulla-Maulvis give them training on how to trap girls in ‘Love Jihad’ and how to carry out ‘Land Jihad’. They are taught how to make bombs.”

CJP further highlighted remarks targeting Muslim men and encouraging women to arm themselves:

“All these ‘Abduls’ are the same. Every Hindu woman just needs to be given a weapon.”

The complaint also alleged that Thakur attempted to frame Muslims as inherently violent while encouraging religious segregation and hostility.

A copy of complaint dated May 6, 2026 can be accessed here

Judicial precedents on which CJP relied upon

In the complaints submitted before police authorities in Maharashtra and West Bengal, CJP also relied upon multiple judicial precedents of the Supreme Court concerning hate speech, communal targeting, and the constitutional obligation of authorities to act against inflammatory rhetoric. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P. (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020], CJP highlighted the Court’s observations that “the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilisations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values.”

CJP stated that the speeches delivered by Nitesh Rane, Hari Mishra, and Harshu Thakur collectively portrayed Muslims as conspirators, outsiders, extremists, and demographic threats, thereby directly undermining constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and peaceful coexistence. The complaints further referred to Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India [AIR 2014 SC 1591], where the Supreme Court observed that “hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group,” and warned that such speech can lay the groundwork for discrimination, ostracism, violence, and even genocide. CJP stated that the repeated references to “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” “Forest Jihad,” “Corporate Jihad,” alleged demographic conspiracies, and calls for economic boycott sought to institutionalise fear and hostility against Muslims and therefore warranted immediate criminal action.

The complaints additionally cited the Supreme Court’s order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 943 of 2021], wherein all States and Union Territories were directed to register suo moto FIRs against hate speech irrespective of religion whenever offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505 IPC and related provisions are attracted.

Provisions related to hate speech under BNS, 2023

CJP further stated that the speeches attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 352 and 353. According to the complaints, the repeated targeting of Muslim religious institutions, educational spaces, and social identity through references such as “green snakes,” “Forest Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and allegations that madrasas produce “only terrorists” amounted to promoting enmity between religious groups and acts prejudicial to communal harmony under Section 196 BNS.

CJP stated that the speeches also made imputations against the constitutional allegiance of an entire community by portraying Muslims and Islamic institutions as threats to the State, thereby attracting Section 197 BNS. The complaints further alleged that mocking Dargahs, Mazars, burial practices, Islamic scholars, and Muslim religious practices constituted deliberate insults to religion and religious beliefs under Sections 299 and 302 BNS.

CJP additionally argued that the repeated calls for mobilisation, warnings regarding demographic change, threats of violence, references to arming civilians, and calls for economic boycott amounted to intentional provocation intended to breach public peace under Section 352 BNS and dissemination of false information likely to create fear and communal unrest under Section 353 BNS.

The complaints maintained that the speeches delivered across Mumbai, Pune, and Nadia reflected a continuing pattern of inflammatory communal rhetoric aimed at deepening religious polarisation and normalising hostility against Muslims, thereby necessitating immediate registration of FIRs and preventive intervention by the concerned police authorities in compliance with constitutional obligations and Supreme Court directives.

Maharashtra DGP circulars cited by CJP

CJP also referred to circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, in February and April 2023 concerning preventive and penal action against hate speech.

According to the complaint, Circular No. DGP 20/Petition No.940/2022/54.2023 dated February 2, 2023 highlighted the Supreme Court’s order dated January 13, 2023 directing police authorities to take suo motu action whenever speeches attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC.

The circular had directed all Unit Commanders to follow the Supreme Court order and entails “measures to be taken to maintain law and order due to agitations, morchas, speeches etc.”

It gives detailed instructions on what steps are to be taken when any morchas are to be held:

“2. All the Unit Commanders should hold a meeting with the concerned organisers before such a morcha and fix the route of the morcha with appropriate terms and condition. A combined meeting of all social groups should be taken to convey clearly to all that they should maintain peace and keep law and order during the morcha. Preventive action against Anti-social elements should be taken. Those elements who help in maintaining peace and harmony should be encouraged. Audio Video recording of the morcha should be done. Police Head Quarters should ensure adequate supply of equipment’s, like Lathi, Helmets, etc. to police men deployed for morcha bandobast. If any law-and-order situation arises, offences should be registered immediately and arrest should be made. Intelligence machinery should be activated to collect advance information about morcha, agitation and efforts should be made to pre-empt any communal incidents.”

Supreme Court directions on preventing/prosecuting hate speakers

CJP further referred to multiple Supreme Court orders concerning hate speech and preventive policing. According to the complaints, on February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding a proposed event by Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai and directed that if permission was granted for the event, it would be subject to the condition that no hate speech would be delivered.

The court also outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We also direct that the Officer(s), in case, permission is granted and, in case, the occasion arises for invoking the power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Officer(s) concerned to invoke the said power and to act as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.” 

Even in 2024 itself, while on January 17, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had expressed their anguish at the petitioners being forced to approach the Supreme Court multiple times against individuals and organisations even after there being guidelines for tacking and taking action against hate speeches. During the said hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police at Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh to take ‘appropriate steps’ to ensure that no incitement to hate speech occurs at the rallies scheduled in the said districts in the coming few days of January.

The said order was passed following the concerns raised by the petitioners over delivery of potential hate speeches at rallies planned by Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party Legislator T Raja Singh in the month of January.

CJP stated that the court had outlined directives with respect to taking preventive action in such cases:

“We would require the authorities to be conscious that no incitement to violence and hate speech are permissible. The concerned District Magistrates and Superintendent of Police of Yavatmal, Maharashtra and Raipur, Chhattisgarh will take necessary steps, as may be required. If necessary and deemed appropriate, police/administration will install CCTV Cameras having recording facility, so as to ensure identification of the perpetrators in the event of any violence/hate speech.”

Background: Profile of Nitesh Rane and previous complaints filed by CJP

CJP stated in its complaints that the speeches delivered in Chandivali and Malad Malvani were not isolated incidents but formed part of a continuing pattern of inflammatory speeches allegedly delivered by Nitesh Rane across Maharashtra. According to CJP, the organisation had previously filed complaints dated March 7, March 18, and March 28, 2025 concerning speeches delivered by Rane in Sindhudurg, Pune, and Ratnagiri districts.

The complaints related to events including:

• “Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan” in Kundal on February 8, 2025
• “Shivjanmostav” event in Sawantwadi on February 19, 2025
• Public felicitation programme at Nanijdham, Ratnagiri on February 20, 2025
• Religious gathering in Wagholi, Pune on February 5, 2025

CJP stated that across these events, Rane repeatedly invoked terms such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” portrayed Muslims as a collective threat, and made statements capable of inciting hostility, fear, and social boycott against the Muslim community. The complaints further stated that such rhetoric, particularly when delivered by a sitting Cabinet Minister, was inflammatory, unsupported by evidence, and violative of constitutional protections.

FIRs and ongoing legal scrutiny against Nitesh Rane

Under the judicial oversight of the Bombay High Court in Aftab Siddique & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), multiple FIRs have already been registered against Nitesh Rane in connection with alleged hate speech cases. CJP reproduced details of these FIRs in its complaints and stated that they reflected a continuing pattern of communal speeches delivered by Rane in different parts of Maharashtra.

Mankhurd Police Station (C.R. No. 152/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane under Sections 153A, 503, 504 and 505 IPC. According to the complaint, this case originated from speeches perceived as threatening to the Muslim community and capable of inciting public disorder.

Ghatkopar Police Station (C.R. No. 521/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Subhash Ahir under Sections 153A, 504, 506 and 188 IPC in connection with inflammatory speeches delivered in Mumbai suburbs.

Kashimira Police Station (C.R. No. 259/2024)

Registered against Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain in relation to the Mira-Bhayander incidents under Sections 153A, 153B, 143, 504 and 506 IPC along with Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Malwani Police Station (C.R. No. 298/2024)

Originally registered against Bhagwan Thakur, with Nitesh Rane later added as an accused under Sections 153A, 504 and 506 IPC in relation to speeches targeting specific religious communities.

CJP further pointed out that Nitesh Rane’s October 2024 election affidavit reportedly disclosed 38 FIRs registered against him, including 20 cases relating specifically to allegations of hate speech.

Related

Free and Fair Elections: CJP’s 2025 fight against hate and voter intimidation

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

The post CJP files complaint against BJP MLA & Minister Nitesh Rane and right-wing leaders over alleged hate speeches in Maharashtra and West Bengal 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.

Aurat March Karachi had also rejected suggestions that it had signed or accepted the terms of the no-objection certificate. “This is not the case. The NOC was issued to us by the government last night as directives imposed upon public assembly,” the group said. It said it would march against marital rape, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, defamation laws, patriarchal violence, and attacks on the right to protest and assemble.

Before Sunday, May 10 the day scheduled for the march, a press conference organised by key organisers was not permitted and several of them subject to physical coercion and even detained. The final ‘no objection’ for the march came after a previous confrontation on Tuesday (May 5) evening outside the Karachi Press Club, where police prevented Aurat March organizers from holding a press conference about the planned May 10 march, and several activists were detained.

Among those detained included Sheema Kermani, an organiser of Aurat March; Muneeza Ahmed; Safina Javed; transgender activist Shahzadi Rai; and several other women activists and volunteers. They had arrived to speak to the media but were not allowed to enter the Karachi Press Club. Despite protesting the move, Kermani was reportedly dragged out of her vehicle by women police officers and taken away in a police vehicle. Voicepk reported that five women and two transgender activists were detained for several hours before being released.

The incident triggered strong criticism, including allegations of police misconduct and unlawful detention of activists. Thereafter, the Sindh government later suspended officials involved in the handling of the confrontation, including a senior police officer.

Speaking to the media, Kermani said the no-objection certificate had been sent to Aurat March organizers, but that no documents had been signed by the group. She expressed surprise at the condition regarding women’s clothing, saying the government had never raised such a point during negotiations. Kermani said organizers were consulting with one another and would decide how to respond. Finally, the women marched on their own terms on Sunday.

This year’s Aurat March theme had focused on intergenerational trauma and “Good Daughters,” addressing societal pressure on women to conform to idealised roles and the challenges mothers face.

Aurat March has long remained a topic of discussion in Pakistan because it sits at the intersection of competing social, religious, and political narratives. Supporters view it as a platform for raising women’s rights issues, including gender-based violence, workplace discrimination, legal protections, bodily autonomy, unpaid labour, and freedom of expression. Conservative ideologues argue that some of its slogans, themes, and public displays challenge traditional cultural and religious norms.

The visibility of placards, speeches, and artistic expression during the march has repeatedly triggered debate over ‘public morality and the limits of protest.’

Interestingly, the slogans and issues were expansive. This Aurat March, on International Mother’s Day, saw women of Karachi marching for Baloch women fighting against enforced disappearances, for girl children from religious minorities being forcefully converted, for freedom from karo kari (honour killings), for the right to complete bodily autonomy, for the recognition and tangible appreciation via Aurat Haq-e-Mehnat of the endless physical and emotional domestic labour done by women (especially mothers), for adding consent and body safety education in curriculums, for the countless victims of marital rape, and for standing in complete solidarity with marginalized communities throughout the country.

And, as organisers said on Meta-Facebook, “we marched for feminist joy, love, and resistance as well! Check out some of our favourite moments from #AuratMarch2026.”

Images: From Sheema Kermani’s page

Related:

Aurat March: Highlight of International Women’s Day celebrations in Pakistan

The Taliban Tried To Stop Lida Mangal From Employing Afghan Women

Pakistan’s education policy blatantly anti-minority, anti-women

The post Karachi, Pakistan: Women march for autonomy, gendered equality, resistance 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.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan categorically rejected the argument that the possibility of adoption could justify forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. According to LiveLaw, the Court underscored that such reasoning fundamentally misconceives the issue by shifting focus away from the woman to the unborn child. It observed that it is “easy to say” that a child can be given up for adoption, but that cannot be a valid consideration in cases where the pregnancy itself is unwanted. Compelling a woman to continue such a pregnancy, the Court held, would subordinate her welfare to that of a child yet to be born—an approach incompatible with constitutional guarantees.

The bench made it clear, as reported by LiveLaw, that no court ought to compel a woman, particularly a minor, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion, it warned, would inflict grave mental, emotional, and physical trauma. It further noted that an unwanted pregnancy not only adversely affects the woman but can also have a bearing on the well-being of the child to be born, given the psychological state of the mother. The Court emphasised that a woman’s considered decision to terminate a pregnancy—despite the attendant medical risks—must be respected rather than overridden by paternalistic considerations.

The case arose from a petition filed by the mother of the minor seeking permission for termination beyond the statutory limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. During the hearing, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, pointed to a medical report indicating potential risks to both the girl and the foetus if termination were undertaken at such an advanced stage. He suggested that the child could be placed for adoption through the Central Adoption Resource Authority, assuring that the process would safeguard the privacy and reputation of the minor and her family. He also offered financial assistance to facilitate the process.

The Court, however, firmly pushed back against this line of reasoning. Justice Nagarathna questioned the propriety of suggesting financial aid or adoption as substitutes for respecting the minor’s choice. The bench observed that courts cannot direct women to depend on external financial support in such deeply personal decisions. It pointedly asked what course of action would remain if the minor was unwilling to continue the pregnancy, noting that approximately ten weeks still remained before delivery—time that would only prolong her distress.

Counsel for the petitioner highlighted the severe psychological toll the pregnancy had already taken on the minor, including its impact on her education and daily life. The Court recorded that each passing day had been traumatic for both the child and her family. It also took note of alarming indicators of mental distress, including attempts by the minor to take her own life.

Expressing broader institutional concern, as per LiveLaw, the bench warned that a rigid denial of permission in such cases could drive minors toward unsafe and illegal abortion methods. Justice Nagarathna observed that forcing continuation of pregnancy against a woman’s will may push her into clandestine and medically unsafe procedures, risking permanent physical and psychological harm.

Importantly, the Court noted that the pregnancy had arisen out of a consensual relationship between two minors and that the girl had unequivocally expressed her unwillingness to continue with it. This clear articulation of choice, coupled with the documented psychological harm, weighed heavily in the Court’s determination.

In a strongly worded articulation of constitutional principles, the Court held that forcing the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy would violate the minor’s right to live with dignity. It recognised that such compulsion would have long-term consequences on her mental health, educational trajectory, social standing, and overall development. The bench emphasised that in exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32, constitutional courts must prioritise the best interests of the minor over rigid adherence to statutory timelines.

Reproductive autonomy, the Court reiterated, is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to make decisions concerning one’s body, it held, cannot be rendered illusory by imposing unreasonable restrictions—particularly in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies. The availability of adoption, the Court clarified, cannot be invoked to dilute or defeat this fundamental right.

Addressing the role of constitutional courts, the bench observed that cases of unwanted pregnancy often reach courts precisely because the statutory window under the MTP Act has elapsed. In such situations, the absence of a statutory remedy cannot become a ground for denying relief. To do so, the Court held, would be inconsistent with the very purpose of constitutional adjudication, which is to safeguard fundamental rights where statutory frameworks fall short.

The Court stressed that judges must assess such cases from the standpoint of the woman seeking termination—taking into account her willingness to undergo medical risks—rather than privileging abstract considerations about the unborn child. It cautioned that any insistence on continuing unwanted pregnancies would not only breach constitutional rights but also risk pushing women toward unsafe alternatives.

Ultimately, the Court distilled the issue to a single determinative question: whether the pregnant woman intends to give birth to the child. In the present case, the answer was unequivocal. Respecting that choice, the Court directed that the minor be permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, subject to all necessary medical safeguards. It also directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking consenting to the procedure on behalf of the minor.

The judgment stands as a forceful reiteration that reproductive choice lies at the core of dignity, autonomy, and liberty—and that neither statutory limits nor moral abstractions can override the express will of the woman concerned.

Related:

Rights-based approach to abortion: The need for legislative reforms

Supreme Court on abortion rights, one step forward – two steps back

Women, married or unmarried have the right to safe & legal abortion: SC

Shubha case: Reformative Justice meets Gendered Realities

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

The post Reproductive Autonomy Cannot Be Subordinated to Adoption: Supreme Court allows termination of 7-month pregnancy of minor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Complaint and allegations

The application, filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was moved by Manisha Pande on behalf of six complainants, all media professionals associated with the digital platform Newslaundry. The complainants alleged that Mitra had, through a series of posts on his X handle, repeatedly used sexually derogatory language to describe them, including referring to them as “prostitutes” and characterising their workplace in deeply offensive and demeaning terms.

The complaint specifically relied on multiple tweets, including one dated April 28, 2025, containing explicit and abusive language directed at the organisation and its women employees. Another tweet dated February 8, 2025, targeted Pande individually with sexually explicit and degrading remarks. Screenshots of these posts were placed on record before the Court.

Court’s Findings: “Sexually coloured remarks” and prima facie offence

Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhanu Pratap Singh, after examining the material on record, found that the content of the tweets clearly fell within the category of “sexually coloured remarks.” The Court noted that the language used was not merely offensive but carried a clear intent to demean and insult the dignity of the complainants, particularly as one of the tweets explicitly named Manisha Pande.

On this basis, the Court held that the allegations, supported by documentary material, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under:

• Section 75(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalises sexually coloured remarks, and
• Section 79 of the BNS, which deals with acts, intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

The Court’s reasoning underscores a recognition that online speech, when sexually abusive and targeted, can attract serious penal consequences under criminal law.

Necessity of police investigation in cyber context

The court order emphasised on the need for a police investigation, particularly given the digital nature of the alleged offences. Observing that the acts were committed in cyberspace, the Court held that investigative intervention was necessary to:

• Verify the authenticity and ownership of the X account from which the tweets originated, and
• Trace and recover the electronic devices used to publish the content.

Court criticises inadequate police response

The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Action Taken Report (ATR) filed by the police. It noted that the report failed to consider the specific tweets relied upon by the complainants, thereby rendering the response incomplete and inadequate.

In light of its findings, the Court directed the Station House Officer of Malviya Nagar Police Station to:

• Register an FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the BNS, and
• File a compliance report by May 4, 2026.

The application under Section 175(3) BNSS was accordingly disposed of.

Parallel defamation proceedings before Delhi High Court

The criminal proceedings arise alongside a pending civil defamation suit before the Delhi High Court, where the complainants have sought a public apology and damages amounting to ₹2 crore. In those proceedings, the journalists have contended that Mitra’s posts were not only defamatory but also deliberately malicious and intended to harm their professional reputation and dignity.

The High Court had earlier taken note of the objectionable content and reportedly admonished Mitra, following which the posts in question were taken down. An application seeking rejection of the defamation suit remains pending adjudication.

The order may be read here:

Related:

From Cow Slaughter to “Public Order”: Allahabad High Court’s expanding use of preventive detention

Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC

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

Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction

The post Delhi court orders FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra for sexually abusive posts targeting women journalists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

People were astonished when Radhika from Chandan Panchayat (then part of Raipur district) was elected sarpanch. Coming from a family of former bonded laborers recently freed by Supreme Court orders, she disrupted entrenched social hierarchies. With support from an organization of released bonded workers, Radhikabai implemented development works such as deepening tanks and constructing a school building. Villagers, especially from weaker sections, testified to her contributions. She also advanced claims for land distribution recommended by the Supreme Court. Yet, she considered her greatest achievement the closure of a liquor shop, which reduced alcohol consumption and village quarrels.

In Meethiberi Panchayat (Dehradun district), Radhadevi overcame resistance from influential villagers who attempted to buy votes with liquor and money. She won her first election when the seat was reserved for women, and later secured victory even without reservation. During her two terms as pradhan, she accelerated development works, fought successfully to restore a diverted road, and ensured benefits reached needy families. Villagers praised her compassion, with child widow Ramrati Yadav noting, “She is the only person in the village who visits me regularly.” The village demonstrated confidence in women’s leadership by electing women to six of seven panchayat posts, resulting in improved development and social harmony.

In the Patha region of Chitrakut district, Uttar Pradesh, Sonia Kol’s tenure as pradhan of Nihi village was transformative. Belonging to the marginalized Kol tribal community, she ensured benefits of housing schemes, pensions, food security cards, and scholarships reached the poorest families. She enforced land rights for landless households despite opposition from powerful villagers. Her leadership inspired women in neighboring villages to field strong candidates in subsequent elections.

In Sultanpur Chilkana (Saharanpur district), Suraiya Begum and Rajjo formed a remarkable team. Suraiya, from a traditional Muslim family, and Rajjo, a Dalit from a cobbler’s household, worked together with social activists to revitalize their indebted nagar panchayat. Their efforts won recognition as a model nagar panchayat.

These examples highlight the transformative potential of women’s reservation in panchayati raj institutions since 1993, which enabled the election of nearly one million women at village, block, and district levels. While leaders like Radhikabai, Radhadevi, Sonia Kol, Suraiya Begum, and Rajjo demonstrated exceptional capability, many women pradhans remain sidelined by “pati pradhan” practices, where husbands or male relatives dominate decision-making. Sonia Kol observed, “At block meetings, I often see men attending in place of elected women. With some support, these women could play an effective role, but family pressures hold them back.”

To strengthen women’s participation, stricter enforcement of rules ensuring their active involvement is essential. Training programs can equip newly elected women with knowledge of rights and responsibilities. Voluntary organizations and grassroots movements have also played a crucial role, as seen in Radhikabai’s collaboration with bonded laborers’ groups and Sonia’s association with the newspaper Khabar Lahariya.

Women leaders often prioritize issues overlooked by men, such as closing liquor shops, resolving conflicts amicably, supporting distressed families, and addressing sanitation needs. Their focus on nutrition, health, drinking water, and environmental protection underscores the broader social impact of women’s leadership in panchayats. Moreover, their visibility encourages ordinary village women to mobilize before elections, ensuring strong candidates emerge from within their communities.

These stories illustrate how women’s participation in rural governance not only advances development but also reshapes priorities, strengthens social harmony, and empowers marginalized voices.

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine, and When the Two Streams Met

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Beyond 33%: The inspiring rise of women in rural decentralization appeared first on SabrangIndia.