मैं दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट गेट नंबर 5 के बाहर उन्नाव रेप पीड़िता के न्याय के लिए खड़ी हूँ। चुप रहना अपराध है।#UnnaoRapeCase #JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/xfePXbLpTu

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 26, 2025

These protests have taken place amid grave concerns expressed by the Unnao rape survivor and her family over the suspension of the BJP politician, Sengar’s jail term. Responding to the high court order, the survivor told Hindustan Times, “I am extremely upset by what has happened today in the court.” She also said she felt “extremely unsafe” after learning about the bail conditions granted to Sengar.

Additionally, speaking to ANI news agency on Friday, the victim’s mother expressed strong objection to the bail, saying, “His bail should be rejected… We will knock on the doors of the Supreme Court. We have lost faith in the high court… If we don’t get justice in the Supreme Court, we will go to another country… The person guilty of my husband’s murder should be hanged immediately.”

It is only after this determined expression of the need for justice, public outrage and protests from December 21-24 that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), announced its late evening decision on December 25, 2025 to appeal this suspension of sentence and bail to Sengar, BJP leader and former MLA.

Photographs shared by the news agency showed security personnel asking protesters to put an end the demonstration immediately, warning that legal action would be taken if they did not disperse within five minutes. Women’s rights activist Yogita Bhayana, who was present at the protest, said, “Women across India are deeply hurt that the sentence of a rapist has been overturned. This happened in this very court. So, we will seek justice from the same place where the injustice occurred,” ANI reported.

Yet another protester told ANI, “On what grounds was Kuldeep Sengar granted bail, when it was declared that he had committed rapes and murders? If a life sentence was given to him, then why is he out?… We demand that the rapist should go behind bars so women feel safe.”

Kuldeep Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2019 for the rape of a 17-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Unnao in 2017. On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court suspended the expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader’s life sentence, noting that he had already served more than the maximum punishment prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

An earlier protest in the capital was also met with forcible eviction by the Delhi police.

एक गैंगरेप पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार उच्चित है???

उसकी यही गलती है कि न्याय की माँग कर रही है ?

ये कैसा न्याय है ???#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/F1mSmOhQEs

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 23, 2025

CRPF Intimidation?

The court’s judgement has triggered fresh fears within the survivor’s family, despite the order barring Sengar from coming within a five-kilometre radius of her. The survivor’s family has also been granted protection by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). However, controversy has also been generated over the politicisation of this para-military protection including political interference, when earlier this week, the survivor and her family were trying to travel by road to Delhi to meet with advocates. According to an interview played out on social media she told activist and supporter Yogita Bhayana that initially the CRPF tried actively to prevent her travelling to Delhi for legal advice and redressal and only when she raised her voice in objection “was she allowed.” This raises serious questions on the active monitoring and interference in witness protection ordered by the court especially since the para-military forces like the CRPF come under the union home ministry.

Listen to the video on this tweet

पीड़िता के साथ ऐसा व्यवहार gazab – आप खुद सुनिए उन्नाव गैंगरेप पीड़िता को

निःशब्द….#JusticeForUnnaoVictim pic.twitter.com/StjZiCxbMA

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) December 24, 2025

The survivor cited past incidents to explain her concerns, saying, “He is a powerful man. He would get his men to do his dirty work for him. When my car met with an accident in which two of my relatives and my lawyer died in 2019, Sengar didn’t do it himself. His henchmen did. Now that he is out, we are all unsafe.”

Now 24, the survivor is a resident of Delhi. Following the grant of conditional bail to Sengar, she has been provided court-ordered protection and is accompanied by five to 11 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel at all times. However, her mother has said that security cover provided to her and her three children until March this year (2025) was subsequently withdrawn.

Related:

Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar

Unnao rape case: Kuldeep Singh Sengar convicted

Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar, brother convicted in Unnao rape survivor’s father’s death

The post Protest outside Delhi HC gate over bail in Unnao rape case, survivor’s mother asks for maximum punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. Sengar was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh along with three sureties of the same amount.

Several conditions were imposed by the high court on Sengar’s release. Among these, he has been barred from entering within a five-kilometre radius of the survivor’s residence and has been instructed not to threaten or contact the survivor or her mother. The court has also directed him to remain in Delhi during the period of bail and to report to the police every Monday. It stated that any violation of any of these conditions would result in cancellation of bail, LiveLaw reported.

The court held that at this stage the offence under section 5(c) of the POSCO Act was not made out. The judgement argued that at this stage the offence did not amount to aggravated sexual assault under Section 5 of the POSCO Act.

The Delhi High Court judgement overturns, in large part, the judgement dated December 16, 2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge – West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“learned Trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 448/2019 arising out of FIR No. 96/2018 registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, reregistered as RC-08(S)/2018, PS CBI/ACB/Lucknow.

Sengar, reports The Hindu, who is currently lodged in prison, will, however, remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the rape victim’s father. Sengar, it has been alleged, kidnapped the girl and raped her in 2017, when she was still a minor. The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court in August 2019.

Now, following the December 23 order, the suspension of sentence will remain in force during the pendency of Sengar’s appeal challenging his conviction and sentence awarded by a Delhi trial court in December 2019. In that verdict, the trial court had convicted him for the rape of a 17-year-old girl and sentenced him to life imprisonment, along with imposing a fine of Rs 25 lakh. The trial court observed, that there were no mitigating circumstances and noted that Sengar, an elected public representative at the time, had breached public trust.

The rape case and three connected cases were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by order of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019 with directions for day-to-day hearings. The survivor was provided court-mandated protection measures following the conviction, including the option of a safe house and change of identity.

Sengar’s appeal against his separate conviction in the custodial death case of the survivor’s father is still awaiting a judicial outcome. In that case, he has been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial period in custody.

There is also a third case reports The Times of India– a collision on the road in which the survivor and her lawyer were critically injured and two of her aunts were killed – a separate case had been registered against Sengar. In December 2021, a Delhi court discharged him in that matter, holding that there was no evidence linking him to the incident.

Yesterday, Tuesday December 23, Delhi police detailed the protesting family members of the Survivor at India Gate. Visuals of the Delhi police manhandling protesters have been circulating on social media.

Rapist & former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar:

>Raped a 17-year-old minor girl.
>Police did not act against him.
>Girl attempted self-immolation.
>Case was later taken up by CBI
>Killed victim’s father
>a court convicted him of rape.
>sentenced to life imprisonment.
>a truck of… pic.twitter.com/QPOFwaDfeb

— Mohit Chauhan (@mohitlaws) December 23, 2025

Unnao rape survivor protesting at the India gate against the Delhi High Court order suspending sentence of ex-UP BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was bundled in a van by the police. pic.twitter.com/KPybock3LI

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) December 24, 2025

A battery of close two dozen advocates represented Kildeep Sengar in the Delhi High Court: these were N Hariharan Sr Adv, SPM Tripathi, Amit Sinha, Deepak Sharma, Rahul Poonia, Mr. Ambuj Singh, Ashish Tiwari, Gaurav Kumar, Saurabh Dwivedi, Ms. Punya Rekha, Ms. Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N, Aman Akhtar, Sana Singh, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Manish Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aishwarya Sengar, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht and Mr. Swapan Singhal.

The judgement of the Delhi High Court may be read here.

Background

Sengar, from Bangarmau in Uttar Pradesh, was accused in connection with a 2017 case involving a teenage girl from Unnao district. An FIR was eventually registered against him under the criminal law and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act following the allegations. On April 3, 2018, the girl’s father was allegedly assaulted by individuals linked to Sengar and later died on April 8 after falling ill while in custody. A local shopkeeper, who had reportedly witnessed the assault gave a statement to the CBI and later died under unexplained circumstances on August 18, 2018.

The case drew national attention and outrage after the girl attempted self-harm outside the Uttar Pradesh chief minister’s residence and was subsequently critically injured in a road collision that resulted in the deaths of two family members. In 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the case and three related matters from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi and ordered expedited hearings. In December 2019, a Delhi trial court convicted Sengar in the main case. He was also sentenced separately to ten years’ imprisonment in the custodial death case relating to the girl’s father.

Now

On December 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence and granted him bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The order was passed by Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, subject to Sengar furnishing a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh with three sureties.

The court directed that Sengar must not enter within a five-kilometre radius of the complainant’s residence, must not contact or intimidate her or her family, must remain in Delhi during the bail period, and must report to the police every Monday. It stated that any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail. To be precise, the high court has suspended the life sentence awarded to Sengar for the duration of the pendency of his appeal. The suspension is what legally allows the court to grant him bail.

Related:

Unnao rape case: Kuldeep Singh Sengar convicted

Ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar, brother convicted in Unnao rape survivor’s father’s death

Will Sangita Sengar talk about BJP’s beti bachao slogan when campaigning in UP?

The post Delhi HC grants bail pending appeal to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This questionable decision was made during a meeting of the Chaudhary community held last Sunday in Gazipur village, Jalore district, chaired by Sujnaram Chaudhary, the president of the 14 pattis (subdivisions). The meeting was chaired by community president Sujanaram Chaudhary, with elders deliberating on mobile phone usage within families. The resolution was formally read out by Panch Himmataram and proposed by Devaram Karnol, community members said. The controversial “ban”, it is reported, will be enforced in villages including Gajipura, Pavli, Kalra, Manojia Vas, Rajikawas, Datlawas, Rajpura, Kodi, Sidrodi, Alri, Ropsi, Khanadeval, Savidhar, Hathmi ki Dhani of Bhinmal, and Khanpur, all of which fall within the Patti region of Jalore district.

It was while speaking to PTI, that Chaudhary said that Panch Himmtaram announced the decision. According to Himmtaram, after discussions among panch members and community members, it was decided that daughters-in-law and young women would exclusively use keypad phones for calling.

Besides this, school-going girls who need mobile phones for their studies may use them only at home. They are not allowed to take mobile phones to weddings, social events, or even to a neighbour’s house, Chaudhary further explained, Chaudhary mentioned further. No restrictions have been reportedly placed on boys going to school, however!

When he was questioned on the opposition regarding the panchayat’s decision, Chaudhary clarified that this measure was taken because children often use the mobile phones of women in their households, which may negatively affect their eyesight. He noted that some women give their phones to children to keep them distracted, allowing them to focus on their daily chores.

The New Indian Express reported how Jalore has witnessed similar controversial community diktats in the past. Last year, 2024, local elders ordered the social boycott of two families after a young couple entered into a love marriage, imposing a fine of ₹12 lakh for their re-entry into the community. The couple later approached the Bhinmal police, following which police intervened and facilitated a compromise with most elders, though a few continued to justify the boycott.

June 2025, Caste panchayat enforces social boycott of 55 families in Jalore

In another similar incident in June, a caste panchayat in Jalore announced a social boycott of 55 families over a long-standing dispute related to temple land between two factions of the same extended family. The diktat barred community members from attending weddings, social functions, and even funerals of the affected families. The panchayat also warned that anyone who raised objections would face excommunication and monetary penalties. A complaint in connection with the matter was subsequently lodged at the Bagra police station.

Related:

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

A right half won, evolution of women’s right to property under the Hindu Succession Act

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

The post Rajasthan panchayat in Jalore district bans camera phones for daughters-in-law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to Enewsroom and television media reports, Dr Parveen was scheduled to assume charge as an AYUSH doctor on December 20, but has chosen to step away following the incident. Her brother told a media channel that the decision was taken due to the severe mental distress she has been under since the public humiliation. “We are trying to convince her. If someone else committed the mistake, why should she be forced to sacrifice her career?” he said.

The Hindustan Gazette reported that Dr Parveen and her family have declined to speak publicly, but sources close to them confirmed that the incident has had a profound emotional impact on her.

What happened at the appointment ceremony

The incident occurred on Monday, December 17, at ‘Samvad’, the Chief Minister’s secretariat, during the distribution of appointment letters to over 1,000 AYUSH doctors. When Dr Parveen approached the stage wearing a hijab partially covering her face, Nitish Kumar was heard asking, “What is this?” On being told it was a hijab, he asked her to remove it—and then pulled it down himself, as seen in a viral video.

Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Chaudhary was visibly seen tugging at Kumar’s sleeve in an apparent attempt to stop him. Dr Parveen appeared visibly uncomfortable as laughter erupted from sections of the audience. She was subsequently handed the appointment letter again and ushered off the stage.

Media barred as fallout grows

In the aftermath, media entry was restricted at Nitish Kumar’s programme in Gaya on Wednesday, where he attended a two-day workshop organised by the Bihar Institute of Public Administration and Rural Development (BIPARD). The event was not live-streamed on the JD(U)’s official platforms, a notable departure from standard practice.

Media had also been barred a day earlier during the energy department’s appointment letter distribution programme, signalling an apparent attempt to contain public scrutiny amid rising outrage.

UP Minister’s defence sparks fresh controversy

The controversy further escalated after Uttar Pradesh Fisheries Minister Sanjay Nishad defended Nitish Kumar, stating that touching the hijab should not be made into an issue. His remarks drew sharp condemnation when he said, “What would have happened if he had touched somewhere else?”—a statement widely criticised as misogynistic and sexually suggestive.

Following backlash, Nishad released a video clarification claiming the Chief Minister’s intention was merely to ensure a clear photograph. He described his language as common rural expression from Purvanchal and denied any intent to insult women or Muslims, though he later said he withdrew his words if anyone felt hurt.

FIRs filed, political condemnation mounts

Police complaints have since been filed in Lucknow and Hyderabad, according to ANI and The Hindustan Gazette. Samajwadi Party spokesperson Sumaiya Rana, daughter of poet Munawwar Rana, lodged an FIR against both Nitish Kumar and Sanjay Nishad, calling the incident and the subsequent remarks a dangerous precedent. “This is harassment by someone holding a constitutional post,” Rana said, adding that such conduct emboldens others in positions of power.

SP MP Ikra Hasan condemned the act, stating that pulling a woman’s clothing or hijab is “wrong and dangerous” and sends a deeply disturbing message to society. “This is not about religion. Making a woman uncomfortable by touching her clothing is harassment,” she said.

According to the report of India Today, Congress demanded Nitish Kumar’s resignation, while the Rashtriya Janata Dal mocked the Chief Minister on social media, questioning his mental state and ideological shift.

Omar Abdullah: ‘Public humiliation cannot be justified’

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly criticised Nitish Kumar, calling the incident “unacceptable” and reflective of a regressive mindset. Speaking to reporters in Srinagar, he said such actions echoed earlier instances of public humiliation of Muslim women.

“If the Chief Minister did not wish to hand over the appointment letter, he could have stepped aside. But humiliating a woman in public is completely wrong,” Omar said, as reported by Greater Kashmir, adding that the incident has exposed the erosion of the secular image Nitish Kumar once projected.

Women’s groups cite constitutional violations

Women’s rights groups and Muslim organisations have strongly condemned the incident. The National Federation of Girl Islamic Organisation (GIO) described the act as a “blatant violation of personal dignity and religious freedom,” demanding a public apology from the Chief Minister.

Hyderabad-based women’s rights activist Khalida Praveen, who filed a complaint against Kumar, stated that forcibly removing a Muslim woman’s veil violates Article 21 (right to dignity and privacy) and Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution, besides constituting an offence under criminal law.

Why the act raises criminal liability, not just political questions

It must be stressed that the Chief Minister’s conduct cannot be reduced to a moment of poor judgment or political controversy alone. The non-consensual act of physically pulling down a woman’s hijab in public, particularly by a person in authority, may attract criminal liability under laws meant to protect a woman’s dignity and bodily autonomy.

Under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage, or with knowledge that such act is likely to outrage, her modesty is a punishable offence. Courts have clarified that “modesty” is not limited to sexual intent but includes acts that humiliate, violate privacy, or strip a woman of dignity, especially in public spaces.

The absence of consent and the clear power imbalance between a Chief Minister and a newly appointed woman doctor further aggravate the seriousness of the act. Consent cannot be presumed in a setting where a woman is placed under public scrutiny by the State itself, and visible discomfort, as captured on video, strengthens the argument that the act was inherently humiliating and foreseeable in its impact.

Beyond criminal law, the incident also implicates constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy, and Article 25, which protects the freedom to practise religion. Legal complaints filed in multiple states argue that forcibly removing a Muslim woman’s hijab amounts to both gendered humiliation and interference with religious expression, making the incident not merely inappropriate—but potentially unlawful.

A chilling message from a constitutional office

As Dr Nusrat Parveen contemplates abandoning a government career she earned on merit, the incident has triggered a wider national debate on power, consent, gender, and religious freedom in state-controlled spaces.

What occurred on a public stage was not merely an individual lapse, but a reminder of how women—particularly from minority communities—remain vulnerable to humiliation even within the framework of the State itself.

Related:

Street Pressure, State Power, and the Criminalisation of Choice: How Hindutva groups are pushing Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law

Resignation in Protest: MP woman judge quits over elevation of senior she accused of harassment and discrimination

Extremists assaulted Muslim woman; hijab stripped of in broad daylight in Bengaluru and Muzaffarnagar

Three incidents of violence against Dalits since March 26, two against minors, one against elderly woman

The post When Power Forgets Consent: How a public act by the Bihar Chief Minister derailed a doctor’s career appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar had then observed the necessity of addressing the procedural lags that often hinder timely medical intervention for survivors of sexual assault incidents (In Re Framing Of Guidelines For Sensitizing All Concerned In Cases Of Termination Of Pregnancies-cause title). To assist the Court in this crucial and significant matter, the bench has also appointed Advocate Mahima Maurya as the Amicus Curiae.

On November 27, the Amicus Curiae and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rajiv Gupta, appearing for the State, made submissions with various suggestions to sensitise authorities and streamline the process. The matter is listed next on January 13. The High Court is expected to deliberate further on the suggestions provided to ensure that appropriate guidelines are framed for sensitizing all concerned in cases of termination of pregnancies.

The first order in this case taking suo moto cognizance was passed on October 23, 2025 after which the matter was listed on October 16, October 30, November 7 (during which hearing Ms. Mahima Maurya Kushwaha, Amicus Curiae and Shri Rajiv Gupta, the additional chief standing counsel for the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) made submissions giving various suggestions). The matter was listed thereafter on December 15, 2025 when the last order was passed listing the matter on January 13, 2026.

Related:

In a special hearing, SC bench hears petition on termination of pregnancy, expresses dismay over lackadaisical approach of Gujarat HC

Married woman has the autonomy to choose termination of pregnancy, not medical board: Bombay HC

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act Failing Women Who Need It The Most

The post Allahabad High Court registers suo moto PIL over delays in termination of pregnancy of rape survivors appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Looking at her 18-month-old daughter, Ayesha said, “Nurul wanted a girl, and here she is, but he is not. We were both only children. We didn’t want our child to grow up alone, but now she will. When she was born, so much was happening. No help reached me, but rumours spread that I was living comfortably with money. My in-laws abandoned me. My parents were under strain too. Some even blamed me for Nurul’s death. Then, the worst happened—my milk dried up just a month after Ashnoor’s birth. Breastfeeding stopped completely. The child had already lost her father’s shadow, and now this.” Ashnoor babbled on, pointing at her milk bottle.

Samreen’s daughter, two years old and a few months older than Ashnoor, has seen her father, Aamir. She played with him, teased him, and tired him out. She knows his face well. But she also saw him hanging from a fan, overwhelmed by a strangers’ cruelty. She doesn’t understand what it means. She asks Samreen, “Abbu went to the village. When will he come back?” Samreen pulls her close and pats her. What else can she do? Her wound is still fresh, from May 2025. In Latur’s Maidan Chowk, Aamir was beaten, called a Pakistani. They grabbed his collar, his belt, humiliated him, and recorded it on their phones. The label “Pakistani” shattered him. The next night, after 8 p.m., he took his life. It was a Sunday. Samreen said, “Every night from 8 to 9, I feel restless. Sad. How can I sleep in that room after his death? I stayed with my in-laws for 40 days, never sleeping before 3 a.m. Now, sometimes, I feel nothing at all. No one is truly yours. You carry your pain alone. Sundays used to excite me; now they scare me. Sometimes I think it was all a bad dream, and maybe it’s better that it broke.” Her voice trembles slightly. Her eyes well up. She removes her glasses, wipes her eyes gently, and with a mix of anger and detachment, says, “No one who promised help actually helped. Not even the police. Now I think, will doing anything bring him back? No. So I’m just trying to hold myself together.” For a moment, she stares into space, as if wrestling with herself.

“The situation in Vishalgad and Gajapur has been tense for years,” said Shaheen Mujawar from Vishalgad, her voice tinged with fear. “It gets worse during festivals like Shiv Jayanti and Mahashivratri.” Aggressive sloganeering by some groups creates fear and unease. “Last year, on July 14, 2024, the violence during the so-called Vishalgad anti-encroachment campaign still haunts us. Some slogans were so offensive, it’s hard to repeat them publicly. After that, many children on the fort fell ill. Women went silent. For days, they didn’t know what was happening. Many couldn’t sleep at night. With no jobs now, even salt feels expensive, and the stress on women is immense. That day, just the news of the attack gave one of our relatives a heart attack, and he died on the spot. This year, on July 14, the same fear returned. Sixty percent of the people on the fort left voluntarily. No one wants to die bit by bit,” Shaheen said, her words vivid, as if reliving it all.

In India, a country rich with diversity, communal tensions between religious groups sometimes turn violent. In recent years, openly provocative speeches against Muslims have increased. Muslim men are targeted, attacked, and killed in the name of cow protection. Social media is used to stir public anger, and Muslim men’s lives are taken coldly. Taking a life has become as casual as throwing mud online. But the wounds from these mob attacks aren’t just physical. They deeply affect the families left behind, especially women. Ayesha and Samreen, both in their thirties, lost their husbands to hate-filled attacks. Women like Shaheen have faced the terror of violent mobs and death. These events leave lasting scars on women’s minds. Social stigma, institutional failures, and financial strain add to their burdens. These factors undoubtedly impact their mental state. This report tries to understand how.

Ayesha Shikalgar’s Story: The Pain That Can’t Be Explained

I never imagined that Hindu-Muslim hatred could reach a small village like Pusesavali. Nurul Hasan was the president of the village’s Ganpati committee. Most of his friends were Hindus. Sometimes, during my pregnancy, I’d crave something sweet at night. Nurul’s friend owned a shop, and he’d open it after hours just for me. That’s how close their friendship was. But the same people he celebrated Ganeshotsav with, the ones he called friends, are now his accused killers, Ayesha says, her voice trembling with anger. She asks some hard questions: “No matter what happened, what did anyone gain by taking an innocent life? These people who chant Shivaji Maharaj’s name—what will they tell him? They didn’t just take a life; they destroyed my entire family!” Her voice rises slightly. “Would Shivaji Maharaj approve of such killers? There’s no reason to oppose anyone’s faith, but shouldn’t devotion bring joy to others? Two minutes of rage changed my life’s struggles and sorrows. At 8 p.m., he was with me, our private life just beginning. By morning, my life, my world, became public—caught in the media’s hands. But there was no space left to express what was in my heart. I couldn’t even grieve Nurul’s death properly. The pain of losing a person, that agony, I can’t put into words. It’s a strain I still feel, and now, whenever I see a saffron flag, my heart skips a beat.” A faint tension lingers on her face, framed by her headscarf.

Nurul Hasan, 31, was one of the educated Muslim youths in Pusesavali. In a village of 1,300 families, less than 10% are Muslim. Most run small businesses—grocery stores, mobile shops, or auto parts stores. Nurul was a civil engineer, taking on construction contracts and renting out his JCB machine. He was the sole breadwinner for his parents, their only child. He and Ayesha were married in November 2022. On September 10, 2023, Hindu nationalist groups from Pusesavali and nearby villages started violence, claiming a Muslim youth’s social media post had hurt religious sentiments. They attacked Muslim homes, shops, and mosques. The youth who posted wasn’t even in the village that day. Police later found his phone was hacked, and no evidence was found against him. But by then, the mob’s attack had changed Ayesha’s life. She was five months pregnant at the time. Just the day before, they’d gone for her sonography. Nurul had wanted a girl and had chosen the name Ashnoor, blending their names together.

After her husband’s death, Ayesha faced what many Indian widows do. She was blamed for Nurul’s death. Her in-laws said she was responsible because Nurul was praying on time while living with her. They claimed his going for namaz led to his death. Their words were a huge blow to her. Ayesha, a lawyer by profession, says, “It wasn’t even four days after his death, and they started saying such things. It broke my heart. I started facing mental distress.” The government and some Muslim groups collected aid for her, but none reached her. “I was in iddat, the four-month seclusion Muslim widows observe. I heard people were helping, but nothing came to me. I thought maybe my in-laws got it. Then rumours spread that Nurul was in debt and the money went to clear it. I had to publicly clarify he had no debts. I didn’t want aid, but I wanted the rumours to stop. My in-laws even said I took the money. That led to family disputes. They turned away from me. When I gave birth, they didn’t even come to see their only granddaughter. When I went to their house, they’d left for my mother-in-law’s village for good. They cut me off completely, as if their son’s death made me a stranger. I was fighting society’s rumours the one hand and my own family on the other. It was so stressful.”

Around that time, the stress took a toll on her father. He had a heart attack, his diabetes worsened, and gangrene forced doctors to amputate part of his leg. “No one was there to help. Even my own family turned away. The women’s WhatsApp group in Pusesavali removed me. They mocked me as a ‘gold digger.’ We didn’t even have money for my father’s treatment. People thought we were rich. Some even said I was living lavishly off my husband’s death money,” Ayesha says with a bitter laugh. There’s no anger on her face, just disappointment. She continues calmly, “When I needed society’s support the most, they abandoned me. They excluded me from family functions. They attacked my character. That defamation broke me. My mental health deteriorated. I started getting dizzy. I lost track of what was happening around me. My daughter needed her mother’s milk, but the stress dried it up within a month. It was such an injustice to her. My weight shot past 100 kilos. I developed thyroid issues, diabetes, and high blood pressure. We didn’t even have money for food. My father has some farmland, but no other income. People kept saying I had so much money—well, I’m still waiting for it. Maybe someone’s words will come true,” she says, laughing at her situation. It’s clear Ayesha has found the strength to smile despite her circumstances.

Even two years later, in August 2025, when we met, the financial struggle persists. Her father was hospitalised again. To manage the back-and-forth between hospital and home, her family moved to her uncle’s place in Miraj. Her father’s sugar levels were high, and his mental health had deteriorated too. Ayesha is trying to cope. She wonders if Nurul were alive, would she have to live this nomadic life. She’s also frustrated that she hasn’t gotten enough information about her husband’s case. She had to use her contacts to even get the charge sheet.

As she tries to move forward, Ayesha faces more challenges. “If I’m happy, people say I’m enjoying life after my husband’s death because I got money. If I’m sad, they say it is only because I didn’t get my in-laws’ property. If I focus on my daughter, they say I’m not interested in my husband’s case. People talk from all sides, and I don’t have the strength to explain myself anymore. I feel so alone. I can’t even work right now. My daughter is 18 months old. She’d be alone too. I worry about her. I don’t want her to grow up hating Hindus. I don’t want her to waste her energy on hate. That’s why I’ve started preparing for the JMFC exam. The environment around Ayesha is always tense and negative. I tried to find a house in Karad or Sangli, leaving my village, Rajachi Kurle. But as soon as people hear I’m from Pusesavali or Nurul Hasan’s widow, they say no. Being Muslim and a single mother doesn’t help. I’ve been looking for a house for four months. How do I describe the pain of rejection? Some say no one rents to Muslims after the Pahalgam attack. But my husband was killed here—how dare anyone say that? These experiences have broken me. People often say if Nurul hadn’t gone to confront those people, he wouldn’t have died. So, the attackers, the violent ones, aren’t at fault, but he is to be blamed for taking to task his so-called friends? It’s such an easy blame game. Nurul was a great friend, a great partner. He helped with my work and took care of me. I lost such a person. That pain will always stay. But let me tell you…”

Ayesha takes a deep breath and says, “I’m tired of being seen as a victim or a gold digger. Pusesavali’s incident and the label of Nurul’s widow have stamped my life. I want to change that image. I may fail as a wife, but I won’t fail as a mother. People keep looking at me through that same lens. When I try to move forward, they tie that image to my feet like a burden. It causes me so much mental pain.”

Samreen Pathan: Holding on Through Loneliness

Samreen and Aamir had been married for three years. They have a two-year-old daughter. Samreen works as an assistant manager at a bank, while Aamir was a relationship officer at a telecom company. Both were from Latur, and both had jobs there. But eight or ten months ago, Samreen got a job at a different bank’s branch in Dharashiv. Aamir, not wanting her career to stall, didn’t care about his own job and moved to Dharashiv with her. Once Samreen settled into her routine there, he returned to Latur for work, taking their daughter along. Samreen wasn’t used to living alone, having grown up in a big family. So, she’d come to Latur every weekend, spend two days with them, and return to work. Samreen says, “I’d wake up early, go to the office, meet clients, and spend weekends together. That was our routine. For years, we heard about the growing Hindu-Muslim tension and hatred in society, but it never touched our lives. Aamir’s closest friends were Hindus. At my office, we all worked together harmoniously. No big fights, no complaints, nothing. Everything was peaceful, simple, friendly. But now, something feels different. This incident shocked us. We were happy in our own world. Why us?” she asks, her voice heavy with pain, before falling silent for a moment. Even meeting her in Dharashiv wasn’t easy—she wasn’t eager to talk. It’s understandable. Reliving those memories, retelling her story, is exhausting. The police’s mishandling of her complaint only adds to her distress. When we met at her bank’s premises, Samreen, barely looking thirty, wore simple clothes and glasses. She buries her grief in work, pulling herself forward for the next day.

Since Aamir’s suicide, sleep has been hard for Samreen. The incident left him deeply traumatized, and his suicide is clear proof of that. Samreen recalls, “That day, I was nearing Latur and called him to pick me up. The bus stops at Maidan Chowk, where I was getting off. He’d reached the chowk on his scooter, crossing the road. A local journalist was driving by. Aamir signalled to him, ‘Wait two minutes, let me cross.’ But that hurt the journalist’s ego.” Samreen starts recounting that day’s conversation. The shouting, the voices, still create a fearful tension in her mind. It was a regular Saturday, a routine return to her hometown to see her family and daughter, to recharge and go back to work. A predictable, peaceful routine. But that evening was different. Samreen continues, “The journalist got out of his car, parked it in the middle of the road, and started beating my husband. He asked, ‘What’s your name?’ Aamir said, ‘Aamir Pathan.’ The journalist sneered, ‘What, you think you’re some big Aamir? You’re a Pakistani, a Kashmiri, unfit to live in this country.’ Then he kept hitting him, yanked his pants, took photos, and recorded videos. ‘I’m a journalist,’ he said. ‘This will be in the papers.’ I was on the phone, hearing it all. I asked who he was talking to. I could hear Aamir’s voice, shouting, ‘What did I do wrong? Why are you hitting me?’” The incident happened on May 4, 2025 and was reported a few days later.

The incident left Aamir under immense stress. He was terrified the journalist would call him a terrorist or worse in the next day’s paper. He wanted to file a police complaint but lacked the courage. He called friends for help, telling them what happened. No one responded positively. They told him not to make a big deal, to let it go, or they’d see about it later. The beating had already scared him, but the fact that a stranger could threaten and humiliate him, and his close friends didn’t care, hurt him deeply. The journalist had yanked his pants so hard it caused physical discomfort. Aamir kept telling Samreen about it. She says, “Until 2 a.m., he was on his phone, searching for information about the journalist. At 6 a.m., he checked the papers, worried something was printed against him, calling him a Pakistani. He was so scared. The stress lasted till afternoon. His scooter was damaged, so he got it fixed. We were supposed to attend a reception that evening. He said, ‘Go ahead, I’ll rest and join you.’ When we got there, his phone wasn’t reachable. My mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and I returned home, only to find he’d taken his life.” Samreen, trying to stay strong, has tears in her eyes. She complains the police delayed action. The journalist was influential, connected to politicians, so they wouldn’t take her complaint. The next day, they went to the station at 9 a.m., but the police kept them waiting until 6 p.m., asking for CCTV footage and more. Samreen says, “The police said they’d register a suicide case but wouldn’t mention ‘Pakistani’ or ‘Kashmiri.’ We gave them the car’s number, but they refused to name the journalist in the complaint. We didn’t even know who he was at first. It feels like the police helped him escape by delaying. It affected me deeply. At first, it was unbearable. Now, I feel nothing. Everything’s numb. People come, ask questions, gather information, but no one truly helps. I have no expectations anymore, especially from the police. They suppressed everything. Some even accused us, saying we had political connections and were framing the journalist. The thief calling us liars! We lost our loved one, and we’re the ones filing a complaint?” Her anger peaks as she speaks, her frustration clear in every word. Recalling it chokes her up. She steadies herself and continues, “If I keep thinking about this, how willI run my home? I bury myself in work. Otherwise, I’d have collapsed completely. Evenings make me restless, especially between 8 and 9 p.m. Sundays feel unbearable now. I feel so alone. But I hold on for my daughter.”

Samreen now lives alone with her daughter in Dharashiv. Her mother helps care for the child, but Samreen expects nothing from anyone. “There’s no one to share your pain with. Sometimes, I wish it never happened, like waking from a bad dream to a normal day. Aamir was so good. He’d say, ‘Do what you want, I’m with you,’ and he proved it. Now, there’s only loneliness.”

Ayesha and Samreen, both in their thirties, were busy weaving dreams of family, children, a new life, and stability. They had little sense of the hatred and violence beyond their safe world. Even if such things existed, they felt far away. They lived in a space of harmony, believing no harm could touch them.

What to serve for dinner to men returning from work?

Vishalgad-Gajapur, in Kolhapur’s Shahuwadi taluka, is a cluster gram panchayat. It includes the fort’s village, Gajapur’s Muslimwadi, Vanipeth, Sainath Peth, Baudhwadi, Kembhurnewadi, Bhattali, and small hamlets stretching to Pavan Khindi. The road from Pandhrepani to Gajapur winds through dense forests, with the Kasari dam’s water on one side. The area is breezy year-round but remote, with poor phone connectivity. Naturally, job opportunities are scarce. The main sources of income are tourism and visitors to the local dargah. But violence causes more than just human loss—it devastates livelihoods. The tourism that sustained these remote hamlets has collapsed, and rumours about safety have spread. When the economic balance crumbles, the burden falls on women. Whether a man earns enough or not, feeding the family is a woman’s responsibility, and the stress of figuring out what to cook weighs heavily on them. Shaheen Mujawar explains, “There’s never been tension among locals in Vishalgad’s villages. Even now, communities support each other. But for the last two or three years, the atmosphere has been deliberately poisoned. There’s a court case about encroachments on Vishalgad, yet mobs from outside came and disrupted everything. Worst of all, jobs have vanished. Families have left these hamlets for work elsewhere, facing burdens from rent to household expenses. Children’s schools have been disrupted or changed. Income and expenses don’t align, making it hard for women to run households. People literally don’t have money for salt. If the gas runs out, they wonder who to turn to. Men face work stress, so women can’t tell them about grocery shortages. Every day, they wake up wondering what to cook. By evening, they hope their man comes home, but they dread him asking for food because they don’t know what to offer. Many of us aren’t used to working outside, and some families don’t allow it. If we’re not safe at home, how can we face harassment outside as Muslims?”

A fact-finding report by Salokha Sampark Gat, the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, and Women’s Struggle for Peace details the violence in Vishalgad and Gajapur on July 14, 2024. It describes the physical, mental, and economic toll, with chilling accounts from Muslimwadi’s women. That day, most men were away for work, leaving elderly people, women, and children behind. The report notes: “Women in Muslimwadi faced terror all day. A mob armed with knives and hammers stormed in. As they pounded on doors, women barricaded them with sofas, chairs, and beds to keep them out. To stop children from crying, women stuffed cloth in their mouths to keep them quiet. Attackers broke doors, entered homes, and smashed everything—TVs, fridges, mixers, beds, chairs, mattresses. They left nothing intact. Scooters and vehicles were smashed with stones and hammers. Six scooters outside one house were piled up and burned. Fifteen to twenty men invaded each home, breaking windows, tearing roofs, burning clothes. Kitchen supplies—grain, flour, food—were thrown out. The entire settlement was destroyed. Women watched their life’s work turn to dust in moments. Attackers asked women their names, insulting those with Muslim names. One woman gave a Hindu name, but when they demanded her Aadhaar card and she didn’t have it, she locked herself inside. They broke the door, entered, and beat her. Reshma Prabhulkar, who runs a small bangle and clothing shop next to her house, didn’t open her door. The mob broke into her shop, detonated her cooking gas cylinder, and set her home’s contents ablaze.” Even without deaths, such incidents push women into a shell, layering pressure on them—worrying about their men’s safety, then their own. Women who’ve fought for freedom retreat, prioritizing others over themselves. This can lead to clinging to religious norms or societal pressures, starting a cycle of isolation, suppression, and disconnection from society, harming their mental health.

Rehana Mursal from Shantisathi Mahila Sangharsh Manch (Women’s Struggle for Peace) shared a haunting observation: “Visiting homes in Gajapur and Vishalgad, I saw children clutching their mothers’ saree ends and stuffing them in their mouths. When I asked why, the women said that during the attack, as men were beaten outside, children hiding with their mothers understood what was happening. Terrified and trembling, they wanted to scream. To keep their hiding spots secret, mothers stuffed saree or scarf ends in their children’s mouths to silence them. The kids struggled to breathe, but the cloth stayed until the chaos subsided. Now, scared children do this themselves when strangers come, stuffing their mothers’ sarees in their mouths. What kind of present and future are we giving these kids? How do we erase this trauma?”

Talking to Ayesha, Samreen, and the women of Vishalgad-Gajapur, one thing stood out: Islamophobia and patriarchy leave Muslim women isolated. Ayesha and Samreen both lost their in-laws’ support—treated as irrelevant once their husbands died. Their Muslim identity made filing complaints difficult, and they were kept away from their cases. They’ve had to take on family responsibilities, including jobs, while raising children alone. Financial strain suffocates them. Women wearing hijabs or burqas face barriers in education and jobs. Such incidents create fear, stopping bold girls from stepping out. Muslim vendors face boycotts, crippling their businesses. Finding homes is tough, with Muslims facing discrimination. Workers endure unequal treatment. Amid these social injustices, mental health is side-lined. The fear, loneliness, and constant vigilance Muslim women face are deep scars of communalism, yet these emotional wounds are rarely discussed.

From Social Othering to Social Suffering

These incidents may seem rare, sparking debates about why discuss them. But in recent years, Muslims, especially men, have been systematically targeted. Hate speeches, calls to displace Muslims, cow vigilantism, and mob killings are rising, as shown in the 2024 India Hate Lab and Hate Crime Report: Mapping First Year of Modi’s Third Government. These reports highlight how anti-Muslim hatred is growing organised, political, and normalised. India Hate Lab recorded 1,165 hate speech incidents in 2024, with 1,050 targeting Muslims, occurring in political rallies, religious processions, and election campaigns. Of these, 266 involved BJP leaders. Terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “vote jihad” were joined by new ones like “mazar jihad,” “UPSC jihad,” “fertilizer jihad,” and “rail jihad,” spreading false narratives to fuel hatred. Uttar Pradesh saw the most incidents (242, up 132% from last year), followed by Maharashtra with 210 hate speech cases, a 78% rise from 118 in 2023. Of Maharashtra’s cases, 195 targeted Muslims, 14 targeted both Muslims and Christians, and one was anti-Christian. May’s Lok Sabha elections and November’s assembly elections saw peaks, with 32 incidents in May alone. Political leaders and Hindu nationalist groups used these periods to inflame religious sentiments. From August to November, 90 incidents were recorded.

The Hate Crime Report notes 947 hate crimes from June 2024 to June 2025, including 602 violent incidents. In 173 mob attacks, 25 Muslim men died. Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra were particularly sensitive. Maharashtra saw 101 hate speeches, with 178 by BJP-linked leaders, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, MPs, and others. Of 947 hate crimes, only 81 (13%) led to FIRs, and no political leaders faced action. These are just recorded cases—unreported ones are unknown. The data shows hate is being normalized, a worrying trend.

Mental health discussions for families affected by riots, violence, and hate speech often focus on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), noting symptoms like depression, insomnia, or lack of focus. But the broader societal impact is ignored. The “social othering” from religious divides and its mental toll are overlooked. Mental health can’t be separated from daily life’s small and big struggles. Bebaak Collective’s report, Social Suffering in a World without Support: Report on Mental Health of Indian Muslims, highlights this. Researcher and founder Hasina Khan says, “Studying religious and social hatred, we realized Indian Muslims’ mental health reflects political oppression and societal hate. Talking to victims of hate crimes and riots, we saw that discussing emotions, habits, and relationships reveals how communalism changes Muslim lives. Mental health studies can’t stop at PTSD or depression. Violence affects daily life, so we must understand its impact on future aspirations, financial security, and health. Muslim mental health isn’t just about communalism—it underscores everyday exclusion. Some faced physical effects: one family member had a heart attack, another victim’s mother lost her sanity. Women’s mobility is restricted, they grow isolated, neighbors drift away, friends from their own and other communities shrink back. Youth face future anxiety, leading to depression. Activists feel fear and despair, grappling with helplessness and stress. Constant vigilance in public spaces harms mental health, yet it’s rarely discussed.” Mental health expert Shamima Asgar adds, “Clinical mental health approaches are individual-focused, addressing personal pain and trauma but not the root causes of violence. Instead, the focus is on coping with its effects, implying the violence will persist, and you must adapt.” In short, addressing the problem requires tackling its roots, viewing Muslim mental health as social suffering.

Hasina’s point is key: religiously motivated violence and inflammatory speeches are politically driven, a tool of oppression. When such attacks come from institutions, who takes responsibility? The institutions themselves should, as Muslims are citizens under their care. Preventing injustices, mob deaths, and attacks is their duty, as is supporting victims afterward. Otherwise, how will affected families and women stand again? Trauma needs support. Women whose lives are upended by religious hatred need space to express their pain freely and a chance to move forward. Samreen sees her busy life as healing. Mental health taboos often stop women from seeking counselling or therapy, so it should be offered at a government level. Ayesha was encouraged by Satara’s rural police superintendent to try therapy. She says, “I had no idea about counselling or therapy. I thought I was strong. The way I handled things, spoke, and acted made me think I was fine. But therapy showed me I was bottling up my pain. I didn’t even know how much I’d suppressed. I had headaches, irritability, and despair. Sometimes, I felt nothing, like I was numb. The world talked about my tragedy, but I seemed strong on the outside. Therapy taught me I hadn’t moved past the shock. It helped me accept it slowly. Five or six months later, I cried openly for the first time. My heart felt lighter. I realized I needed to think about what’s next, how to live. The stress is temporary. What’s permanent? My daughter. She’s, my anchor.” Ayesha got help, but not from the government.

Improving mental health requires concrete steps at social, political, and legal levels. Rehana Mursal and Hasina Khan suggest permanent peace committees and administrative systems in every district to prevent violence and promote unity. Civil groups should monitor justice systems, support victims, and pressure authorities to act against perpetrators. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Minority Commission (NCM) should investigate alongside police to ensure justice. State governments should compensate victims of hate crimes. Local groups, women’s collectives, and organizations should offer emotional support and safe spaces. Counselling and trauma care should be available in Muslim-majority areas. Health workers need training to handle hate crime victims sensitively. Mental health experts should study the impact of class, caste, and religion on health, and mental health laws must be actively enforced.

Reflecting on Hasina’s words, we can’t ignore changes in emotions, behaviour, and relationships. How do we fix or undo them? When Samreen’s daughter asks when her father will return, what can she say? “We had our routine,” she said, hinting at the joy it brought. Yet, when she called her mother-in-law to stay with her, their avoidance hurt her. How do you compensate for the time needed to process this? Still, Samreen says, “I’ve accepted he’s not coming back. I live for my daughter.” Ayesha echoed this: “Even after marriage, I wasn’t very mature. I was a silly, carefree girl, always laughing, lost in dreams. Nurul let me be that way. Then this mountain of tragedy hit. It made me serious, wiped out my carefree nature. I struggled to accept that change, but now I have. My daughter matters most.” Should we call it good or bad that the daughters these mothers strive for are shielded from reality? Just then, Ashnoor grabbed Ayesha’s phone, pointing at her father’s photo, calling him “Abbu.” She recognizes him, but what will she think when she learns why he’s gone? Unknowingly, the system has made her part of this social suffering. What should she and other children like her do with this pain? In a society where religion overshadows humanity, it feels like we’re all casting shadows of hate. If we can, let’s pull our hands back.

Related:

CJP complains to Maharashtra DGP, Jalgaon SP over police role in Shiv Pratisthan rally amid Suleman Pathan lynching probe

Muslims, victims of targeted violence in Pusesavali, Satara: Fact-finding report

Pay compensation to Nurul Hasan Shikalgar’s family, order independent judicial inquiry: Satara Citizens to Maharashtra Govt

Why no action against hate monger, BJP leader, Vikram Pawaskar asks Bombay HC

Activists highlight decimated situation of Muslim houses, shops in Gajapur, Kolhapur post violence, deem authorities to be guilty of negligence

Violence, vandalism and arson in Kolhapur, Muslim houses and mosque targeted by mob that had gathered on the call of former RS MP Sambhaji Raje Chhatrapati

CJP flags 8 incidents of hate crime including lynchings to National Commission for Minorities

The post Silent Scars: How Muslim widows of hate crimes endure layered, unseen oppression appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision did more than meet Kaushik’s claims for compensation. It issued far-reaching institutional directions: the creation of a committee headed by retired Justice Asha Menon to propose a model Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) for transgender persons, and then, further ordered that the policy, following the guidelines, would be binding on all establishments, public and private, until the Union Government delivered its own. Through this action, the Court bridged the historic gap between recognition and implementation of equality, making it move from being an aspiration into an enforceable mechanism.

A Case that Became a Constitutional Reckoning

Unfortunately, Jane’s experience is not unique. After revealing her gender identity, she was forced to turn in her resignation after only eight days on the job at a school in Uttar Pradesh; a school in Gujarat later rescinded her job offer on similar grounds. She subsequently filed with the Supreme Court, under Article 32, arguing that these actions were violations of her constitutional rights and of the 2019 Act that prohibits discrimination “in any matter relating to employment.”

The court agreed. The Bench noted that discrimination on the part of private employers that is gender identity-based “strikes at the heart of the constitutional guarantee of dignity and equality” and explained that by not doing something about such exclusions by private entities state was making an “omissive discrimination.” The judges reminded the government, in the end, that the TG Act and its 2020 Rules were not too long ago, “brutally reduced to dead letters” by the government’s bureaucratic apathy.

While acknowledging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the 2020 Rules, the Court regretted that they “have been brutally rendered dead letters” (para 35, p. 29). It further criticized the “grossly indifferent approach to the transgender community,” noting that this inaction “cannot in any way be fairly regarded as inadvertent or accidental; it is deliberate and is undoubtedly rooted in societal stigma, compounded by a lack of bureaucratic will” (para 35, p. 29). This scathing indictment of bureaucratic failure was coupled with a clear finding that the petitioner’s termination constituted a violation of her dignity, livelihood, and equality.

In asserting both direct and indirect discrimination, the Court put the question of gender identity discrimination into a framework of systemic injustice, and not simply a personal grievance. The damages awarded to Kaushik were symbolic, but profound: declaring through the judiciary that dignity is not contingent on conformity.

The Constitutional Arc: From NALSA to Kaushik

The judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India is not disconnected from a trajectory of equality jurisprudence over the last decade or so. Its reasoning is founded upon three separate but constitutional landmark decisions — National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 438], Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2017) 10 SCC 1], and Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (Ministry of Law and Justice) [(2018) 10 SCC 1] — each of which represented a point in India’s constitutional journey from recognition to dignity.

In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA), the Supreme Court expressly recognized transgender individuals as “the third gender,” indicating that Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 recognize the right to equality and dignity for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity. The judgment stated, “Gender identity is inherent to the concept of personhood…one of the most fundamental elements of dignity, self-determination, and freedom.” The Court also mandated that the state governments recognize self-identification and take proactive measures relating to education and employment. The Kaushik Bench cited NALSA to reaffirm that, “Articles 15 and 16 must be read in a manner that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity” (para 30, p. 26), but importantly extended this reasoning into the employment context, stating that neither public nor private employers may deny employment based on gender identity.

Three years later, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, a nine-judge Bench recognized that the right to privacy under Article 21 includes bodily integrity, decisional autonomy, and the right to express one’s identity. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote that “privacy protects individual autonomy and recognizes the right to make vital personal choices.” Kaushik recognizes this principle and extends autonomy to the workplace, contending that the right to live with dignity includes the right to livelihood without stigma.

Finally, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Section 377 of the IPC was invalidated, decriminalizing relations between persons of the same sex, and holding that equality is grounded in constitutional morality rather than public morality. With NALSA, Puttaswamy, and Navtej all providing a philosophical basis for the holding in Kaushik, they enforce those rights in the workplace. From recognition of identity, to protection of autonomy, to the enforcement of economic dignity, Jane Kaushik marks an evolution in India’s constitutional journey to not only a right to exist but to a right to thrive.

Equality Beyond Formalism: The Court’s Expansive Interpretation

One particularly notable aspect of the Kaushik case is its recognition of substantive equality, an embodied notion of equality that requires not just that all people be treated the same, but that normative structural barriers are eliminated so that certain groups can realize their rights.

Citing Articles 14 through 16 of the Indian Constitution, the Court validated that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of discrimination based on sex. The Court also connected this idea to the right to a dignified life and to live under Article 21 of the Constitution by stating that refusing employment based on gender identity results in “economic and social death” to an individual. The judgment invoked something called constitutional morality and reminded employers, both public and private, that the obligation of equality is not discretionary; it is a part of being a democratic citizen.

This point is significant because, as observed by CJP in its report about transgender rights in 2023, a lot of the discrimination experienced by the transgender community is not a result of outright bad intentions but rather due to inertia and ignorance by the institutional structure. The Court’s reasoning captured that in its justification by holding that to omit, or not act, can itself be a form of discrimination.

By recognizing “omissive discrimination,” the Bench also expanded and layered the idea of state obligations. As the Bench explained, equality means positive obligations. The State must ensure that the rights of transgender persons are not merely enshrined in law, but that they are realized and effective.

Strengthening Employment Protection

The first sphere of impact of the judgment for the transgender community is with respect to employment security.  The Court found expressly that the protections available under the TG Act apply equally to public and private employment, which makes it unlawful for any establishment to deny employment, promotion, or continuance for reasons relating to gender identity.

This means that where previously, major alterations to workplaces across India were difficult to put in place properly (at a general level, but increasingly across specific employment compartments governed by individual laws, such as recognition also in respect of ‘male and female’), this is now a seismic shift in practice and the obligation on employers. Employers must now make reasonable accommodation, whether borrowing the term from disability rights jurisprudence or applying the principle from the Court in respect of substantive equality, on any decision or treatment, covering everything that applies to transgender persons: recruitment forms, uniforms, leave policy, goodwill policy, and grievance procedures, also all included.

Having also ordered a compensation award to Kaushik, the Court now presents a precedent in respect of damages in fear to workplace discrimination, making it clear that discrimination is not only a negative ethic but an illicit treatment too. As earlier argued in CJP’s “The Discordant Symphony”, the work for transgender rights in India is not only about legal recognition, but within the real act, one of accessing responsible means of livelihood. This judgment helps stitch the gap between legal and lived rights responsibly, moving now toward enforceable law work.

Mandating an Equal Opportunity Policy

Arguably, one of the most progressive components of the ruling is the instruction to draft a template Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP) for transgender persons. The Court observed that Rule 12 of the 2020 Rules already imposes an obligation on every establishment to implement an EOP, designate a complaint officer, and create an environment free of discrimination, but noted that few, if any, establishments had done so.

The newly constituted Justice Asha Menon Committee is to produce a uniform EOP to be used by all establishments. Until it is formally adopted by the Union Government, the Court ruled that the guidelines of the committee will have a binding effect.

This shifts the responsibility of inclusion from a moral goal to a legal duty. The Court effectively constitutionalizes workplace inclusivity as an obligation of employers. Employers, schools, corporations, etc., now have an ongoing obligation to have trans-inclusive policies, grievance policies, and sensitization regimes.

As CJP’s earlier analysis in “From Judgments to Handbook: India’s Transformative Journey towards LGBTQIA Equality” pointed out, systemic inclusion cannot be left to goodwill; it has to be planned design. The Supreme Court has now offered precisely that design.

Ripple Effects: Recruitment Norms and Affirmative Action

Jane Kaushik’s implications transcend a single case. For the public sector, the judgment reopens discussion around reservation and affirmative action for transgender persons. Only a handful of states, including Karnataka, which offered a 1 % horizontal reservation, and Odisha, which instructed departments last month to incorporate “transgender” as a category of gender separately on forms, have taken action on inclusive hiring policies.

By calling out inaction by the state, the Supreme Court has signalled that governments cannot sit idly. Departments will have to insist on representation, reasonable relaxations, and non-discriminatory criteria in recruiting and promoting.

The implications for the private sector are equally significant. Employment discrimination based on gender identity now not only carries reputational risk, but legal risk as well. The binding EOP means private institutions will now need to modify their recruiting advertisements, the recruiting application forms, and internal HR policies to ensure inclusion. Selection committees and the Board of Directors will require mandatory sensitivity training, and failure to comply could result in judicial assessment.

In that regard, the judgement extends the ethos of equality into India’s economic systems, making sure that the transformative promise of the Constitution governs behaviour not only by the State, but the marketplace as well.

Constitutional Morality Meets the Workplace

Through Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has issued one of its most important equality decisions since Navtej Johar. It extends the Constitution into dimensions of society where discrimination can often continue without intervention. It does this by asserting the need to implement a national Equal Opportunity Policy and assigning significant responsibility to the State to respond to “omissive discrimination”, therefore transforming equality from a right to a collective responsibility of every institution.

For India’s transgender citizens, this decision substantively transforms symbolic recognition into meaningful participation – from simply existing to being able to be employed, from invisibility to the possibility of inclusion. True progress is not identified merely in laws or decisions but in the security of dignity in everyday life.

The next test is whether this landmark ruling is remembered, not as a judicial victory but as when workplaces, all over India, began to embody the values of the Constitution itself.

The judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India can be read here:

The judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India can be read here:

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

Related

Reflecting on Transgender Rights in 2023: Have Legal Recognition and Advocacy Efforts Broken the Cycle of Discrimination and Ostracism?

The discordant symphony: where does the transgender community go from here?

From Judgments to Handbook: India’s Transformative Journey towards LGBTQIA+ Equality

Can pride be apolitical? Perspectives from queer and trans* community

Mapping Gender-Based Violence in India: Trends, determinants, and institutional frameworks

MAT highlights state’s duty under Transgender Act 2019 for Trans inclusion

The post Beyond mere Recognition: The Jane Kaushik judgment and the next frontier of transgender equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delivering judgment in Muhammad Shareef C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr., decided on October 30, 2025, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan declared that while Islamic personal law may permit a man to marry more than once, the law of the land and the Constitution must prevail when such a marriage is to be formally registered.

“A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, even though the Muslim Personal Law allow a second marriage to a man in certain situations. The 1st petitioner can marry again if his Personal Law permits him to do so. However, if the first petitioner wishes to register his second marriage with the second petitioner, the law of the land will prevail, and in such a situation, an opportunity of hearing for the first wife is necessary. In such situations, religion is secondary and constitutional rights are supreme. In other words, this is essentially the fundamental principle of natural justice. This Court cannot ignore the feelings, if any, of the first wife when her husband registers his second marriage in accordance with the law of the land. I am sure that 99.99% of Muslim women will be against their husband’s second marriage when their relationship with him is in existence. They may not disclose the same to society. However, their feelings cannot be ignored by a court, at least when their husbands attempt to register the second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008.” the Court held. (Para 10)

Background of the case

The first petitioner, Muhammad Shareef, a 44-year-old man from Kannur, was already in a subsisting marriage with two children when he claimed to have solemnised a second marriage in 2017 with Abida T.C., the second petitioner, as per Muslim custom. The couple, who have two children together, approached the Registrar to register their marriage under the 2008 Rules, asserting that it was essential to secure property and inheritance rights for the second wife and their children.

When the Registrar declined to register the marriage, the petitioners approached the High Court contending that Muslim personal law allows up to four wives and that, therefore, the registration authority had no right to refuse.

The legal questions before the court

Justice Kunhikrishnan framed two fundamental questions:

1. Whether notice to the first wife is necessary for registering a Muslim man’s second marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008; and
2. What remedy exists if the first wife objects to such registration on grounds of invalidity.

“Polygamy is an exception, not the rule” — The Qur’anic context

The judgment is remarkable not only for its constitutional vision but also for its interpretive depth in reading Islamic law through the lens of justice and equality. Referring to Jubairiya v. Saidalavi N. [2025 (6) KHC 224], Justice Kunhikrishnan extracted passages from the Qur’an to dispel the misconception that a Muslim man may marry multiple times at will.

Citing the verses, the Court underscored that justice, fairness, and transparency lie at the heart of Muslim marriage law — principles that align with constitutional values. Providing the same, the Court highlighted the facts of the case and held “

“In this case, admittedly, the 1st petitioner married another woman and in that relationship, he has two children. When the relationship with that woman was in existence, the first petitioner submitted to this Court that he fell in love with the second petitioner and married her. I don’t think that the Holy Qur’an or the Muslim Law permits an extramarital relationship with another lady when his first wife is alive and his first marriage with her is in existence, and that also, without the knowledge of his first wife. The principles derived from the Holy Qur’an and Hadith collectively enjoin principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in all marital dealings. However, the petitioner is relying on Muslim Personal Law to justify his marriage to the second petitioner.” (Para 6)

The Law of the Land: Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules

The Court examined Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, which obligates the Local Registrar to verify the details furnished in the memorandum of marriage, including previous marital status (Columns 3(f) and (g) of Form I). Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that this requirement gives the registrar clear knowledge of whether a spouse is already married — and therefore, whether due notice must be given to the first wife before proceeding with registration.

While citing Hussain v. State of Kerala [2025 (4) KHC 314], the Court clarified that the Registrar has no power to adjudicate on the validity of the marriage, but cannot ignore procedural fairness:

“…the Registrar is not vested with the power to decide the validity of the marriage. The question is, when a muslim man marries again, when his first wife is alive and the marital relationship with her is in existence, the second marriage can be registered as per the Rules 2008 behind the back of the first wife. The Holy Qur’an is silent about the consent of the first wife for the second marriage to a muslim man when the earlier marriage is in existence. However, it does not prohibit the option of obtaining consent from the first wife, or at least informing her before he marries again. Equality in gender is a constitutional right of every citizen. Men are not superior to women. Gender equality is not a women’s issue, but it is a human issue. As I mentioned earlier, the principles derived from the Holy Qur’an and Hadith collectively enjoin principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in all marital dealings. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, if a Muslim man wants to register his second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008, when his first marriage is in existence and the first wife is alive, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife for the registration.” (Para 10)

Justice Kunhikrishnan: “A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator”

In one of the most stirring portions of the judgment, Justice Kunhikrishnan emphasized that registration of a second marriage behind the back of the first wife would violate principles of natural justice and human dignity:

“A Muslim first wife cannot be a silent spectator to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, even though the Muslim Personal Law allow a second marriage to a man in certain situations.” (Para 10)

The Court observed that even though personal law permits polygamy, it is conditioned upon fairness and capacity — both moral and financial — to treat each wife equally. Ignoring the first wife’s perspective would amount to legalising injustice.

Gender equality as a constitutional mandate

Justice Kunhikrishnan firmly anchored his reasoning in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, holding that the procedural fairness demanded by the 2008 Rules flows directly from the constitutional right to equality:

“Equality in gender is a constitutional right of every citizen. Men are not superior to women. Gender equality is not a women’s issue, but it is a human issue.” (Para 10)

The judgment went beyond mere procedural compliance and addressed the emotional dimension of injustice suffered by first wives:

“I am sure that 99.99% of Muslim women will be against their husband’s second marriage when their relationship with him is in existence. They may not disclose the same to society. However, their feelings cannot be ignored by a court, at least when their husbands attempt to register the second marriage in accordance with the Rules 2008. Article 14 of the Constitution says that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” (Para 10)

This humane acknowledgment of emotional agency — rare in judicial discourse — underlines the Court’s empathetic understanding of women’s lived realities within personal law frameworks.

What Happens if the First Wife Objects?

The Court provided clear procedural guidance for registrars and litigants. If the first wife objects to the registration of a second marriage, the Registrar must not proceed with registration and must refer the matter to a competent civil court:

“If the first wife objects to the registration of the second marriage of her husband, alleging that the second marriage is invalid, the registrar shall not register the second marriage, and the parties should be referred to the competent court to establish the validity of the second marriage as per their religious customary law. As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing in the holy Qur’an which mandates a man to get permission from his first wife for his second marriage. However, Customary Law is not applicable when the question of registering a second marriage arises. I am not saying that the second marriage cannot be registered, but an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife by the statutory authorities, while a second marriage of a Muslim man is to be registered.” (Para 10)

Balancing Faith and Law: The Constitutional Synthesis

Perhaps the most profound aspect of Justice Kunhikrishnan’s judgment is the synthesis it achieves between faith and fundamental rights. While reaffirming that Islam does not mandate consent from the first wife for a second marriage, the Court held that when registration under a secular statute is sought, constitutional guarantees must take precedence:

“Customary Law is not applicable when the question of registering a second marriage arises. I am not saying that the second marriage cannot be registered, but an opportunity of hearing should be given to the first wife by the statutory authorities, while a second marriage of a Muslim man is to be registered. Muslim Personal Law states that a man can have more than one wife, provided that he has the capacity to maintain more than one wife and can give justice to his first wife. If the husband is neglecting the first wife or not maintaining the first wife, or inflicting cruelty on the first wife and thereafter contracting a second marriage, making use of his Personal Law, an opportunity of hearing to the first wife will be beneficial to her at least when the second marriage is registered in accordance with the Rules 2008. marriage registration officer can hear the first wife, and if she objects to her husband’s second marriage, stating that it is invalid, the parties can be referred to a competent civil court to establish the validity of the second marriage.” (Para 10)

Outcome and broader implications

The writ petition was dismissed as the first wife had not been made a party. Nonetheless, the Court issued a transformative directive:

“Let the Muslim women also get an opportunity of hearing when their husbands remarry, at least at the stage of registering the second marriage.” (Para 10)

The ruling thus extends procedural protection to Muslim women within a statutory framework that transcends personal law — ensuring that no woman is blindsided by a state-sanctioned act of erasure.

Why this judgment matters

1. Reasserts constitutional supremacy: Personal law cannot override statutory procedure or fundamental rights when interfacing with state authorities.
2. Advances gender justice: By recognizing the first wife’s right to be heard, the Court has extended procedural dignity to Muslim women.
3. Bridges faith and constitution: It integrates Islamic principles of justice and fairness with the Constitution’s egalitarian ethos.
4. Sets a model for inclusive procedure: The decision creates a precedent for harmonizing personal law practices with secular regulatory frameworks.

Conclusion

Justice Kunhikrishnan’s ruling is a landmark in both family law and constitutional jurisprudence. It acknowledges the validity of personal law while firmly situating all state-recognised acts within the boundaries of constitutional morality, equality, and natural justice.

In essence, the judgment transforms a narrow question of registration into a broader affirmation of women’s rights and human dignity. It is a model of judicial craftsmanship that blends empathy with principle — reaffirming that in India’s constitutional democracy, faith may guide conduct, but fairness must govern the law.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Shah Bano Begum (1916-1992): A Socio-Political Historical Timeline

Misogyny & Faith: Extreme narratives curtailing the autonomy of women

Shubha case: Reformative Justice meets Gendered Realities

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules Trans woman is a ‘woman’

A Question of Rights: Supreme Court backs teacher in maternity leave dispute

The post Kerala High Court: First wife must be heard before registering Muslim man’s second marriage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Note: Meanwhile, Shah Bano’s daughter has approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (November 4) claiming that the movie ‘Haq’ starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi affects the personality rights of her mother, depicts her image in a derogatory manner and must not be released. After hearing all the parties–including the producers and the Censor board, Justice Pranay Verma reserved his verdict in the matter.

In the 1970s, Shah Bano filed a suit for maintenance from her husband. As the court proceedings ensued, just to unburden himself from paying maintenance to his separated wife, Shah Bano, he (Mr Khan) divorced Shah Bano (reportedly inside the Court itself), and argued that un-Quranic Instant Triple Talaq (ITT) didn’t provide for maintenance. The litigation reached up to the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of Shah Bano, in April 1985. This created a huge furore. Muslims and the Urdu press initially welcomed it (according to Nawaz B Mody’s essay). By August 1985, the Muslim conservatives began to massively agitate asking for upturning it through legislation. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, was persuaded/misled to oblige the Muslim conservatives. Ever since then, the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute took a new, sharper turn, giving an excuse to Hindutva supremacists to influence wider Indian society and the polity.

Five years ago I wrote:

….In the 1980s, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)—guided forces among Muslims made their own contributions of fodder to rising majoritarianism. On January 15, 1986, in a session of the Momin Conference at the Siri Fort Auditorium in Delhi, the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi announced his intention to amend the law to nullify the Supreme Court’s April 1985 verdict in favour of Shah Bano. A bill was introduced in March and it became the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in May 1986. In January 1986, there were strident Muslim protests against the progressive verdict, which had granted Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, alimony after her divorce.

The approach of the conservative Muslims became pretty clear from the Urdu memoir, Karwan-e-Zindagi, published in 1988 by Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Miyan Nadvi (1914-1999). In Volume 3, Chapter 4, Page 134, Nadvi clearly narrates that it is he who had persuaded Gandhi not to accept the proposition that many Islamic countries have already reformed their personal laws. Nadvi’s narration is triumphant; he rejoices in the successful accomplishment of his effort to stymie a similar reform in India. He says his persuasion had a particular psychological impact on Gandhi and that his “arrow precisely hit the target— woh teer apney nishaaney par baitha”.

On page 157 comes Nadvi’s candid “confession”: “Our mobilisation for protecting the Shariat in 1986 resulted into complicating the issue of Babri Masjid and vitiated the atmosphere in a big way— is ne fiza mein ishte’aal wa izteraab paida karney mein bahut bara hissa liya,” he writes.

For further substantiation, one must read Nadvi’s memoir in Nicholas Nugent’s book,  Rajiv Gandhi: Son of a Dynasty, published by BBC Books, in 1990. On page 187 Nugent writes:

“…a decision had been taken by the Congress High Command in the early 1986 to ‘play the Hindu card’ in the same way that the Muslim Women’s bill had been an attempt to ‘play the Muslim card’… Ayodhya was supposed to be a package deal… a tit for tat for the Muslim women’s bill… Rajiv played a key role in carrying out the Hindu side of the package deal by such actions as arranging that picture of Hindus worshipping at the newly unlocked shrine be shown on television.”

The lock was opened within an hour of the judgment being delivered by the district court of Faizabad on 1 February 1986. As said earlier, the deal between the Prime Minister, the Muslim clergy and the Momin Conference’s Ziaur Rahman Ansari (who died in 1992) had already been struck in January 1986. There is a reference to this in his biography, Wings of Destiny, 2018, written by his son Fasihur Rahman. Yet, a nagging question remains: who wanted to open the locks, and why? After all, the elections were four long years away and so Gandhi did not have a direct electoral stake in the event…”

This biographical timeline of Shah Bano therefore attempts at capturing the journey of the India(n) republic veering around the issue of Muslim resistance to reforms in Personal (Gender) laws and surge in Hindu majoritarian influence. This timeline also provides a significant reading list, by many including some of the dramatis personae in this saga. Many of these facts pertaining to the issue remain largely unknown even to informed readers. They provide an informed reading.

1916:  Shah Bano Begum was born; [the year when Congress-Muslim League & Moderate-Extremist Pact took place at Lucknow].

1932: Shah Bano marries Indore-based advocate Md Ahmad Khan (1913-2006), her cousin. [The year Gandhi-Ambedkar Poona Pact happened].

1937 to 1939: The Shariat Application Act was enacted. Jinnah, the pork-eating non-practicing Muslim, was the pilot of the legislation. The roles of Maulana Azad, Maulana Madani, etc., in this legislative pursuit not known, so far. A daughter (of the Punjab’s Khizr & Sikandar Hayat Khan family) asks for inheritance in landed property, as per Shariat. [Tiwana-Jinnah] deny this right, invoking cunning arguments, such as, (i) Customary laws deny daughter’s share in land, and (ii) that land & agriculture was a state Subject whereas the Shariat Act was a Central law! Thus, Muslim women are made to suffer from the Shariat Act on two fronts: the marriage-divorce issue as well as the inheritance rights in parental assets.

1938 to 1947: Muslim League & Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha come together, ally, pushing India towards Partition, with the active support of the British colonial state.

1946: Mr Md. Ahmad Khan marries again (second marriage), with Halima Begum, a cousin of Shah Bano.

1946-1950: Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) on Article 44, Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Articles 25 to 28 and 37.

1947: Partition happens; millions are raped, displaced, looted, amputated, mutilated. Jinnah’s goal of consolidating Muslims politically through the enacted Shariat Act gets accomplished and manifests in Partition, leaving an unending legacy of bloodshed, communal hatred. India’s Muslims are rendered ever more vulnerable.

January 30, 1948: Gandhiji was assassinated by Hindu bigots affiliated with radical Hindu outfits. Just ten days before, they had failed in their attempt to assassinate Gandhi and one of them was arrested. Yet, for many hours after the killing, on January 30, 1948, an apprehension prevailed about the identity of the assassin until then Prime Minister Nehru and Home Minister Sardar Patel clarified the situation, declared the reality.

1951-1961: Nehru led govt reforms Hindu Personal Laws; expects the religious minorities to initiate reforms at their own, from within. (For details see, Reba Som’s essay, “Jawaharlal Nehru and the Hindu Code: A Victory of Symbol over Substance?”, in the Modern Asian Studies, 28, 1, Feb 1994).

1962: Pakistan reforms Muslim personal Laws; the reforms which elude India’s Muslims even in 2025.

1972-1973: The Indira-led govt amends the Cr P C 1898 to help deserted women & abandoned old parents, with maintenance, and for adoption of child. Muslims protest across India against the essentially Hindu law reforms by coming out on streets– April 1973 the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) at Hyderabad, spearheads these protests.

(Despite the fact that the custody of Zayd, the son adopted by the Prophet continued with him till Zayd was martyred; Zayd’s son, Osama, also continued to enjoy utmost affection of the Prophet. The Quran doesn’t prohibit “adoption” per se, it only prohibits erasure of biological paternity.)

1975:  Mr Md Ahmad Khan drove Shah Bano out of her home; she had three sons and two daughters and one Bahu (daughter-in-law) who was said to have been in support of Mr. Khan in driving Shah Bano out of her home. [The same year Emergency was imposed in the country].

April 1978: Shah Bano went to the trial court (Indore) asking for maintenance; the Court issued an interim order for payment of maintenance.

August 1979: the local magistrate directed Khan to pay a sum of Rs. 25 (US$2) per month maintenance to Shah Bano who alleged that her former husband earned a professional income of about Rs.60,000 annually (US$4,600).

November 1979: Mr Khan protested this in the court invoking personal law; the judge said even under the existing interpretation of and codified Muslim Personal Law, a separated wife does remain entitled for maintenance. On hearing this, right inside the court, before the judge, Mr Khan pronounced the un-Quranic instant triple divorce. Simply to avoid payment of maintenance, of a meagre allowance of amount Rs 179/- per month.

1979: The Supreme Court verdict (in the Tahira Bi vs Ali Hasan) for maintenance to the divorced Muslim woman.

1980: Shah Bano filed a revised application for increased maintenance, and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh raised the amount to Rs.179.20 per month (US$14).

1980: Supreme Court verdict for maintenance in the Fazlun Bi vs Qadir Wali case.

Feb 19, 1981: Meenakshipuram (Tamil Nadu) Dalits Converted to Islam, en masse, and the village was renamed Rahmatnagar. This created furore and communal strife. [For details see, Theodre P Wright Jr (October 1982), “The Movement to Convert Harijans to Islam in South India”, The Muslim World, 72, 3-4, pp. 239-245]

February 1983: Nellie (Assam) Massacre [See Myron Weiner (June 1983), “The Political Demography of Assam’s Anti-Immigrant Movement”, Population and Development Review, vol. 9, Issue 2]

8 April 1984: “VHP gave a clarion call for the removal of the Babri Masjid”. [A G Noorani, 2019, The RSS, p. 207].

September 25, 1984: Former BJP President, Lal Krishna Advani-led Rath Yatra began

October 31, 1984: The Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated; Rath Yatra suspended.

April 23, 1985: The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal (High Court also retained maintenance), endorsed the verdict (for maintenance of Rs 500/- per month) given by the Lower & High Court. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud’s observations were not confined to Quran alone; the verdict subjected (the patriarchic aspects of Hinduism as well as Islam) to criticism.

Last Friday of Ramzan (1985) observed as Yaum-e-Tahaffuz-e-Shariat.

August 1985: Signing of the Assam accord, widely considered to be a political concession made at the cost of the immigrant Muslims.

Aug 1985: Arif M Khan, Union Minister of State in Rajiv cabinet, spoke in Parliament welcoming the Supreme Court verdict.

October 23, 1985: Rath Yatra resumed from 25 places. Deadline of Shivratri (March 8, 1986). Before this, discussions on the possibility of the locks of the Babri Masjid sought to be opened, by former PM, Rajiv Gandhi were discussed, according to Neerja Chowdhury’s report in the Statesman.

Nov 15, 1985: Succumbing under mass protests before Shah Bano”s house in Indore, she was forced to affix her thumb impression to a statement saying she disavowed the Supreme Court verdict. [Ritu Sarin, “Shah Bano: The Struggle and the Surrender”, Sunday, 1-7 Dec 1985].

December 1985 to January 1986: Five lakh Muslims came out on the streets of Bombay, Calicut.

The Hindu Mahasabha retaliated by handing out the same treatment to the effigies of Maulana Ziaur Rahman Ansari (d. 1992), Union minister of state for environment, who leads the fundamentalist pressure group within the Congress (I).

In the first few weeks after the Shah Bano verdict, most Urdu press welcomed the verdict and expected that the Muslims will introspect and will launch reforms (Nawaz B Mody’s research essay, Asian Survey, 1987).

December 1985: Ziaur Rahman Ansari (MoS Environment, in Rajiv cabinet) spoke against the verdict in a three-hour long speech in Parliament. He used casteist slurs against the judges: something like this, “Kya ab teli tamboli bhi Sharaiat mein dakhal dengey!” (Indian Express, December 21, 1985).

Muslims protested against the Supreme Court verdict and the observations recorded in the verdict (misleadingly propagating that Islam alone was targeted by the Supreme Court). Asghar Ali Engineer’s columns in Bombay’s Urdu Blitz kept appreciating the verdict and kept talking of the reformism.

December 1985: Shah Bano met Rajiv Gandhi at his invitation, in which Gandhi persuaded Bano to refuse the maintenance telling her the situation was very critical.

Post-verdict, till January 1986: Ali Miyan Nadvi (+ Syed Shahabuddin+Ibrahim Sulaiman Sait) led AIMPLB “bargained” with the Prime Minister to legislate against the verdict. “In exchange”, locks of Babri Masjid to be opened, via the Faizabad Court; the opening to be telecast on Doordarshan.

This is “confessed” by Ali MiyaN (1914-1999) in his Urdu memoir, Kaarwaan-e-Zindagi (1988; vol.3, chapter 4, pages 134-137, 157); corroborated by Nicholas Nugent’s biography (1990, p. 187) of Rajiv Gandhi. Neerja Chowdhury (Statesman, 20 April and 1 May 1986), “There is evidence of a connection between the opening of the doors of the disputed ram Janmabhoom in Ayodhya and introduction of the Muslim [Women] Bill in Parliament…”

Ali Miyan Nadvi had also promised the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that the Muslim clergy would make “some arrangement” for maintenance of divorced Muslim women out of the Waqf assets. This promise remains forgotten.

August 1985 to January 1986: Rallies and Protests in Bombay, Calicut, Indore, Assam, Patna, Lucknow, etc. against the Verdict— “Shariat Bachao!” Different responses of the Muslim civil society, academics, and politicians. Over 500 teachers of AMU and a good number of teachers in JMI (barring a few dozen teachers of Left-Liberal leanings) side with the Muslim conservatives and reactionaries.

19 December 1985: Vir Bahadur Singh, the Congress CM of UP visited Ayodhya’s Ramayan Mela organised by the government agencies.

January 1986: The deal to legislate against the Supreme Court Verdict was finalized/endorsed by Ziaur Rahman Ansari (& Momin Conference?), with the PM, Rajiv Gandhi. See the biography (2018) of Ansari, Wings of Destiny.

January 25, 1986: Umesh Chandra Pandey, a 28 years old local lawyer filed an application in the Munsif Court, Faizabad, seeking removal of restrictions on the puja at the disputed Babri Masjid site. The Munsif declined as the files were in the High Court since 1961.

January 31, 1985: Appeal was filed in the Babri Masjid dispute court of the District Judge, Faizabad;

February 1, 1986: The case was heard. Md Hashim’s application was rejected who was already a plaintiff. The District Judge (K M Pandey) heard the District Magistrate and the SSP Faizabad on the law-and-order situation.

February 1, 1986: Faizabad Court orders (at 4.40 pm) opening; within less than 40 minutes of the verdict, unlocking done (at 5.19 pm) & televised, “as per the deal between the AIMPLB & PM” (see Urdu memoir of Ali Miyan Nadvi, Kaarwaan e Zindagi, vol.3, chapter 4, p. 134, 135, 157; also read, Nicholas Nugent’s biography of Rajiv Gandhi, 1990, p. 187). 

Ali Miyan’s offer and the promise to the PM to institute a measure for looking after the abandoned, helpless women through Waqf or any other way, was a part of the deal which everybody including Ali Miyan chose to forget. The Qaum (community) never asked him about this, even after he wrote about the promise and deal in his Urdu memoir, Kaarwaan-e-Zindagi (1988, vol. 3, chapter 4). 

“There was a prior understanding between Indira Gandhi and later Rajiv Gandhi and VHP on the opening of the locks”, writes Noorani (The RSS, 2019, p. 207) citing Neerja’s two reports in the Statesman.

February 19, 1986: Bill tabled to nullify the Supreme Court verdict.

March 8, 1986: Shivratri, Deadline of the VHP’s Rath Yatra to open the locks.

March 29-April 4, 1986: The Eve’s Weekly quoted Arif Md Khan’s resignation who also said, within law, “Indian Muslim women will be the only women to be denied maintenance anywhere in the world”.

April 1986 (Muslim India monthly): “AMU Teachers Support the Bill”; “As for AMU, the few dozens of teachers who signed the petition against the Muslim Women’s Bill paled in comparison to the more than 500 teachers (including sixty-three women) who signed a memorandum to express their ‘whole-hearted suport’ for the Bill”, and stated that the Muslims were hurt by the Supreme Court judgement [Laurence Gautier, 2024, p. 379].

May 1986: Parliament legislated law on Muslim Women, against the Supreme Court Verdict.

1986: Shah Bano pressurised to refuse to take the maintenance.

1986: Ram Shila (Bricks) Pujan Rath Yatra.

1989: Kar Seva in Ayodhya and the police firings on them.

1990: Mandal Report Implemented followed by caste riots and Advani’s W(r)ath Yatra.

1991: Narasimha Rao led govt brings in neo-liberalisation

1992: Shah Bano Begum dies; hardly any obituary was published by the press.

Sunday, December 6, 1992: Babri Masjid demolished, followed by massive pogroms across the country, and then a bomb blast in Bombay on Friday 12 March 1993.

April 1994: Allahabad High Court declared Instant Triple Talaq (ITT) illegal.

BJP kept rising, expanding and consolidating to emerge soon as the dominant and hegemonic political power, transforming the society, polity, administration and every other institution.

2001: Supreme Court verdict in Daniel Latifi case (after a few months of Latifi’s death) clarifying/reiterating that the law legislated in 1986 does provide for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of India.

Feb 2002: Gujarat pogrom.

2006: Md Ahmed Khan died in Indore at the age of 93.

May 2014: NaMo Era comes and stays.

August 22, 2017: Supreme Court verdict (in the case of Shayera Bano of Allahabad) declared the ITT (Instant Triple Talaq) unconstitutional. The AIMPLB was respondent no. 7 in this case. It had submitted its affidavit that Court shouldn’t intervene; Parliament should. Yet, even after the verdict, the AIMPLB didn’t submit its draft proposal/bill, of reforms, in the Muslim Personal Laws.

February, 10-11, 2018: While going for its 26th plenary at Hyderabad in early February 2018, the AIMPLB announced that the session would prepare a model nikahnama, but reneged on it.

August 1, 2019: The Parliament criminalised ITT (Instant Triple Talaq). Maintenance to the divorced/abandoned women remains ignored as ever.

Feb 2024: Uttarakhand legislates for UCC; AIMPLB & Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) contemplate challenging the legislation in the court of law, without reforming the Muslim Personal Laws.

July 10, 2024: Supreme Court upholds Telangana High Court verdict for maintenance of Rs 10 000 per month to a divorced woman.

July 14, 2024: AIMPLB resolves to find ways of protesting against the verdict.

Further Readings

• Asghar Ali Engineer (1987), The Shah Bano Controversy.
• Zoya Hasan (January 7, 1989), “Minority Identity, Muslim Women Bill Campaign and the Political Process”, Economic and Political Weekly, 24, Issue 1.
• Ziya Us Salam (2018), Till Talaq Do Us Part
• Shekhar Gupta, Inderjit Badhwar, Farzand Ahmed (January 31, 1986), “Shah Bano judgment renders Muslims a troubled community, torn by an internal rift”, India Today.
• “Secularism on the Bend”, Frontline (English Fortnightly, Madras/Chennai), 11-24 January 1986.

Disclaimer: The author is unaware of the content of the biopic, Haq scheduled to be released on Friday, November 7.

Prepared by Mohammad Sajjad, Professor, Modern & Contemporary Indian History, AMU, Aligarh.

[Biography of Shah Bano: Biography of the Indian Nation-State]. Updated on 27 Sept 2024

Hindi Rendering published in Baya, Oct 2024 to March 2025

Related:

Shah Bano Lives

How the Ulema are Perpetuating Male Hegemony in the Name of Islam

The post Shah Bano Begum (1916-1992): A Socio-Political Historical Timeline appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The idea of IFWD emerged from the India Fisher Women Assembly 2024, a historic gathering that declared November 5 as the day to honour the invisible hands that feed nations and protect the oceans. The call was later taken to the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) General Assembly in Brazil, where it was unanimously adopted. It now stands as a global symbol of recognition — and rebellion.

As fisherwomen say, this day is not about being seen, but about reclaiming what was always theirs.

Anchored in a long tide of struggles

In the long history of people’s struggles, women have always been the conscience of resistance. From the factory floors of early Europe to the beaches of the Indian coast, women have stitched together the labour of survival and the ethics of care. Rosa Luxemburg’s words — “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains” — echo in the voices of fisherwomen today, who refuse to stay still while their waters are fenced, their lives erased, and their rights sold in the name of development.

International Women’s Day, born of the labour and socialist movements of Clara Zetkin and Luxemburg, demanded political equality and an end to exploitation. November 5 extends that lineage from the land to the sea. It reminds us that liberation cannot be confined to borders or industries — that the politics of the ocean, too, must carry the red thread of equality, community, and justice.

As Zetkin had said, “The working women’s question is not an isolated question, but part of the great social question.” The fisherwomen of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have kept that question alive — turning it into a sea of solidarity that stretches from Kanyakumari to Dakar.

Why November 5 matters — and why it began in India

Fisherwomen have always held the coastline together. They wake before dawn to carry fish to market, manage homes through storms and loss, and are the first to rebuild after every cyclone. Yet, their names do not appear in government records. They are still called ‘helpers’ or ‘dependents’, while laws, schemes, and cooperatives continue to be written in the masculine lens.

This erasure, the women declared in Kerala, must end. They demanded recognition not as “wives of fishers,” but as fishers themselves — rightful claimants of the seas, keepers of knowledge, and protectors of coasts.

In doing so, they carried forward the dreams of pioneers such as Thomas Kocherry and Harekrishna Debnath, who had long insisted that the future of fisheries lies not in mechanisation or export figures, but in justice, community control, and the dignity of work. Both leaders believed that the rights of fisherwomen were the moral compass of the movement. Kocherry often said, “When the poor stand up, even the sea must make way.”

The declaration of November 5 thus became a collective act of remembering — of drawing strength from those who built India’s post-colonial fishworker movement and from the women who sustained it quietly all along. This was endorsed by the largest social movement of fishers across the globe, the Word Forum of Fisher Peoples at the General Assembly held in Brazil in the same month of November 2025.

The women of waters and their demands

The call for an International Fisher Women’s Day is inseparable from its politics. Across India’s recently declared more than 11,000-kilometre coastline and its countless rivers and lakes, women are demanding what should never have been denied:

• Recognition as fishers in law and policy, not as dependents.
• Equal rights to access and govern coastal and inland waters, free from corporate intrusion.
• Inclusion in welfare, insurance, and disaster-compensation schemes.
• First-sale and market rights to secure fair prices and independence from exploitative middlemen.
• Representation in fisheries boards and cooperatives.
• Protection of ecosystems from destructive aquaculture, deep-sea mining, and coastal militarisation.
• Legal safeguards from caste and gender-based violence — both within the community and from the state.

These are not demands for special treatment; they are demands for survival, carved from decades of unpaid and unacknowledged work that sustains both the fishing economy and the national food basket.

The ocean remembers

In the last decade, government programmes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) and new policies under the banner of Blue Economy 2.0 have promised prosperity. But for most coastal and inland fishing communities, these schemes have delivered displacement instead.

Behind the numbers and glossy reports lie harbours privatised, commons enclosed, and women’s livelihoods erased. As industrial trawlers deplete fish stocks and aquaculture pollutes backwaters, fisherwomen are left struggling for survival in a development model that excludes them.

The state’s vision of ‘modernisation’ has turned the sea into a commodity. But fisherwomen, who live by its moods and rhythms, remind us that the ocean is not a market to be managed — it is a living commons that sustains cultures, livelihoods, and spiritual traditions.

Ocean feminism and the new tide

From the lagoons of Chilika to the estuaries of Karaikal and the islands of the Sundarbans, women’s collectives are practising what they call ocean feminism — rooted in care, community, and resistance. They see themselves not as victims but as custodians of ‘aqua territories’ — spaces of relationship, knowledge, and survival.

As Harekrishna Debnath, one of India’s earliest fisher leaders, often said, “We don’t fight the sea; we live with it. But we must fight those who sell it.” Today, that fight is global. It connects fisherwomen in India to their sisters in Senegal, Thailand, and Brazil — all confronting the false climate solutions packaged as Blue Transformation, 30×30, and Marine Spatial Planning, which in practice privatise the oceans and displace small-scale fishers.

Through the five-week campaign initiated by WFFP — from November 5 to December 10 — women and men of the fishing world are asserting their right to live with dignity, protect their territories, and resist enclosure in every form.

From recognition to transformation

This International Fisher Women’s Day is not a commemoration; it is a beginning. It reminds us that the ocean too has a memory — of those who built communities along its edge, who fed others before themselves, and who continue to hold the fragile balance between humanity and water.

As Rosa Luxemburg warned, “Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently.” Across India’s coasts and rivers, fisherwomen are thinking — and acting — differently: against caste, patriarchy, and neoliberal enclosures; for rights, justice, and community life.

Their struggle is our collective future. When the tide rises, may it rise with their names on its waves.

Jesu Rethinam is the Global Women Coordinator of the World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP).

Vijayan MJ is Director, Participatory Action Research Coalition, India (PARCI).

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Every Wave Has a Memory: Women, Waters and the Promise of November 5 appeared first on SabrangIndia.