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.

Yet, almost as quickly as the legal process began, the case moved beyond its evidentiary foundations. Across television debates, digital media platforms, and social media networks, it was reframed as something far more expansive: a coordinated religious conspiracy, a conversion racket, even what some political figures and commentators began calling “corporate jihad.” These framings did not emerge from the FIRs, nor from confirmed findings of the investigation. Instead, they were constructed through a mix of speculation, political rhetoric, and amplified media narratives.

Media coverage and television debates across channels began invoking terms like “corporate jihad” and “love jihad” shortly after the first FIR was filed on March 26, 2026, even as the investigation was still in its initial stages. The first FIR centred on a complaint filed by a 23-year-old employee at Tata Consultancy Services’ Nashik unit, who alleged that a colleague, Danish Shaikh, had induced her into a relationship on the false promise of marriage, engaged in a physical relationship with her, made derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, and spoke in praise of Islam. According to Newslaundry. she further alleged that she later discovered he was already married with two children. These framings, which did not appear in the FIRs themselves, played a key role in shifting the narrative from specific allegations to a broader, and as yet unsubstantiated, claim of organised conspiracy.

This trajectory is not without precedent. The murder of Shraddha Walkar—a case that was, at its core, one of intimate partner violence and extreme gender-based brutality—was similarly pulled into a communal frame in sections of media and public discourse. What should have remained a conversation about violence against women, coercive relationships, and systemic failures was, in many instances, recast as evidence of a larger religious conspiracy. The language of “love jihad,” which had circulated in political discourse earlier, found renewed force in Maharashtra in the aftermath of that case. It was no longer invoked as an abstract claim; it was anchored to a specific, widely publicised crime.

Detailed report may be read here.

The consequences of that shift were not merely rhetorical. The communal framing of the Walkar case fed into mobilisation on the ground, with far-right groups organising rallies and demonstrations that explicitly linked individual acts of violence to broader claims of religious targeting. These mobilisations, in turn, contributed to a political climate in which the idea of regulating interfaith relationships—particularly those involving conversion—gained renewed traction. Over time, this discourse fed into legislative developments, including the push for and eventual passage of strict anti-conversion frameworks in Maharashtra. What began as a criminal case involving one victim and one accused thus became part of a larger ideological and policy arc.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

The pattern is instructive. Individual acts of violence or alleged wrongdoing are lifted out of their specific contexts and embedded within broader narratives about community, identity, and threat. In the process, the nature of the case itself changes. What begins as a question of individual accountability and institutional responsibility is transformed into a story about collective identity and civilisational conflict. The focus shifts away from the victim, the evidence, and the mechanisms of justice, and towards questions of community, intent, and imagined networks.

The TCS Nashik case now sits within this pattern. Its rapid reframing as a case of organised religious conspiracy echoes earlier moments where gender-based violence or criminal allegations were communalised to serve broader political narratives. To understand it fully, it must be read along two tracks—what the FIRs and investigation actually establish, and what the public narrative has turned it into. The distance between these two is not incidental; it is the story itself.

The Genesis of the FIRs: Intervention, mobilisation, and legal framing

What remains crucial—but often underexplored—in the public telling of the case is the genesis of the FIRs themselves. The trajectory from an individual complaint to the registration of nine FIRs within days raises important questions not only about the allegations, but also about how the case entered the criminal justice system.

According to statements made to Newslaundry, Nitin Gaikwad, a local leader affiliated with the Shiv Sena, acknowledged that he and members of Hindutva groups were involved from the very beginning. He stated that they met the complainant and “counselled her for at least two to three days,” after which they accompanied her to the police station to register the FIR. He further claimed that “all Hindu organisations” had come together in this process under the banner of a united “Sakal Hindu Samaj,” though he did not name specific groups.

Gaikwad also indicated that this involvement did not end with the filing of the first complaint. He stated that they continued to assist the police by identifying other individuals and sharing information, following which further action was taken. This account suggests that the case evolved not solely through institutional mechanisms, but through a combination of community mobilisation, political involvement, and police action.

The first FIR reportedly named three individuals. In the span of the following week, eight additional FIRs were registered, all at the same police station, with some filed in rapid succession, including multiple complaints in a single night. The pattern and pace of these filings point to a case that quickly expanded in scope, moving from a single complaint to a cluster of allegations involving multiple accused.

Instead, several FIRs invoke Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—the provision relating to acts done in furtherance of common intention. This suggests that the police are, at least in part, examining the allegations through the lens of possible coordinated conduct among individuals, rather than as evidence of a broader, ideologically driven conversion network.

This brings the focus back to a critical question: do allegations of workplace sexual harassment—undoubtedly grave and demanding institutional accountability—necessarily require immediate criminalisation through police intervention, particularly when workplace redressal mechanisms exist? Or does the route through which these complaints were mobilised and formalised reflect a more complex interplay of legal process, social intervention, and political framing?

Data from the Maharashtra State Commission for Women for 2023–24 provides important context for understanding how workplace-related complaints are typically registered and addressed. Out of a total of 12,019 complaints handled during the year, the overwhelming majority relate to marital disputes (4059 cases) and broader social issues, including rape (2940 cases). In comparison, complaints specifically categorised as sexual harassment at the workplace number just 69, with 44 disposed of during the same period. This indicates that while such cases are serious, they form a relatively small proportion of the overall complaints landscape.

A broader category of “harassment at the workplace” records 667 complaints, suggesting that workplace grievances are more frequently framed in terms of general harassment, hostility, or discrimination rather than strictly sexual misconduct. At the same time, the disposal rate across categories remains relatively high, with over 10,000 complaints resolved. However, sexual harassment cases show a comparatively slower rate of disposal, pointing to the complexity and sensitivity often involved in such matters, including evidentiary challenges and institutional processes.

This data also offers insight into how such complaints are usually processed. Workplace harassment cases are, in most instances, expected to be addressed through internal mechanisms such as POSH committees and institutional grievance systems, with criminal law typically invoked in more escalated or severe circumstances. The relatively low number of cases reaching the Commission under the category of sexual harassment suggests either under-reporting, reliance on internal processes, or both.

Against this backdrop, the TCS Nashik case—marked by the rapid filing of multiple FIRs within a short span—appears unusual in its trajectory. The scale and speed of criminalisation stand in contrast to broader trends, raising questions not about the seriousness of the allegations themselves, but about the process through which workplace complaints move from internal grievance to criminal prosecution, and whether that transition, in this instance, followed the typical institutional path.

The answer to that question does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations. But it does underscore that the making of the case—how it was initiated, expanded, and framed—is as important to examine as the allegations themselves.

The Legal Core: What the FIRs actually establish

The legal foundation of the case rests on nine FIRs registered between March 26 and April 3, 2026, across Deolali Camp and Mumbai Naka police stations. These FIRs, taken together, form the only formal basis on which the case currently stands, and any assessment of the matter must begin with them.

The first FIR, registered at Deolali Camp Police Station, outlines a relationship between the complainant and the primary accused that allegedly evolved from a prior acquaintance into a personal and intimate association. According to the complaint, the accused established sexual relations with the complainant under the promise of marriage, a promise that she later discovered to be deceptive when she was informed by another woman that the accused was already married and had children. The FIR further records that during the course of their interactions, discussions relating to religion took place, and certain remarks were perceived by the complainant as derogatory towards Hindu beliefs. It also alleges that the complainant faced pressure and intimidation in connection with both the relationship and its possible disclosure.

As with all FIRs, these allegations represent the complainant’s version of events. They initiate a legal process but do not constitute proof. Their veracity must be tested through investigation and, ultimately, adjudication.

In the days that followed, eight additional FIRs were registered. These complaints describe a range of alleged misconduct within the workplace, including unwanted physical contact, inappropriate remarks, coercion, and the misuse of authority by senior employees. Some FIRs also refer to behaviour perceived as affecting religious sentiments, and in at least one instance, a male complainant alleged that he was pressured in relation to religious practices. The FIR compilation indicates that these allegations span a period from 2022 to 2026 and involve multiple accused individuals, some of whom are named across more than one complaint.

The sections invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita include provisions relating to sexual harassment, outraging modesty, criminal intimidation, and acts affecting religious sentiments. Taken together, the FIRs suggest the possibility of a pattern of alleged misconduct within the workplace. At the same time, they do not establish guilt, nor do they conclusively demonstrate the existence of any organised conspiracy. This distinction remains central, even as it is frequently blurred in public discourse.

The Investigation: Scope, Method, and Limits

The Nashik Police constituted a Special Investigation Team to examine the allegations. As part of the investigation, several accused individuals were arrested, statements were recorded before magistrates, and digital and documentary evidence began to be scrutinised.

What makes the trajectory of this investigation particularly unusual is its point of origin. As reported in Hindustan Times through its article dated April 13, the case did not begin with a formal workplace complaint or even an immediate allegation of harassment filed with the police. Instead, it appears to have been triggered by a complaint from a political party worker regarding a woman employee’s religious practices. In the report of Times of India dated April 16, it was provided that according to Nashik City Police, the complaint alleged that a Hindu woman in her early 20s had begun following Islamic practices under workplace influence. This led to a covert police operation, during which personnel were reportedly deployed undercover within the workplace. It was only after this phase that the first FIR was registered on March 26, followed by additional complaints.

As the investigation progressed, the SIT examined not only the allegations in the FIRs but also the functioning of internal workplace mechanisms, particularly the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) framework. The role of supervisory personnel, including HR officials, came under scrutiny in light of allegations that complaints may have been discouraged or ignored.

Crucially, police statements reported indicate that, at this stage, there is no confirmed evidence of any organised or externally funded conversion network linked to the case. While inputs have been sought from agencies such as the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA), this appears to be a response to claims circulating in the public domain rather than confirmation of those claims.

This distinction—between investigating allegations and endorsing narratives—remains one of the most important, yet least emphasised, aspects of the case.

The Company Response: Institutional responsibility under scrutiny

TCS, in its official communications, has stated that it has taken the matter seriously, suspending or terminating employees named in the FIRs and cooperating fully with law enforcement authorities. The company has reiterated its commitment to a zero-tolerance policy towards harassment and has initiated an internal inquiry.

Public statement by Mr. K. Krithivasan, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, related to the recent matter in Nashik. All details here: https://t.co/sOEGI7jmtV pic.twitter.com/iTfu1yeCuz

— Tata Consultancy Services (@TCS) April 17, 2026

At the same time, the case raises deeper questions about institutional responsibility. Several accounts since April 14, including those reported by outlets such as NDTV, suggested that employees who experienced harassment may not have found effective redress through internal mechanisms. If complaints were indeed raised and not acted upon—or if employees felt unable to use formal channels—it would point to significant gaps in the implementation of POSH guidelines.

The role of HR personnel is particularly significant in this context, especially because one of the most widely circulated claims in the case—that Nida Khan was the HR head—has been explicitly contradicted by both company statements and subsequent reporting. In the early days of the controversy, several media reports and television debates repeatedly described Nida Khan as an “HR manager” or even the central authority responsible for handling complaints. 

A detailed report by AltNews dated April 18 showed that since April 14, 2026, NDTV reporters claimed that Nida Khan was an HR official at TCS Nashik. The same claim was made in multiple bulletins on the channel by Shiv Aroor.  

However, a report by Times of India as well as the statement of TCS of April 17 clarified that she held no leadership responsibilities, was not part of the HR structure, and had no role in recruitment or institutional decision-making. Instead, as per Hindustan Times dated April 17, she was employed as a process associate/telecaller at the BPO unit, not a senior managerial figure.

Godi Media Anchor @anjanaomkashyap says Nida Khan is the main Mastermind and was a HR Manager. But Nida Khan was an employee and not HR Manager. HR manager was Ashwini Chainani, the HR head and operations manager of the company who was arrested recently. Ashwini Chainani is… pic.twitter.com/Y3M7tHzJtf

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) April 17, 2026

In the #Nashik #TCS case, not only Arnab Goswami’s Republic made Nida Khan a “terrorist,” even Vijeta Dahiya, script writer for Dhruv Rathee, went a step further and called her and other accused “Islamist terrorists,” dragging an entire religion into it.

From prime-time TV to… pic.twitter.com/iDBTP4pFeW

— Meer Faisal (@meerfaisal001) April 17, 2026

‘दबंग मैम’ निदा खान ऑफिस में सबको सिखाती थी बुर्का पहनना, बड़ा ही खूंखार था TCS एचआर हेड का प्लान

नासिक के TCS बीपीओ में ‘दबंग मैम’ कही जाने वाली HR मैनेजर निदा खान की तलाश तेज हो गई है. उस पर धर्मांतरण और यौन उत्पीड़न के गंभीर आरोप लगे हैं. FIR में दावा है कि वह कर्मचारियों को… pic.twitter.com/xDARj2rURy

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

TCS में घर्मांतरण के खुलासे का पार्ट-2
TCS में HR मैनेजर निदा खान के कारनामों की पूरी रिपोर्ट#BlackAndWhiteOnAajTak #TCS #CorporateControversy #HRManager | @anjanaomkashyap pic.twitter.com/8jZLVLSvvn

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

This distinction is crucial because the investigation has, in fact, identified actual HR officials—including a senior HR functionary linked to the POSH Internal Committee—whose roles are under scrutiny for allegedly ignoring or failing to act on complaints. Yet, in public discourse, the focus disproportionately shifted to Nida Khan as the “face” or even “mastermind” of the case, often accompanied by an inflated portrayal of her authority.

The result is a telling gap between institutional responsibility and narrative construction. While those with formal power within the workplace structure—particularly within HR—are central to questions of accountability, public attention has instead been redirected toward an individual whose organisational role was misrepresented, reinforcing a narrative that is not fully aligned with the evidentiary record.

Victim Narratives: Allegations of control, coercion, and silence

Accounts from complainants and witnesses, as reported in media interviews including those aired by NDTV, describe a workplace environment marked by control, coercion, and silence. One employee recounted being isolated from colleagues and made to work separately, while others described a culture in which younger employees were allegedly targeted and subjected to inappropriate behaviour.

These narratives also suggest that attempts to raise concerns internally did not lead to meaningful intervention. In some accounts, employees described a sense that even HR mechanisms were ineffective or inaccessible. Such descriptions, if borne out by investigation, would indicate not only individual misconduct but a systemic environment in which alleged abuse could persist.

These accounts are serious and must be treated as such. At the same time, they remain part of an ongoing investigation and must be evaluated through due process rather than selectively amplified or reframed to fit broader narratives.

The Narrative Shift: From workplace crime to communal conspiracy

As the case unfolded, a significant shift occurred in how it was publicly framed. What began as allegations against specific individuals was rapidly transformed into a narrative about an entire community.

Television debates, including those hosted on prominent channels such as played a significant role in shaping the public narrative around the case. Primetime discussions on these platforms frequently moved beyond the contents of the FIRs and the scope of the police investigation, framing the allegations within broader themes of religious targeting and organised conspiracy. In several instances, the language used in these debates echoed terms such as “conversion racket” and “corporate jihad,” often without clear attribution to verified investigative findings.

Grooming Syndicate Busted

The Hindu women employees in TCS were allegedly groomed systematically through a WhatsApp group formed by their team leads. They approached TCS authorities, including the HR manager, multiple times—raising complaints of rape, forced conversion, being… pic.twitter.com/IbZxUUkEfl

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) April 14, 2026

This mode of coverage did not merely report on the case; it actively contributed to its reframing. By foregrounding speculative links and emphasising identity over individual conduct, these debates helped shift the focus away from the specifics of the allegations and towards a generalised communal narrative, shaping public perception in ways that extended far beyond the evidentiary record.

Political figures played a visible role in this shift. On April 17, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis publicly framed the case in broader ideological terms while responding to media queries. While noting that Tata Consultancy Services had taken the allegations seriously, he described the matter as a cause for concern, suggesting it pointed to what he termed “corporate jihad.” In his remarks to NDTV, Fadnavis linked the case to earlier narratives such as “love jihad” and “land jihad,” arguing that the present allegations reflected a new and serious manifestation of a similar pattern.

Political responses to the case extended beyond formal statements of concern and moved into broader ideological framing. Devendra Fadnavis’s spouse, Amruta Fadnavis, in remarks reported by The New Indian Express on April 18, linked the allegations to wider claims of “forceful conversion” and “love jihad,” urging women to remain vigilant and framing the issue in terms of cultural awareness and the need to reinforce traditional values among youth.

Maharashtra minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitesh Rane, speaking to the press in comments reported by Press Trust of India on April 16, described the case as indicative of a growing phenomenon he termed “corporate jihad.” He further suggested that employment spaces were being misused for religious conversion and argued that prioritising Hindus in hiring had become “the need of the hour” to counter such alleged activities.

Taken together, these statements illustrate how the case was not only treated as a matter of criminal investigation but also embedded within a larger political narrative—one that framed the allegations as part of a broader pattern of religious targeting, despite the absence of conclusive findings to that effect in the investigation at the time. These statements were subsequently amplified across television and digital platforms, contributing to the rapid communalisation of the case.

Amid the controversy surrounding the allegations at the TCS Nashik unit, The Print report dated April 21 provided that that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, escalated the issue beyond the immediate case by reaching out to major industry bodies. Its general secretary, Bajrang Bagda, wrote to organisations such as FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM and others, urging immediate steps to address women’s safety in corporate workplaces. 

While referring to the ongoing SIT probe into multiple FIRs alleging harassment, coercion, and other offences, Bagda framed the issue as one that had eroded public trust in corporate environments. Significantly, he argued that the allegations should not be seen as isolated acts by individuals, but as part of a “collective conspiracy”, a claim that extends beyond what has been established in the investigation so far.

This transformation did not merely add a layer of interpretation; it altered the nature of the story itself, shifting the focus from individual accountability to communal identity. Even the highest court in the country was not left out of this, with Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filing a plea in the Supreme Court on April 16, 2026, requesting that deceitful religious conversions be classified as “terrorism” and “organized crime,” following reports of forced conversions and sexual harassment of female employees at a TCS facility in Nashik. The plea calls for stringent central action, special courts, and to treat the issue as a threat to national security. Ashwini Upadhyay has formerly also been spokesperson for the Delhi unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 

You may find CJP’s Hate Busters on four of Upadhyaya’s claims here, here, here, and here.  

The Making of a “Mastermind”: The case of Nida Khan

No aspect of this transformation is more illustrative than the portrayal of Nida Khan. In the FIRs, she is named as one among several accused, with allegations that relate primarily to interactions and remarks perceived as religiously offensive. There is no clear indication in the FIRs that she held a position of authority within the organisation or that she exercised control over institutional processes.

However, in media coverage and public discourse, she has frequently been described as the “mastermind” of the case. Television debates and social media commentary, as evident from the links attached above, have at times portrayed her as an HR manager or a central figure orchestrating a larger conspiracy. This portrayal stands in contrast to clarifications issued by the company, which state that she was a process associate and did not hold a managerial or HR role.

TCS Nashik case ‘mastermind’ Nida Khan’s bail hearing likely today pic.twitter.com/1bDo4yQgae

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 20, 2026

Nashik BPO Case | Who Is Nida Khan? Mastermind Behind Harassment Cover-Up Under Police Lens

Watch video: https://t.co/qWRbVPjzqc#NidaKhan #Nashik #TCS

— News18 (@CNNnews18) April 17, 2026

Nashik ‘Conversion’ Row | First picture: Nida Khan alleged mastermind of the gang is cureently absconding@sujata_dwivedi shares details with @ankit_tyagi01 pic.twitter.com/xVOINfq5Hu

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 14, 2026

In a further development, reports indicated that Nida Khan was in Mumbai and was pregnant with her first child. Even as the Nashik Police’s Special Investigation Team continued its probe and the National Commission for Women took cognisance of the matter, sections of the media continued to describe her as the “mastermind” of the case.

This characterisation, however, has been contested by her legal counsel. Advocate Baba Sayyad pointed out that her name appears in only one complaint and that the FIRs do not substantiate claims of a larger conspiracy. He further clarified that she was not part of the HR structure but worked as a process associate/telecaller, a position also reflected in company records. According to him, the primary allegation against her relates to remarks affecting religious sentiments, raising questions about the disproportionate portrayal of her role in public discourse.

According to the report by Hindustan Times dated April 17  Nida Khan is not absconding in the conventional sense being portrayed in some media narratives. She is reported to be in Mumbai, at her residence with her husband, where she had moved earlier this year after her marriage. Her family and lawyer have also claimed that police had not visited their residence looking for her at the time of reporting. This re-framing or ‘clarification’ on Nida Khan’s position in the company came several days after reports in news channels and newspapers, often showing her photographs and name, framed her as the ‘mastermind.’ The damage then, in a sense, had been done.

This discrepancy highlights how narratives can elevate certain individuals into symbolic figures, often in ways that are not supported by the evidentiary record. At the same time, individuals who may have held actual institutional authority—such as HR officials with decision-making power—have received comparatively less attention in public discourse.

It is essential to note here that on April 20, Nida Khan was denied interim relief by a Nashik court.

Media Conduct: Language, framing, and responsibility

The role of the media in shaping the trajectory of this case has been central. One of the most concerning aspects of coverage has been the frequent collapse of the distinction between allegation and fact. Reports and debates have often presented claims as established truths, omitting qualifiers such as “alleged” and thereby pre-empting the outcome of the investigation.

Equally significant has been the shift in framing from individual conduct to communal identity. Instead of focusing on specific allegations against named individuals, many narratives have generalised the case into a broader story about Muslim men targeting Hindu women. This framing transforms a legal case into a communal narrative, with implications that extend far beyond the facts of the case itself.

The amplification of unverified claims has further contributed to this distortion. Assertions about international links, funding networks, and organised conversion efforts have circulated widely across television and social media platforms, despite the absence of corroborating evidence. In some cases, even routine investigative steps—such as seeking inputs from central agencies—have been interpreted as confirmation of these claims.

This pattern reflects not just a failure of verification but a broader shift in how stories are framed and consumed.

The APCR Findings: A critical intervention in a distorted narrative

The fact-finding report by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) stands out as one of the most detailed attempts to bring the TCS Nashik case back to its evidentiary core. Based on field visits, court observations, interactions with lawyers and families, and a close reading of FIRs alongside media coverage, the report maps a widening gap between what is formally on record and what has come to dominate public discourse.

At its heart, the report makes a crucial clarification: the case, as reflected in the nine FIRs, concerns serious allegations of workplace misconduct—including sexual harassment, coercion, intimidation, and conduct perceived as affecting religious sentiments. These allegations, spanning multiple complainants and a period of several years, are undeniably grave and warrant thorough investigation. At the same time, the report underscores that FIRs represent claims to be tested, not conclusions, and must be evaluated through due process.

What the report does not find, however, is equally significant. It notes that there is, at present, no conclusive material establishing the existence of any organised or systematic religious conversion network—a claim that has nevertheless come to dominate media and political narratives. Terms such as “corporate jihad,” widely used in television debates and public commentary, are identified as originating not from the FIRs or the investigation, but from interpretation and amplification.

The report also documents the trajectory of the investigation itself. A Special Investigation Team has been constituted, multiple arrests have been made, and police have examined each complaint individually. Even the involvement of agencies such as the ATS or NIA, it notes, has been framed as precautionary rather than confirmatory. Crucially, authorities have not, at this stage, substantiated claims of a coordinated or externally funded operation, despite the prominence of such assertions in public discourse.

At the same time, the report does not minimise the allegations made by complainants. It records accounts that point to a hostile work environment, possible targeting of employees, and a lack of effective institutional response. This is juxtaposed with the company’s position that no formal complaints were received through internal POSH mechanisms prior to the FIRs, highlighting a potential gap between lived experiences and formal reporting structures. Whether this reflects under-reporting, institutional failure, or both remains a key question.

A particularly striking aspect of the report is its focus on how individuals have been portrayed in the public sphere. It notes that Nida Khan has repeatedly been described as the “mastermind” of the case and as an HR official with significant authority—claims that are not consistently supported by the FIRs or company records. In fact, available information indicates that she held a non-managerial role, raising concerns about how her position and involvement have been reshaped to fit a broader narrative.

More broadly, the report highlights the role of media ecosystems—particularly television debates and social media—in amplifying unverified claims, including assertions of international links, funding networks, and coordinated targeting. It identifies a dual media landscape, where factual reporting based on police statements coexists with speculative and often hyperbolic commentary, creating confusion and polarisation.

The report ultimately calls for a return to evidence-based investigation and responsible public discourse. It urges authorities to clearly distinguish between criminal allegations and unverified labels, recommends closer scrutiny of workplace grievance mechanisms, and cautions political and media actors against communalising the issue. Its core message is straightforward but significant: that the integrity of the investigation—and the possibility of justice—depends on maintaining a clear boundary between what is being investigated and what is being imagined.

Voices of Dissent and Solidarity: A counter-current emerges

Amid the dominant narrative that has framed the case in sharply communal terms, a quieter but significant counter-current has begun to emerge—one that calls for restraint, due process, and a return to facts. Across social media platforms, independent commentators, academics, and civil society voices have expressed concern not only about the allegations themselves, but about the manner in which the case has been publicly framed.

One such intervention came from Sumathi, whose widely circulated post reflected a tone markedly different from the prevailing discourse. Addressing Nida Khan directly, she wrote from the standpoint of shared humanity rather than communal identity, expressing remorse for the suffering faced and emphasising that fear and isolation are not burdens any individual should be made to carry. The post underscored a key point often missing in louder debates—that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the dignity and rights of individuals must remain central.

Dear Nida Khan,

As an Indian Hindu woman, I lower my head in deep remorse for the suffering you have faced. Such pain cannot be confined to one faith; it resonates within the shared conscience of us all. When a woman is forced to carry fear along with the life she nurtures, it… https://t.co/j8cMhy4Pmz

— Prof Sumathi (@ProfSumathi) April 19, 2026

Similar sentiments have been echoed by other users and commentators who have questioned the speed with which the case was communalised. Some have pointed out inconsistencies in media reporting, others have highlighted the lack of verified evidence for sweeping claims, and many have simply urged that the investigation be allowed to proceed without prejudice. These voices do not deny the seriousness of the allegations; rather, they resist their transformation into a broader indictment of an entire community.

Nida Khan, 26, is pregnant, is in Mumbai, as per her family.

She has been witch hunted as mastermind of running religious conversion racket at TCS bpo in Nashik by many media houses.

TCS clarified she was working as a tellecaller n not in any leadership role to have influence…

— Varsha Torgalkar (@varshasuman) April 18, 2026

This emerging strand of solidarity is important for what it represents. It signals that even within a highly polarised media environment, there remains space—however limited—for empathetic engagement, critical questioning, and a refusal to collapse individual cases into communal narratives.

What Is at Stake: Justice, truth, and public harm

The stakes in this case are both immediate and far-reaching. If the allegations are substantiated, the victims are entitled to justice, and the accused must be held accountable in accordance with the law. Institutions must also answer for any failures that allowed such conduct to occur.

At the same time, the communalisation of the case carries its own risks. When narratives outpace evidence, investigations can be distorted by public pressure, due process may be compromised, and entire communities may be subjected to collective suspicion.

Perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of justice itself may be undermined. When cases are reframed through communal lenses, the focus shifts away from evidence and accountability and towards identity and ideology.

Conclusion: The danger of stories that outrun evidence

The TCS Nashik case remains under investigation. The facts are still being established, and the outcome is yet to be determined. Yet, in the public sphere, a conclusion has already been constructed—one that extends far beyond the evidence currently available.

This is the central danger. When allegations are transformed into narratives, and narratives into communal truths, the space for careful, evidence-based inquiry begins to shrink. In such an environment, justice is no longer the outcome of a process; it becomes collateral damage.

There is no contradiction in insisting that serious allegations be investigated thoroughly while also rejecting their communalisation. On the contrary, both are necessary.

Because without accuracy, there can be no accountability. And without accountability, there can be no justice.

Related:

Allahabad High Court flags surge in “false” conversion firs, seeks accountability from UP government

Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate: Mapping the state of free speech ahead of the 2026 polls

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

The post From FIRs to “Corporate Jihad”: How the TCS Nashik case was transformed from an investigation into a communal narrative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

Key demands submitted to the Telangana government are:

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

Related:

Thousands of Adivasis demand the implementation of FRA 2006

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

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

Mass protests & Sansad Gherao against continued Adivasi evictions

Compilation of Forest Rights Act, Rules, and Guidelines

Frequently Asked Questions on the Forest Rights Act, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court noted in its Order that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue was the discrepancy in the rise of population in Northern and Southern states. Roughly in Northern states the TFR (Total Fertility rate) being higher than the one in Southern states, this delimitation exercise will give more weightage to Northern states, where the hold of Hindu nationalist BJP is higher. The southern states are wary of this and so came out in full strength to oppose it. BJP is crying hoarse that opposition parties are humiliating the women by opposing the amendment. This apparent support of BJP to Women’s representation is just a façade. The other steps in the empowerment of women have generally been taken up by the Indian National Congress in general. We see that right from the freedom movement when it was leading the national movement against colonial powers INC gradually ensured that women are not only part of the process of ‘India Nation in the making’ but also part of the movements opposing British rule.

It did encourage women’s being part of the various phenomena of national life. After the marathon efforts by Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule to give education to women, they did start coming to social space and played an important role in the struggle for independence. Chayanika Shah points out that INC had several women Presidents, then a woman Prime minister, woman Chief Minister, and woman President in its trajectory. Taking this process of empowerment at grass root level structures, Rajiv Gandhi was keen not only in Panchayati Raj but also for increased representation of women in these institutions.

Let us contrast all this with the hyperbole of Narendra Modi. There is no record of any affirmative action of women during the BJP (i.e. NDA) rule of Vajpayee years or Modi years. There seems to be an ideological connection between the BJP politics of Hindu Nationalism and their agenda of the role of women in politics. BJP is the political progeny of RSS, which is an exclusively male organization. When Laxmibai Kelkar (1936) requested the then RSS Chief Hedgewar to let women be part of RSS, she was advised to form a subordinate organization, Rashtra Sevika Samiti (Rss) and not permitted to join the RSS.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh stands for Volunteers, while Rashtra Sevika Samiti stands for servants. This tells us that the Swayam (being) of women is in control of men. This is in tune with the mandate of Manu smriti. This holy book was upheld by RSS all through and even now this RSS combine holds that Indian Constitution is based on Western values and so should be scrapped (Rajendra Singh, Rajju Bhaiyya’s statement) and be replaced by a Holy Indian book, i.e. Manu Smriti (as per Sudarshan, another Sarsanghchalak of RSS)

In BJP’s policies, this is also reflected in the awarding of Gandhi Peace Prize to the Gita Press, Gorakhpur a year ago. This was done by a jury headed by Narendra Modi. While giving the award Modi stated that “They have done commendable work over the last 100 years towards furthering social and cultural transformations among the people,”  Akshaya Mukul in his masterly study of Gita Press shows how Gita Press has played a major role in transforming the teachings of Manu Smriti into popular small booklets which are sold in lakhs of copies. These uphold husbands’ beating of wives, glorifying playing second fiddle to men and total subordinating to men in their lives, Father; Husband and Son in different phases of life. Reported ACADEMIA.

BJP’s own history is full of such humiliating statements from their office bearers, which uphold the abominable practices against women including Sati. In the context of the Roop Kawar incident, the then BJP Vice President Vijaya Raje Scindia took out a procession supporting the practice of Sati. The slogan of the procession was that committing sati is not only a glorious tradition of Hindu women, it is also their right!

Another leader Mridula Sinha, (BJP Mahila Morcha) who was Governor of Goa a few years back had given an interview to Savvy Magazine. (April 1994) In this she upholds the wife beating by husband and dowry system.

The 2021 data of the National Crime Records Bureau reveals that on average, eighty-six women were raped every day in India, while forty-nine cases of crimes against women were lodged every single hour. The overall number of crimes against women per one hundred thousand of the population increased from 56.3 in 2014 to 66.4 in 2022.

During the present regime how the cases of sexual violence and harassment have been handled become clear in the cases of women’s sexual harassment. Several of these cases found their way into the mainstream news, such as the gang rape of a minor girl by a BJP legislator in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, in 2017; the repeated gang rape and murder of an eight-year-old Muslim girl in Kathua, Kashmir, in 2018; and the gang rape of a Dalit girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, in 2020” Women wrestlers complaints against Braj Bhushan Sharan Singh were ignored in toto. The case of women’s plight in Manipur is beyond words. As per reports in the JACOBIN.

While women MPs of BJP and others are making a lot of noise over the fall of this amendment bill the issue is why link it with delimitation. Why no move that with present strength of MPs only; why it should not be implemented with 2023 bill? We need to raise our voice to delink delimitation from the Women’s reservation bill and to call for its implementation right away as per the 2023 bill.

Related:

Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !!

Womens Reservation Bill 2026: Women’s Rights & the RSS

Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens

The post Amendment to Women’s Reservation Bill: BJP’s hyperbole on women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a memorandum submitted from its Ahmedabad office, the organisation cited media reports detailing incidents of arson, vandalism and damage across multiple locations in and around Dhandhuka. According to the complaint, shops and garages were damaged and set ablaze near Ranpur Circle and along Barwala Road, while vehicles were torched at Dholera tri-junction and Rudra Complex on Bagodara highway.

Incidents of stone pelting in residential areas such as Naseeb Society and attacks on establishments including Alpha Pan Parlour, Gajanan Restaurant and Ami Hotel were also reported. The memorandum further mentioned damage to transport offices, burning of trucks near Yakin Transport, and destruction at RMS Hospital premises. It also referred to alleged attempts to set fire to a cemetery and agricultural losses, including burning of garlic crops.

The MCC has urged authorities to act in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines on mob violence and lynching, particularly those laid down in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India, which mandate preventive, remedial and punitive measures by state authorities.

Mujahid Nafees, convenor of the MCC Gujarat, said there appeared to be “a specific group intent on disturbing peace and targeting properties belonging to Muslims,” and called for immediate intervention to restore law and order. He demanded a prompt assessment of damages by the revenue department and compensation for those affected, strict legal action against those involved in the violence, and action against individuals spreading inflammatory content on social media.

Dhandhuka, located in Ahmedabad district, has witnessed communal tensions in the past, including incidents that drew statewide attention and prompted heightened policing and surveillance. Authorities have not yet issued a detailed public statement on the latest developments, though local police are understood to have increased deployment in sensitive areas to prevent further escalation.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Dhandhuka violence: Gujarat minority group seeks judicial action, cites targeted arson appeared first on SabrangIndia.