In the letter, Rahul Gandhi said that tribal students across the state had been protesting for more than ten days. “Many Adivasi students come from remote villages and depend on government hostels to study in the cities. A new rule bars anyone over 30 from these hostels, excluding many who are still completing their studies or preparing for exams,” he stated. He added that hostels for these students are unsafe as they reportedly lack food, sanitation and medical care. Incidents of snakebites have also been reported. “I was shocked to learn that female students returning after an extended absence must undergo pregnancy tests and a range of other medical tests, to prove their ‘fitness’. It is a humiliation that presumes them guilty until they prove otherwise. This rule is an attack on their dignity and their humanity,” he said.

Adivasi students across Maharashtra started their protest after the BJP-led state government introduced a government resolution (GR) on Aug 4, which fixed the age limit for staying in hostels at 26. However, after the decision sparked protests, the GR was revised on August 14 and the age limit was increased to 30. The students, however, are demanding complete withdrawal of the GR, besides seeking better facilities at hostels run by the Tribal Development Department across the state. They are also demanding immediate recruitment of aspirants from tribal community for 12,500 vacant posts which they claim have been stuck for a long time.

In his letter to Mr. Fadnavis, Mr. Gandhi followed up on interactions with students in Pune during the Chhatron ki Gunj (echoes of students) programme last Saturday. He said students from across Maharashtra had told him about hostel rules that “strip them of their dignity and shut off their path to education”.

Mr. Gandhi expressed particular concern over facilities for women, saying female students returning after an extended absence were required to undergo pregnancy tests and other medical examinations to establish their “fitness”. “It is a humiliation that presumes them guilty until they prove otherwise,” he said, describing the requirement as an “attack on their dignity and their humanity”. Mr. Gandhi also flagged a rule barring those above 30 from hostel accommodation, saying it excluded many students still completing their studies or preparing for examinations.

He also alleged that hostels were unsafe and often lacked food, sanitation and medical care, with students suffering injuries and deaths, including from snake bites.

“These students are not asking for charity. They are demanding what is theirs by right,” Mr. Gandhi said, urging Mr. Fadnavis to hear the students’ concerns and resolve them immediately.

Earlier in the day, the party had sought a special committee to probe the deaths of tribal children allegedly due to malnutrition in Madhya Pradesh and of tribal girls following snakebite in Maharashtra and demanded action against officials found responsible.

Adivasi Congress chief Vikrant Bhuria also called for a safety audit of tribal hostels, citing alleged lapses in facilities in the two States. Addressing a press conference here, Mr. Bhuria claimed that 22 children from the Baiga tribal community had died of malnutrition and related diseases in the Balaghat district of Madhya Pradesh. He alleged that a nutritional meal delivered to households had been discontinued for six months and that the nearest primary health centre was 20 km away. Vaccination coverage in the area was also below 80%, he claimed. “I had asked in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly how much budget was allocated for preventing malnutrition in the State’s tribal blocks and projects from 2020 to 2025, and how much of it was spent. The response was extremely concerning. The government said malnourished children are given a nutritional meal worth only ₹12 per day,” he said.

On Maharashtra, Bhuria alleged that more than 70 girls at a tribal hostel in Gadchiroli were made to sleep on the floor in a single room. Six girls were hospitalised following a snakebite incident, of whom three died, he claimed.

Mr. Bhuria said students protesting in Nashik were continuing their hunger strike, demanding better facilities at tribal hostels. He sought a probe into the Balaghat deaths and action against officials found responsible.

Related:

Bihar: Not just Delhi, Patna, Siwan too saw brute police violence against demonstrating students: PUCL

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The post Forced pregnancy tests for Adivasi women students in Maharashtra’s hostels, Rahul Gandhi registers strong protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to her husband, Jumman Fakir, the family soon received a call from the Mumbai Police’s Chembur Crime Branch. Sahida had been detained on suspicion of being an “illegal immigrant”. Within days, the family was told that she had been sent to Bangladesh. Her husband says he had repeatedly approached the authorities with documents establishing her identity and roots in West Bengal, but they were allegedly disregarded. Sahida eventually called her family from Satkhira, Bangladesh.

The story, first reported in detail by Scroll on August 11, is disturbing not merely because of what allegedly happened to one woman, but because of the larger question it raises: what happens when the State begins treating Bengali identity as evidence of foreignness?

The Indian Express separately reported that Sahida was detained on July 18 and that sources said she was taken to Assam before being pushed across the border along with others. The report also provided that her family was preparing to approach the Calcutta High Court and that a migrant workers’ forum had written to the Ministry of External Affairs seeking intervention.

The facts, as reported, demand something more than administrative clarification. They demand scrutiny of the entire architecture through which a person can apparently move from being a resident of India to being labelled an “infiltrator”, detained and ultimately expelled from the country without a meaningful opportunity to contest that determination.

A woman disappears, and the State’s explanation is suspicion

Sahida’s case is particularly troubling because her family says it did not merely possess one disputed identity document. They produced a birth certificate recording her birth in Swarupdaha village in West Bengal in 1988. They produced a school certificate, a voter identity card issued in 2008, documents relating to land in Gobindapur, and records concerning her family. Her parents’ names, according to Scroll, also appeared in the 2002 electoral rolls.

None of these documents, individually, should be treated as an automatic and conclusive certificate of citizenship. That distinction matters. A voter ID, Aadhaar or land document cannot, by itself, settle every question concerning citizenship. But that is precisely why the State’s obligation becomes more important, not less.  If citizenship is disputed, the answer cannot simply be deportation. The dispute must first be investigated.

Sahida’s husband told Scroll that police asked for the birth certificates of her parents even after he had produced her own birth certificate and other documents. He said the family could not provide such certificates because they were from a generation in which birth registration was not common. That raises an obvious question: how much documentation must a poor citizen produce before the State believes that she belongs to the country in which she was born and has lived?

For months, instances of forced deportations and illegal pushbacks have surfaced from Assam, West Bengal, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Delhi of individuals “suspected” of being Bangladeshi nationals. In many of these cases, the family of those deported have approached the courts alleging that the removals were carried out without any disclosed nationality verification, without travel documents, and without Bangladesh formally acknowledging or accepting the individuals concerned.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here and here.

The most dangerous word in this story is “suspected”

There is a profound legal difference between suspecting that someone may be a foreign national and establishing that they are one. The first is an investigative starting point. The second is a legal conclusion. Sahida’s case, as reported, appears to collapse the two. Scroll reported that the family was not given documents relating to her arrest or detention and that the Mumbai and Navi Mumbai police did not respond to questions seeking clarification about the grounds for her detention.

When the State takes away a person’s liberty, the burden of public accountability does not disappear merely because the allegation involves “illegal immigration”. If anything, the stakes are higher because the consequence may ultimately be removal from the country itself. The Constitution does not create a zone of executive immunity around immigration enforcement.

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 14 demands non-arbitrariness and equality before the law. Article 22 contains safeguards concerning arrest and detention. These constitutional protections cannot become conditional upon whether the person is socially respectable, economically secure or perceived to “look Indian”. And the constitutional question becomes particularly serious when a person is allegedly identified not through a properly adjudicated finding but through a combination of suspicion and social profiling.

The border cannot become a substitute for a hearing

Sahida’s husband told Scroll that she was detained because she was Bengali. In Maharashtra, the crackdown has become increasingly expansive. Hindustan Times reported in March that the state government told the Legislative Council that more than 2,000 alleged illegal Bangladeshi nationals had been deported in 2025, compared with 202 in 2024, and that the state planned intensive “combing operations” in slums, construction sites and other areas. There is nothing inherently unlawful about a State identifying and removing foreign nationals who are illegally present. Immigration control is a legitimate governmental function. The danger begins when the hunt for foreigners becomes a hunt for people who appear foreign.

The physical act of pushing someone across an international border has consequences that are fundamentally different from ordinary detention. Once a person is in Bangladesh, an Indian court’s ability to protect her becomes substantially more complicated. Access to lawyers, family members and documents becomes difficult. The very act of deportation can therefore create a second legal problem out of the first. This is exactly what makes Sahida’s account so alarming. According to the Indian Express, she said she was taken to the Assam border and pushed into Bangladesh at around 1 a.m. She reportedly walked for hours through muddy fields before local residents helped her and a family in Satkhira provided her shelter.

A precedent already exists for bringing people back

The danger of mistaken deportation is no longer theoretical. In 2025, several Bengali-speaking residents working outside West Bengal were detained and sent across the Bangladesh border amid claims that they were Bangladeshi nationals. One of the most consequential cases involved Sunali Khatun, her husband and their son. The Calcutta High Court’s September 2025 judgment in Bhodu Sekh v. Union of India is particularly relevant. The court examined the deportation of Sunali Khatun, Danish and their son Sabir. The authorities had argued that the family had failed to establish Indian citizenship. But the court also considered the procedure prescribed by the Union’s May 2, 2025 memorandum for persons suspected of being Bangladeshi or Myanmar nationals who claimed Indian citizenship in another State.

The memorandum contemplated verification by the State or district from which the person claimed to originate. Where a person claimed Indian citizenship and residence in another State, the concerned authorities were required to seek verification from that State and district administration. The judgment records that such verification was to be undertaken within a specified period, during which the person could be kept in a holding centre.

The Calcutta High Court ultimately held that the procedure had not been followed and described the authorities’ action as being undertaken in “hot haste”. It set aside the detention and deportation orders concerning Sunali, Danish and Sabir and directed the authorities to take steps to bring them back to India. In May 2026, the Union told the Supreme Court that it would bring back people deported to Bangladesh and verify their citizenship claims. All those six deported in this case are now back in India.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Notably, a separate affidavit was filed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on July 31, 2026 in Rajubala Das v. Union of India pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated March 21, 2025. The affidavit sought to explain the legal and administrative framework governing deportation where the nationality of a declared foreigner remains unknown or unverified. In doing so, the Union makes one of its clearest judicial admissions to date: deportation cannot even be initiated unless the individual’s nationality has first been verified by the receiving State, appropriate travel documents have been obtained, and the receiving country has agreed to accept the individual.

The affidavit fundamentally distinguishes between being declared a foreigner and being legally deportable. While a declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal may settle a person’s legal status within India, it does not, the Union now accepts, authorise the State to physically remove that individual from Indian territory. Deportation remains contingent upon a separate process involving diplomatic engagement, nationality verification, issuance of travel documents and, most importantly, the consent of another sovereign State. In other words, the executive cannot unilaterally deport a person merely because Indian authorities believe them to be a foreign national.

Detailed report may be read here.

The SIR connection makes the situation even more sensitive

Sahida’s case also comes amid intense scrutiny of electoral citizenship verification in West Bengal. According to Scroll, Sahida’s parents appeared on the 2002 electoral roll, while Sahida herself was marked “under adjudication” in the recent Special Intensive Revision process, with an appeal pending before the relevant tribunal. The fact that an electoral-roll dispute exists cannot itself establish whether Sahida is or is not an Indian citizen. But it does reinforce why administrative processes must remain separate and carefully bounded. Being excluded from an electoral roll is not the same thing as being declared a foreign national.

Indeed, in August 2025, the Supreme Court sought clarity from the Centre on the standard operating procedure governing deportation drives and specifically raised concerns about allegations that Bengali-speaking minorities were being singled out. The Court observed that while persons attempting to illegally cross into India could be dealt with at the border, once a person was already inside the country, the law prescribed a procedure.

Over the past few months, multiple petitions before the Supreme Court and High Courts have alleged that persons suspected of being Bangladeshi nationals were taken across the international border without any publicly disclosed deportation process. In several cases, families have alleged that individuals were picked up without prior notice, denied access to lawyers or relatives, and removed without any disclosed deportation order or travel documents.

Detailed report may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

‘Deportation Cannot Begin without Nationality Verification’: Union’s Rajubala affidavit clarifies legal limits on executive power

Aadhaar, Voter ID and PAN Cannot Prove Citizenship: Calcutta High Court’s Foreigners Order and the burden of belonging

They Belong Here: An elderly couple’s victory for citizenship

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

When a narrow reading of documents decide citizenship: GHC in Aminul Hoque

‘Fairness & reason ‘: SC rules that due process is a must for citizenship determination

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

The post When Suspicion Becomes Deportation: The case of Sahida Fakir and the dangerous criminalisation of Bengali identity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When India’s speaks of women’s rights, it often collapses all women into a single box. In the meanwhile, it ignores the distinct and compounded forms of suppression endured by lower-caste women. The tragedy is – Dalit women are invisible not because they are women but because they sit at the intersection of caste, gender and poverty.

The Nation’s selective outrage and Yashika Dutt 

Lower-caste women are raped in what appears to be more of an organised and systemic way. Dalit women are raped whenever they or the men of their community are seen as transgressing the caste hierarchy as evidenced by the Khairlanji rapes and murders in 2006 and the prevalent devadasi/jogini practices (temple prostitution).

Dalit women experience caste violence aimed at controlling and monitoring their sexuality as their bodies are symbols of honour and caste authority and their exploitation has been justified by their lower social status. Dutt has noted – “every time a Dalit woman is assaulted, abused, raped or murdered, her caste matters. Even if she was not raped simply because she is Dalit, the conditions that lead to her assault are almost always affected by her status as lower-caste woman in an upper-caste male-dominated society”.

Unfortunately, this is palpable in the context of public outrage – rapes, and murders of Dalit women rarely make headlines. This closely resonates with the mainstream media’s conspicuous apathy in covering the struggle for the most basic human rights in Manipur. The refusal of institutions to recognise the dehumanizing ordeal of Dalit women compounds psychological harm. Coverage of caste-based sexual violence is often episodic, with sustained public attention reserved for only a handful of extreme cases – the Hathras case of 2020 being one of them – where a 19-year old Dalit girl was gang raped and murdered in Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras district.

The erasure of caste trauma from public discourse compels survivors to internally bear harms that are rooted in structural discrimination and require collective reckoning.  The accounts and experiences of the Dalit women get obscured within the folds of the dominant narratives.

The Protectors Are Perpetrators

The Constitution guarantees equality, dignity and protection against caste discrimination. Yet Dalit women continue to experience sexual violence not merely because of social prejudices (to which the Indian female population is generally subjected to) but because the very foundational institution of the criminal justice system systematically fails them. As very little information or government data concerning the particular situation of Dalit women in India is available, I will rely on the commendable ground work done by the People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI) and the Swabhiman Society.

Many incidents of sexual violence and rape against Dalit women that should be registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not recorded as such by the Police. This has been attributed to political pressure seeking to project a decline in caste-based atrocities in order to exhibit their purported commitment to the appeasement rhetoric of cracking down on caste-based atrocities.  Survivors of sexual violence, Dalit women and girls are silenced through threats by dominant castes. The constitutionally invalid Khap Panchayats often have an upper hand in refraining the victim families to report such instances.

The most precarious fact about violence against lower caste women is the complicity of the administration. The police, a part of the state machinery, has been reported to decline the registration of complaints. Charges are not filed because the case is designated as false by the police. The authorities often belonging to the dominant upper caste shout caste-based slurs and sexist remarks. They take money from the financially influential accused persons and direct the evidence in their favour.  In the Hathras Rape case in 2020, the girl’s brother testified that no arrest was made by the police even after 10 days of the incident was reported. A 15-year-old Dalit girl who was gang raped by security personnel in Odisha was incessantly threatened, harassed and lured by the police to say that she had not been raped by security personnel but by other local persons. When she refused to put up with the falsehood, her medical examination was re-done to obliterate any evidence of rape. Three months later, she committed suicide and, that she was raped, was written in the suicide note.  The sanction and continuation of these forms of sexual violence come from the powerful kinship networks, beginning with the families of dominant caste groups. These networks extend to the local governance, as well as the police and legal systems.

The regressive and ignominious two-finger test that has been ruled out by the Supreme Court of India is still used for the medico-legal examination of the Dalit victims. Survivors are often not provided with a copy of the medical examination report, or the families of the dead (in cases of murder) are not provided with the post-mortem reports. These are tampered with by the state authorities to show lack of evidence.

The incitement to declare oneself the subject of violation is the first step in seeking recognition and redress. This requires strategic enactment of a perception about law- one must act as if legal structures are capable of delivering justice once the harm is presented in familiar legal vocabulary. Thus, the police being the first rung of the criminal justice system, it remains to be seen how can laws instil faith in the Dalit women that the justice system is alive and will come to their rescue.

Women, Dalit women, Rege[1] and Bama[2] 

The author’s assertion that addressing women does not mechanically translate into engaging with Dalit women is aptly substantiated by Sharmila Rege. She pointed out that the category ‘woman’ was conceived as collectively, based on their being oppressed by the fact of their womanhood. The three categories were deployed in combination and this often led to exclusions around race, class and ethnicity. Since most of the vocal feminists of the 1970s were white, middle class and university educated – it was their experience which came to be universalised a ‘women’s experience’.

Bama remarked “All women in the world are second class citizens. For Dalit women, the problem is grave. Their Dalit identity gives them a different set of problems. They experience a total lack of social status; they are not even considered dignified human being.” They must endure triple oppression – class, caste and gender.

Today, the plight is such that Dalit women constitute one of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups within India’s female population. They suffer from, what is called the triple burden of gender bias, caste discrimination, and economic deprivation. They are more susceptible to sexual violence due to their caste than other women. Experts write that the bodies of Dalit women are weaponised maintain and perpetuate the status quo – the oppression and subjugation of Dalit. Uma Chakravarti wrote that violence is inflicted on Dalit women’s bodies as a means of controlling caste dominance and maintaining caste purity. Lower-caste women have been denied the right to seek justice for sexual violence as it is often considered that they have no honour to be stolen.

Politics and Casteism in India 

B.R. Ambedkar observed that the caste system can be maintained only through the constraints on women’s sexuality and in this way, women are the gateways to the caste.  Sexual violence against Dalit women perpetuates and entrenches casteism in the Indian society. It is indeed ironical how such violence continues seventy-five years after the Constitution promised equality? This crisis is almost out of the mainstream political discourse. Caste-based sexual violence has occupied a relatively limited place in the election manifestos of major national parties compared to other issues.

The highest rates of crimes committed against Dalits (NCRB, 2019) were in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Gujarat. The others with rates above the national average were Telangana, UP, Kerala, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. Remarkably, despite the pervasiveness of the menace across States in India, violence against Dalit women finds no mention in the manifesto of the ruling party in power in most of the above-mentioned States or the Indian National Congress (INC) (in power in Telangana and leading the UDF in Kerala) and cursory treatment in the manifesto of the CPI(M) (leading the LDF as the opposition in Kerala). The reason why I found it relevant to refer to the election manifestos of the political parties is because they are instructive in revealing the manner in which political institutions conceptualise and more importantly, fail to conceptualise violence against Dalit women.

The belief that reforms aimed at women as a homogenous category will inevitably serve the needs of lower-caste women is merely a façade. Neither women nor Dalits are a monolithic category. Violence perpetrated on Dalit women is a structural and intersectional menace.  The rhetorical commitments to do away with “caste-based violence” or “gender-related crimes” or “women empowerment” or “Dalit atrocities” does not per se address the plight of Dalit or lower-caste women.  Today, Dalit women are a more vulnerable constituency within Indian women, whose experiences cannot be comprehended through a universalised lens of womanhood. In India’s caste-ridden society, upper-caste women are bestowed with greater honour, whereas the bodies of Dalit, Adivasi, and lower-caste women are considered impure and sexually accessible to dominant caste-groups. None of the existing frameworks in India are equipped to undo centuries of inherited stigma.

Promises of political representation or reservation or economic empowerment of women through financial inclusion do not even superficially cater to the misery of the lower caste women. The perception that empowerment of women is assured through economic means abandons the idea of emancipation of the lower caste women as the latter is not possible without meticulously studying the specificities of their subordination. South India is a testament to this assertion. Higher literacy rates, positive indicators of economic development and other manifestations of modernisation have miserably failed to eradicate the blot of casteism.  To borrow from Mema Chongtham, “a mirage of equality only shields prejudice, giving a lifeline to discrimination behind a façade of civility.”

Conclusion – Listen to them

Given the now proven ineptitude of governments across successive administrations and States in meaningfully assuaging the plight of Dalit women, it must now directly turn towards the lower caste women and ask – What do you need? What do you want? What do you think will help you in rising? How can the State actually support you? It is imperative for the Government to pay heed to the voices and recommendations of the Dalit women organisations, who have much more nuanced understanding of the community.

There is a need to lift them from menial jobs like manual scavenging and transform them into producers in the workforce. Dalit women are almost invisible in public life and positions of power. Though no data is publicly available on the representation of Dalit judges in High Courts and the lower judiciary, Parliamentary Committees, Commissions and high-level government officials have acknowledged the issue of acute lack of caste diversity in the justice system needs to be immediately addressed. Years of oppression and subjugation has obliterated the very confidence of lower caste women in their being. They need tangible beacons of hope to enable and equip themselves.

In my very personal opinion, though I have been generally hesitant in the deliberation over Indian issues in the international arena, it is precisely these factors that propel me to concur with what Dr. Shiv Visvanathan, a prominent social scientist, known for the concept of cognitive justice who wrote, – “One is forced to manoeuvre for international attention because only external politics might be able to leverage current paradigms”.

(The author, as student of law at the Symbiosis Law School, Pune and is grateful to Dr Ankita Chatterjee for her invaluable insights and guidance, that significantly informed and enriched this article)

References:

Cases buried by caste

Dear upper caste Indians, Hathras is not another Nirbhaya. It is a Khairlanji

The Khairlanji Massacre: Unveiling the Intersection of Caste, Gender, and Violence in Modern India – Round Table India

Dalit Women in India: At the Crossroads of Gender, Class, and Caste | Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric

Unveiling the Oppressed Body: Female Dalit Body Politics in India through Baburao Bagul and Yashica Dutt

Progressive On Paper, Prejudiced In Practice: Why We Cannot Look Away From The Persistence Of Caste In South India | Feminism in India

Hathras victim was gang-raped, murdered: CBI – The Hindu

Caste Based Sexual Violence and State Impunity (English and Hindi)

EN-Haryana_Report-ENG-PDF-1.pdf

Caste and Race: Discrimination Based on Descent | Economic and Political Weekly

Dalit_Women_Talk_DifferentlyA_Critique_of_Difference_and_Towards_a_Dalit_Feminist.pdf

Disciplinary power and practices of body politics: an evaluation of Dalit women in Bama’s Sangati and P. Sivakami’s The Grip of Change through Foucauldian discourse analysis | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Nine states have 54% of Dalits, see 84% of crime against SCs | India News – Times of India

‘I’m a Dalit woman, and my mental health matters’: Christina Thomas Dhanaraj

Dalit Women’s Rights Manifesto 2026 demands internal reservation in governance – The Hindu

Justice denied: Sexual violence & intersectional discrimination – Barriers to accessing justice for Dalit women and girls in Haryana, India – Equality Now

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmila_Rege: Sharmila Rege was an Indian sociologist, feminist scholar and author of Writing Caste, Writing Gender.^[2] She led the Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Women’s Studies Centre at the University of Pune since 1991

[2] Bama (born Faustina Mary Fatima Rani in 1958), also known as Bama Faustina Soosairaj, is a prominent Tamil Dalit feminist writer and former teacher from Virudhunagar district, Tamil Nadu; She rose to fame with her 1992 autobiographical novel Karukku and subsequently published Sangati in 1994, which translates to “Events” in English.

Related:

January 2024: Alarming surge in attacks targeting Dalit women

Not a Dalit Women’s Day in India

Urge Modi to dismiss Yogi, set up international enquiry into rapes of Dalit women: South Asian groups to UN

The post The women India continues to ignore appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At one level, the case concerned two women who said that they had voluntarily embraced Islam and were subsequently confined by their father. But the legal question before the Court was considerably broader: can the alleged illegality of a person’s religious conversion justify the continued physical confinement of that person when she is an adult, competent, and unequivocally asserts that the choice was voluntary?

The Court answered in the negative. More importantly, it refused to allow the criminal investigation into the alleged conversion to collapse the distinction between two separate questions: whether the conversion was lawful, and whether the women could lawfully be detained.

“The present case discloses an exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights. The corpus, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period commencing from the year 2021, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family. Such prolonged and coercive confinement strikes at the very foundation of constitutional democracy, which recognises the autonomy of every adult individual as sacrosanct and beyond the reach of parental or societal control. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be permitted to yield to familial disapproval, social orthodoxy or executive apathy.” (Para 65)

“Before parting, this Court deems it necessary to reiterate that the Constitution does not confer upon parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disapprove of their faith, beliefs or personal choices. Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment. The liberty of an adult individual is inviolable, and any attempt to suppress that liberty by force or coercion invites the constitutional scrutiny of this Court and attracts appropriate public law consequences, including the award of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights.” (Para 66)

The former, the Court held, could be examined by the competent authority or court. The latter was squarely before the High Court in habeas corpus jurisdiction. The judgment consequently becomes a strong reaffirmation of decisional autonomy, freedom of conscience, the limits of parental authority, the scope of habeas corpus against private detention, and the State’s public-law liability when its machinery permits an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty to continue.

Two adult women before the constitutional court

The petition concerned Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia, aged about 35 years, and Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia, aged about 20 years. By an order dated July 30, 2026, the State was directed to produce both women before the High Court. They were subsequently produced before Justice Sandeep Jain by police officials from the Cyber Crime Police Station, Agra.

The Court then did something crucial for a habeas corpus proceeding involving allegations of coercion: it interacted with the women directly. Anshu told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2020, describing the decision as a conscious and independent choice motivated by mental peace, spiritual fulfilment and inner solace. She stated that the decision was not the result of inducement, influence, coercion, undue persuasion or any extraneous consideration. She further stated that her father strongly opposed the decision and subsequently confined her within the parental home. According to her, physical restraint, intimidation and sustained mental harassment were used to compel her to renounce the faith she had chosen and return to Hinduism.

Diya, who had completed her education up to the Intermediate level, similarly told the Court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2021, motivated by personal faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. She too denied force, fraud, coercion, undue influence or allurement.

Both women consistently maintained before the Court that their decisions were voluntary and conscious and arose from their own individual faith and freedom of conscience. They also denied that their conversion was motivated by an extraneous, unlawful or pecuniary consideration or intended to advance the interests of any individual or organisation. The dispute therefore came before the High Court in a very specific constitutional form: Were these adult women unlawfully confined by their father against their own wishes?

The State’s case: This was not merely a family dispute

The State strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition. The father had lodged Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, alleging that the women had been subjected to forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam. The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

During investigation, the investigating agency subsequently added:

• Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and
• Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The State argued that the addition of these provisions demonstrated that the allegations of voluntary conversion could not simply be accepted at face value. But the State went considerably further. Its case was that the alleged conversion was part of a larger and organised conspiracy with ramifications for the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation.

It claimed that the investigation had uncovered material indicating the involvement of organised persons pursuing a coordinated design to disturb the social fabric through unlawful religious conversions.

The State also referred to alleged involvement of foreign entities and external influences, arguing that the investigation was continuing and that releasing the women could prejudice the proceedings. It further contended that the women had been projected as victims in the criminal case and that allowing them to reside with persons allegedly connected to the investigation could influence witnesses, prejudice the prosecution and frustrate the administration of criminal justice. The State therefore attempted to place the case within a much larger framework of public order, national interest and security.

The High Court was not persuaded.

Findings of the Court

• What is the scope of habeas corpus?

Before determining whether the detention was illegal, Justice Sandeep Jain examined the nature of the writ itself. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha, where the Supreme Court explained that habeas corpus is available wherever a person is deprived of personal liberty unlawfully or without justification.

Importantly, the Supreme Court authority recognises that habeas corpus is not confined to State detention. It can also be invoked against private detention. The Allahabad High Court quoted the principle that the writ is available for release from detention not only by the State but also from private detention. This becomes central to the case as the father was not a State official exercising a statutory power of detention. The alleged confinement was taking place inside the parental home. But that did not take the matter outside Article 226. The constitutional inquiry was simple: Was there lawful authority for the restraint?

• A parental home is not a legal prison—but it cannot become one

The judgment’s treatment of private detention is especially significant. The women were allegedly confined in their parental home. That fact could easily have been used to characterise the dispute as a family matter. Thankfully, the Court refused to do so. Habeas corpus exists precisely because the law is concerned with the fact of unlawful restraint, not merely the formal label attached to the person exercising it. The relevant question was not whether the father believed he was acting in the interests of his daughters. The question was whether he had legal authority to restrain two adult women. The Court ultimately found that he did not.

• Majority marks the constitutional end of parental custody

The Court relied on a line of constitutional jurisprudence concerning the autonomy of adult women. One of the authorities discussed was the Supreme Court’s decision in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas. There, the Supreme Court held that once an individual attains majority, she is entitled to make her own choices and that courts should not assume the role of a super-guardian merely because a parent disapproves of that choice.

The Allahabad High Court also considered the Kerala High Court’s decision in Rajamohan MS v. State of Kerala, which dealt specifically with parental attempts to restrain an adult woman. That decision recognised that parental authority may extend to advice, counselling and guidance, but not to confinement or detention against the wishes of an adult daughter.

The Allahabad High Court reproduced the proposition that an adult major woman cannot be treated as a “chattel” and that parental authority does not give a parent the right to keep her under restraint against her will. This jurisprudence supplies the conceptual foundation for the present ruling. Once adulthood is attained, the parent-child relationship does not disappear. But its legal character changes.

• The Court rejects the idea that parents know what is “best” for adult women

The reliance on Rajamohan MS case is particularly important because it confronts a deeply embedded paternalistic assumption: that parents should be permitted to control adult women’s decisions because they believe those decisions are wrong, imprudent or harmful. The jurisprudence cited by the High Court rejects that logic.

An adult’s decision does not lose constitutional protection simply because the decision might later prove to be unwise. The Kerala High Court authority, quoted in the judgment, makes the point that courts cannot permit the concepts of parents about what is “right and good” for their adult daughters to override the daughters’ own assessment of what is right for them. This principle is particularly relevant in the present case.

The women’s choice concerned religion—a matter inherently connected to conscience and identity. The Constitution cannot recognise individual autonomy while simultaneously allowing family members to exercise a veto over the individual’s conscience.

• Reliance on Shafin Jahan to hold that constitutional courts are not super-guardians

The judgment also invokes Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., one of the Supreme Court’s most crucial decisions on individual autonomy. The High Court notes the Supreme Court’s recognition that constitutional courts may exercise parens patriae jurisdiction for persons who are incapable of exercising free will, such as minors or persons of unsound mind. But that principle cannot be extended to competent adults simply because their choices are controversial or disapproved of by others.

The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan emphasised that decisions concerning intimate and personal matters belong to the individuals concerned and that neither State nor society can intrude into that domain merely because they disapprove of the choice. The Allahabad High Court uses that jurisprudence to reinforce a fundamental distinction: A constitutional court protects an adult’s autonomy; it does not replace it.

The Court therefore did not ask whether it believed the women’s religious choice was sensible. It asked whether the women themselves had made the choice freely. Once the answer was yes, the constitutional duty was to protect that choice from unlawful restraint.

• The Court personally tests voluntariness

This is where the Court’s interaction with the women becomes legally decisive. Justice Sandeep Jain recorded that the responses of both women were: “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal.”

Nothing emerged during the interaction to suggest that they were acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence. On the contrary, both consistently asserted that they had voluntarily embraced Islam as a matter of personal faith and conscience. The Court therefore did not simply accept the women’s claims because they were petitioners. It independently interacted with them. This matters because the State’s central argument was that their assertion of voluntariness was false and that they had been made instruments of an organised conversion network. The Court found no material before it sufficient to draw that inference.

• Article 25: “Freedom of conscience” includes the freedom to change faith

The Court then turned to Article 25. It held that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience necessarily encompasses the right of a competent adult to adopt a faith, renounce a faith, or change her faith according to her own free will, belief and conviction. The Court did not conceptualise Article 25 merely as protecting the practice of an inherited religion. It recognised conscience as a matter of individual choice.

The Court held that such a decision is an essential facet of: individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty. It is therefore protected not only under Article 25, but also under Article 21. If freedom of conscience means anything constitutionally, it cannot mean merely the freedom to remain within the religious identity assigned by one’s family. It must include the freedom to arrive at one’s own conviction. And where an adult voluntarily changes her faith, that choice cannot ordinarily be dictated by either the family or the State except within constitutionally permissible restrictions and the authority of law.

• The Uttar Pradesh Conversion Act does not answer the detention question

The State relied heavily on the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Court acknowledged that the Act provides the statutory framework governing unlawful religious conversions and prescribes procedures concerning conversions. But the Court made an important jurisdictional observation: The vires of the 2021 Act had not been challenged before it. Nor was the legality or validity of the alleged conversion itself the subject matter of the habeas corpus proceedings. Any question concerning compliance or non-compliance with the Act was therefore left to the competent authority or court. The Court then reached the central distinction: “The legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues.” This distinction is the backbone of the judgment.

The Court went further. It said that even assuming, for the sake of argument,  that the conversion had not been carried out strictly according to the procedure prescribed under the 2021 Act, that assumption would not itself authorise the father to continue confining the women. This is a crucial rule-of-law proposition. An alleged violation of one law does not automatically create a power under another law to deprive a person of liberty. If the conversion was unlawful, the State could investigate it. If an offence was established, the criminal law could operate.

But the father could not become the custodian of the women merely because he believed their religious conversion was illegal. The State could not use the pendency of that investigation to permit the confinement to continue. Thus, the Court separates regulation from detention. The State may regulate conduct through law; however, it cannot manufacture a detention power that the law does not confer.

• National security cannot rest on assertion alone

The State’s invocation of sovereignty, integrity and national security was also examined closely. The Court found that, apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pendency of investigation, no material had been placed before it demonstrating that the voluntary exercise of religious choice by these women, by itself, constituted a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country. The Court therefore refused to accept the argument.

The court held that mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens. This is not a finding that national-security considerations can never justify restrictions on liberty. Rather, it is a rejection of conjecture as constitutional evidence. The seriousness of the allegation does not eliminate the need for material. A court deciding whether a fundamental right has been infringed cannot treat the language of “national security” as a substitute for proof.

• The Court refuses to infer an “oblique motive”

The Court also rejected the suggestion that the women were merely instruments in a larger unlawful design. After interacting with them, the Court said it could not discern material warranting an inference that they had acted with an oblique motive or had been reduced to instruments in the hands of an individual or organisation pursuing an unlawful agenda.

Such an inference, the Court held, could not legitimately be drawn from conjectures, surmises or allegations that remained to be tested before the competent criminal court. This distinction is significant as the Court did not adjudicate the criminal allegations, rather it simply refused to allow untested allegations to determine the constitutional status of the women before it. The criminal investigation was therefore left intact. But it was not allowed to become a basis for continuing their detention.

The investigation arising from Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 would continue strictly in accordance with law. But, the court held that mere pendency of a criminal investigation cannot, by itself, furnish a lawful justification for curtailing the liberty of adult citizens, particularly where they are not subject to any judicial or other lawful order of detention.

This is one of the judgment’s most important safeguards. A criminal investigation is a process for determining whether an offence has been committed. It is not, by itself, a source of custody. The existence of an FIR cannot turn a private residence into a lawful detention centre. Nor can the seriousness of the allegations eliminate the requirement that any deprivation of liberty have legal authority.

Parental authority yields to constitutional liberty: Compensation and directions

Having found the detention to be wholly illegal, the Court did not confine the remedy to a declaration that the women were free. It recognised that where a serious and prolonged violation of fundamental rights has already occurred, an order of release alone may not provide an adequate constitutional remedy. The Court therefore invoked the established jurisprudence on constitutional compensation, particularly Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. These decisions establish that constitutional courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 can award monetary compensation for egregious violations of fundamental rights as a public-law remedy. Such compensation is distinct from ordinary private-law damages and is intended to provide meaningful redress for the breach of a public duty to protect fundamental rights.

Applying this principle, the Court found the present case to involve an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights.” It took into account the fact that the women were adults and legally competent, the prolonged nature of their deprivation of liberty, the circumstances in which the confinement allegedly followed their exercise of freedom of conscience, and the mental and psychological consequences of the restraint. The Court also considered the failure of the State machinery to discharge its constitutional obligation to protect their liberty. It described the conduct as a “flagrant affront to the Rule of Law” and found that the State, rather than securing their release, had allowed the detention to continue under the ostensible cover of criminal proceedings. The award of compensation was therefore not presented as punitive damages or an ex gratia payment, but as a constitutional remedy flowing from the gravity of the fundamental-rights violation.

The Court consequently held the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh, with the amount to be equally divided between the two women. The judgment also incorporated an important mechanism for individual accountability within the State machinery. After satisfying the compensation award, the State was permitted, subject to due process and an opportunity of hearing, to recover the stipulated share from the father and from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. This aspect of the order is significant because it moves beyond merely compensating the victims and raises the question of institutional responsibility for allowing an unlawful deprivation of liberty to persist.

The Court’s directions were also designed to restore the women’s practical autonomy, rather than merely declare their freedom in abstract terms. It directed that they were free to reside at any place and with any person of their choice and restrained the father from interfering with their personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices. The State authorities were directed to ensure that no interference was caused to their peaceful life and liberty and to provide protection if required. These directions recognise that liberty can be undermined even without formal physical detention. If a person is denied access to her documents, finances, educational records or other personal belongings, her ability to independently exercise her constitutional choices may remain substantially constrained.

Accordingly, the Court directed the father to hand over the women’s passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings within seven days, with the State authorities directed to ensure compliance where necessary. At the same time, the Court carefully limited the scope of its intervention: it did not determine whether the alleged conversion was legally valid, whether the criminal allegations would ultimately be established, or whether any offence had been committed. The investigation was permitted to continue strictly in accordance with law. The significance of the judgment therefore lies in the balance it draws between investigative power and individual liberty: the State remains free to investigate an alleged offence, but neither an investigation nor parental disapproval can become a substitute for lawful authority to deprive an adult of her liberty.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Two FIRs, Four Days In: Pune sees first use of Maharashtra’s controversial anti-conversion law

After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation

One Death Every Few Days, Zero Accountability: Sanitation workers protest at Jantar Mantar

From Civil Registration to Identity Control: Parliament tightens India’s birth certificate regime without debate

‘Deportation Cannot Begin without Nationality Verification’: Union’s Rajubala affidavit clarifies legal limits on executive power

Brij Bhushan Acquittal: The system vs the wrestlers

The post When Family Becomes Custody: Allahabad HC holds adult women’s faith, residence and liberty cannot be placed under parental control appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protests concluded, several women protesters alleged that they became targets of coordinated online harassment, rape threats, doxing campaigns, morphed images, character attacks and demands for their arrest. What began as a debate over slogans raised during demonstrations transformed into a larger controversy over whether women participating in public dissent were being punished not only for their political expression but also for refusing traditional expectations of silence and conformity.

The aftermath of the protests saw several women participants alleging that their visibility as protesters made them targets of coordinated online attacks, with personal information being circulated, threats issued and attempts made to undermine their credibility and character.  The developments that followed also brought several legal questions before the Supreme Court, with petitions challenging alleged police excesses during the protests, seeking clarity on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, raising concerns over surveillance practices and demanding accountability for the use of force against demonstrators.

Detailed reports on the withdrawal of FIRs may be read here, here and here.

The protests that triggered a national confrontation

The NEET-UG 2026 protests began after allegations of a question paper leak and irregularities in the medical entrance examination created widespread anger among students. The movement, initially amplified through social media under the banner of the satirical Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), eventually grew into a nationwide student mobilisation.

The protests gained momentum after three student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA), namely Neha, Manish and Aameen and activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and observed a prolonged hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Student organisations and youth groups demanded accountability, reforms in examination systems and action against those responsible for compromising the integrity of competitive examinations.

The movement reached its peak during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march, when clashes broke out between protesters and police in New Delhi. Student groups and civil liberties advocates alleged that security forces responded with excessive force, including the use of tear gas, pellet guns and repeated baton charges to disperse demonstrators. Petitioners before the Supreme Court alleged that several students suffered pellet injuries, while videos circulating on social media appeared to show protesters with bleeding head wounds allegedly caused by lathi blows. Protesters also alleged that some batons used during the operation had metal nails or studs attached, an allegation that has since been raised before the Supreme Court and is part of the ongoing proceedings. Similar allegations emerged from Bihar, where student activists claimed that police resorted to firing during demonstrations. One incident in Siwan drew particular attention after a police constable allegedly fired an AK-47 rifle towards protesters; the constable was subsequently suspended, although protesters have continued to demand accountability from senior officers. Police authorities have maintained that force was used only after demonstrators attempted to breach security arrangements and denied allegations of unlawful or excessive action.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

The agitation eventually concluded after the Union government accepted several key demands, including the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on July 25. The government also announced that criminal cases registered against many student protesters during the demonstrations would be reviewed, with FIRs against students who had not been accused of serious acts of violence proposed to be withdrawn. However, the selective withdrawal of cases became another point of contention, with petitioners arguing that the criminal process had been used to deter participation in the protests and demanding greater transparency and accountability in the registration and withdrawal of FIRs.

Meanwhile, the end of the protest did not end the controversy. Instead, a new battle emerged — over the treatment of protesters after the demonstrations.

Women protesters become the centre of backlash

One of the most striking features of the aftermath was the disproportionate targeting of women who had participated in the protests. Several women who became recognisable faces of the movement alleged that they were subjected to misogynistic attacks, including rape threats, sexualised comments, fabricated allegations and attempts to publicly shame them.

A report by ThePrint noted that women protesters across Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata became targets of social media campaigns after the protests ended. Images of women were allegedly cropped, altered or circulated with calls to identify them and take action against them. The report highlighted that although protesters of different genders participated in raising slogans during demonstrations, women were specifically singled out afterwards.

The pattern, activists argued, reflected a familiar method of discrediting women in public movements — shifting attention from their political arguments to their appearance, morality, personal lives and character. Women protesters said that rather than addressing the issues raised by the movement, online campaigns focused on portraying them as irresponsible, immoral or deserving of punishment.

Rhiya Ahir: From protest symbol to target of online attacks

One of the most visible examples was Rhiya Ahir, a Mumbai-based actor and model whose image of standing in front of a police vehicle carrying detained protesters went viral during the demonstrations. The photograph turned her into one of the recognisable faces of the movement. However, according to Rhiya, the public attention soon transformed into online abuse.

Speaking to ANI, as reported by LiveMint, Rhiya said she approached the Maharashtra Police cyber cell after allegedly facing harassment and defamatory content online. She stated that while criticism was part of democratic expression, attacks targeting her dignity and personal reputation crossed the line.

“Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but no one has the right to degrade someone, malign their reputation, attack their dignity publicly, or make statements suggesting that a person does not have the right to live,” she said.

Rhiya also clarified that the movement was not organised for any political party, religion or individual but was about issues affecting students.

A detailed report by ThePrint described how women protesters became targets of online campaigns involving alleged fake images, sexualised misinformation and calls for police action. The report quoted Rhiya alleging that fabricated images of her were circulated along with false claims about her personal life and profession. She argued that when critics could not challenge the substance of the protest, they shifted towards attacking the character of women participants.

“If you cannot attack the cause, attack the character”

The backlash against women protesters was described by many activists as part of a broader pattern seen during previous movements, including the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the farmers’ agitation. Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, speaking to ThePrint, pointed out that similar tactics had been used earlier — including spreading misleading videos, manipulated images and personal attacks to delegitimise protesters.

The focus on women, activists argued, was not accidental. Women participating in political protests often face a different form of scrutiny. Their clothing, language, relationships and personal choices become subjects of public debate in ways that male protesters frequently do not experience.

A protester quoted by ThePrint said: “Patriarchy becomes a rather perfect tool when it comes to attacking women, because if you cannot attack the cause, you attack the character.”

This raised a larger question: whether women’s participation in democratic protest continues to be judged through expectations of “acceptable” behaviour rather than constitutional rights.

The apology controversy: A minor protester caught between forgiveness and criminal action

The moral policing and attacks on women for using abusive slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi further intensified the backlash against women protesters. On July 31, Prime Minister Modi posted a video message saying he had forgiven students who had used abusive language against him during the protests. He described them as “misled children” and said the focus should be on guiding them rather than punishing them.

The Prime Minister’s remarks also betrayed a deeply paternalistic view of women’s place in political protest. Declaring that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, Narendra Modi nevertheless singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that they had used abusive language. The outrage, then, was not directed at the abuse itself but at the fact that women had dared to express anger in a manner that defied conventional expectations of femininity. Such framing reduces women protesters to custodians of culture, holding them to standards of civility and respectability that are rarely imposed on men. Rather than confronting the grievances that drove thousands of students to the streets, the remarks shifted the conversation to whether women had behaved as society expects them to. That distinction is not incidental—it reflects the persistence of gendered expectations in India’s political discourse, where women are often judged less for what they demand than for how they choose to demand it. Predictably, according to The News Minute, several women protesters said that online abuse against them continued despite the Prime Minister’s message.

The case of the 15-year-old protester who was accused of using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi became one of the most distasteful examples. During the protest, a video surfaced showing the teenager at the protest site shouting and repeating vulgar profanities directed at PM Modi while expressing her frustration. Once it went viral, the video took a life of its own.

A Zero FIR against her was initially registered in Noida and later transferred to Delhi. The allegations invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections relating to intentional insult, statements allegedly causing public mischief and defamation.

Even after there came a video of the teenager apologising publicly went viral after Prime Minister Modi’s remarks urging society to forgive young protesters. In the video, the girl expressed regret for her comments, said she had been influenced by the atmosphere around her and described the incident as her “first and last mistake”.

Only a 15-year-old minor girl, she said that she continued receiving rape threats and sexually explicit messages from unknown accounts and phone numbers. The teenager told IANS that people threatened her with rape and continued targeting her even after her apology. She also alleged that police continued searching for her despite the apology. However, the controversy did not end with her apology.

According to The News Minute, the teenager alleged that she continued receiving rape threats and abusive messages despite publicly apologising. She said unknown accounts sent sexually explicit material and threatened violence against her. As per the report of The Print, the child had to stop going to school, and had to shift out of her house along with her single mother.

The episode highlighted a contradiction at the centre of the debate: while public discussions focused heavily on the language used by protesters, there was comparatively less attention on the gendered abuse directed towards young women who participated in the movement.

On August 5, Hindustan Times reported that the complainant in the case against the teenager withdrew the complaint, stating that she no longer wished to pursue the matter after the Prime Minister had forgiven the protesters. Lawyer Smriti Singh, who had filed the complaint, said that the FIR was initially registered against multiple girls and that she decided not to continue the matter.

When gender meets religion

Beyond the cases involving slogans and online criticism, several women activists alleged that their participation itself had triggered police scrutiny. One such case involved JNU Students’ Union leader Danish Ali.

According to Maktoob Media, Danish alleged that Madhya Pradesh Police visited her family home after her participation in the NEET protests and questioned her relatives despite no FIR being registered against her. She said police contacted her father and advised him to ask her to focus on studies instead of activism. Danish alleged that she was singled out because of her Muslim identity.

“Coming from a Muslim community, with the peak Islamophobia in the country, my family is concerned,” she told Maktoob. She questioned why police action was directed towards her when several other activists had participated in the same protest.

A similar concern was raised by Amreen Shaikh, an organiser of the NEET protest in Goa. According to Maktoob Media, Shaikh was summoned by Goa Police for questioning after helping organise a demonstration that had received official permission. She alleged that during questioning, police asked whether she would take responsibility if a “bomb blast” occurred during the protest.

She said officers also questioned her about her father, his business and foreign travel history. Shaikh said she struggled to understand why questions unrelated to the education protest were raised. She alleged that her identity as a Muslim woman had contributed to the scrutiny she faced.

Although she was not named as an accused, she said the police action and online harassment caused significant mental distress. The FIRs associated with the protest invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to unlawful assembly and related offences.

Vismaya Mohanlal and dissent

The backlash against protesters also extended to celebrities and public figures who expressed support for student demonstrators. Actor Vismaya Mohanlal, daughter of Malayalam superstar Mohanlal, faced online criticism after expressing support for students protesting over the NEET paper leak. According to Indulge Express, Vismaya responded to criticism by saying she stood by her views and believed democracy required citizens to question those in power.

She stated: “We should always be allowed to question and be heard. We should always have dialogue instead of force, and I don’t think your politics should ever supersede your humanity.”

She clarified that her position was not aligned with any political party and that her concern was based on humanitarian principles. Her comments triggered online backlash, with some social media users calling for a boycott of her debut film. Filmmaker Major Ravi defended her position, saying her comments reflected concern for students rather than political affiliation.

Shradha Singh: Online misogyny after becoming a face of the movement

Another woman who became a target after the protests was content creator Shradha Singh. According to The News Minute, Singh’s seven-second Instagram video recorded alongside Rapid Action Force personnel became a subject of controversy after it was amplified by television channels and social media accounts.

She alleged that she was invited to participate in a television discussion under the impression that she would be allowed to explain her position, but instead found herself in a confrontational debate where she faced criticism. Speaking to BBC Hindi, as reported by TNM, Singh said she felt humiliated during the programme but chose not to react emotionally because millions of people were watching. She later spoke about the sexualised abuse directed at her online.

She said comments under her social media posts included degrading remarks targeting her dignity and character. Singh contrasted this experience with her time at the protest site, saying she had stood among hundreds of men without facing harassment but had experienced severe abuse from people online. She appealed for greater attention towards misogynistic online attacks against women protesters.

Gendered backlash: When women become the issue

If the protests challenged the government’s handling of the NEET crisis, the backlash exposed the deeply gendered nature of political dissent in India. Women who stood at the forefront of the movement were not merely criticised for their politics—they were punished for their visibility. Instead of engaging with their demands, detractors sought to discredit them through misogyny. Their clothing was dissected, their professions questioned, their morality policed, sexual rumours manufactured, morphed images circulated, rape threats issued and calls made for their arrest. The objective was unmistakable: to shift the conversation from what women were saying to whether they deserved to be heard at all.

This is a familiar script in Indian protest politics. When a movement proves difficult to defeat on its merits, its women are turned into the battleground. Their political agency is recast as moral transgression; their dissent reduced to questions of character and respectability. The message is clear—women may participate in public life, but only so long as they remain within the boundaries of acceptable femininity. The moment they speak too loudly, lead too visibly or challenge authority too forcefully, they cease to be citizens exercising constitutional rights and become subjects of public moral scrutiny.

The outrage over abusive slogans exemplified this selective moralism. For weeks, public debate fixated on the language used by a handful of protesters, while allegations of excessive police force—including pellet guns fired at students, lathi blows to the heads of demonstrators, and reports of live ammunition being used against protesters in Bihar—struggled to command comparable attention. The disproportionate focus on slogans effectively displaced the central questions the movement had raised: whether the state had responded lawfully and proportionately, and whether those responsible for violence against students would ever be held accountable.

The Prime Minister’s response only reinforced that imbalance. While PM Modi declared that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, he singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that women had used abusive language. The implication was difficult to ignore. Abuse itself was not the singular concern; it became uniquely shocking when it came from women. By holding women protesters to a higher standard of civility than men, the remarks echoed a deeply paternalistic expectation that women must remain composed, respectful and restrained—even when confronting injustice. In doing so, the country’s highest political office did not simply comment on the protests; it reinforced the patriarchal logic that women in politics are judged less by the legitimacy of their demands than by whether they conform to society’s expectations of femininity. In the end, the conduct of women became a bigger controversy than the conduct of the state.

From online abuse to institutional response: Legal aid emerges as protesters seek protection

As allegations of harassment, intimidation and threats against student protesters continued to emerge, political organisations and civil society groups began creating support mechanisms for those facing legal and online challenges.

The Indian Youth Congress (IYC)v launched a nationwide legal helpline under its “Chhatron Ki Goonj” campaign to assist students who claimed they were facing threats, intimidation and online abuse following their participation in the NEET protests. According to The New Indian Express, the helpline was created to receive complaints from students alleging harassment connected with their participation in demonstrations. The organisation said complaints would be reviewed and that legal and organisational assistance would be provided wherever required.

IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib said young Indians had a constitutional right to question the government and raise their voices without fear. The organisation specifically referred to cases involving women protesters, including Rhiya Yadav and Shradha Singh, who had spoken publicly about online abuse. The launch of the helpline highlighted a growing concern: that the consequences of participating in a public protest were extending beyond the protest sites into private lives, families and digital spaces.

A broader crackdown narrative: arrests, FIRs and continuing protests

While the Jantar Mantar protest ended after assurances from the government, several state-level demonstrations continued. In Bihar, students returned to the streets demanding the release of protesters arrested during earlier demonstrations.

According to The Times of India, hundreds of students and youth activists gathered in Patna demanding that the government honour its promise to withdraw cases and release detained students. The protesters alleged that many students had not returned home despite government assurances.

They demanded:

• a verified list of released and detained protesters;
• withdrawal of criminal cases;
• accountability for alleged police excesses.

The demonstrations were dispersed by police using water cannons after protesters attempted to march towards the Chief Minister’s residence. The police maintained that action was taken only after protesters attempted to enter restricted areas.

Supreme Court intervenes: FIRs, surveillance and police action under scrutiny

The aftermath of the NEET protests reached the Supreme Court, where multiple petitions challenged alleged police excesses during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march and subsequent demonstrations.

The petitions raised serious allegations, including:

• use of excessive force against protesters;
• alleged use of pellet guns;
• baton charges;
• injuries suffered by students;
• alleged assault of journalists and lawyers;
• detention of minors;
• surveillance and collection of protesters’ personal data.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana clarified that States were free to withdraw FIRs against student protesters if permitted under law. The clarification came after petitioners pointed out that the Court’s earlier order allowing investigations to continue could affect the government’s commitment to withdraw cases against protesters.

The Court also clarified that the phrase “criminal antecedents” used in its earlier order would refer only to serious and heinous offences, after concerns were raised that students with minor cases could face difficulties. According to LiveLaw, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the government remained committed to addressing cases against student protesters but that criminal law procedures did not provide a simple mechanism for “withdrawing FIRs”.

Possible legal routes included filing closure reports, seeking withdrawal of prosecution or approaching courts for quashing proceedings. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that withdrawing cases individually would be complicated, particularly where FIRs involved large numbers of unidentified persons. One Patna FIR, she pointed out, named thousands of unidentified individuals, raising concerns that such broad FIRs could potentially be used against students.

The Supreme Court also examined allegations of excessive police action during the protests. Petitioners alleged that security forces used disproportionate force against demonstrators, including pellet guns and other crowd-control measures.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that accountability must extend to senior officials responsible for authorising police action. He urged the Court to examine how security forces were permitted to use such methods against civilian protesters.

The petitioners also alleged the use of:

• pellet guns;
• shock batons;
• sticks with nails;
• force against women protesters;
• detention of minors.

The Court directed authorities to preserve relevant evidence, including:

• CCTV footage;
• drone recordings;
• body camera footage;
• videography;
• wireless communication records;
• PCR logs.

The Court also directed authorities not to disclose protesters’ personal information and digital data while the matter remained under consideration. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that police officers responsible for excessive force should not receive undue protection. At the same time, the Court noted that genuine criminal acts committed during protests could not be ignored merely because they occurred in the context of demonstrations. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 18.

Detailed report on the proceedings before the Supreme Court may be read here.

Tamil Nadu keeps the anti-NEET movement alive

Although the nationwide agitation lost momentum after the resignation of the Union Education Minister, resistance to NEET remained alive in Tamil Nadu, where opposition to the examination has long been rooted in questions of social justice and federalism rather than administrative reform alone. As reported by The News Minute, Members of the Ban NEET Movement under the Anti-NEET Federation launched an indefinite hunger strike in Chennai, demanding the complete abolition of the examination. Protesters argued that NEET continues to privilege students with access to costly coaching while placing first-generation learners, rural students and those from economically weaker backgrounds at a structural disadvantage. They also renewed demands for education to be shifted from the Concurrent List to the State List, contending that states should have greater autonomy over admissions and education policy. The movement once again invoked the memory of S. Anitha, whose death in 2017 transformed the anti-NEET campaign into a larger struggle against educational inequality and the centralisation of policy.

Beyond NEET: The democratic questions remain

What began as a demand for accountability over an examination leak ultimately evolved into a far broader test of India’s democratic institutions. The movement forced difficult questions that remain unanswered: How far can the state go in policing dissent? When does crowd control become excessive force? Can criminal law be used to discourage political participation? Why are women who protest subjected to uniquely gendered abuse? And who is held accountable when constitutional rights are allegedly violated in the name of maintaining public order?

The legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of police action, FIRs, surveillance and the preservation of evidence signal that the questions raised by the protests have outlived the demonstrations themselves. Whether those proceedings result in meaningful accountability will shape not only the legacy of the NEET movement but also the boundaries of the right to protest in the New India.

Equally enduring is the lesson the protests offered about gender and dissent. For many women, participation in the movement meant confronting not only the coercive power of the state but also orchestrated campaigns of misogyny, intimidation and character assassination. Their experiences underscored a troubling reality: in India, women who claim political space are still expected to defend their morality before their message is heard.

The NEET protests may have ended, but the questions they raised continue to reverberate. The movement is no longer only about a competitive examination or an alleged paper leak. It has become a referendum on the state’s response to dissent, the shrinking space for democratic protest, and whether young citizens can challenge authority without being met with criminal prosecution, excessive force or targeted harassment.

Related:

#STOPKILLINGUS Protest at Jantar Mantar on August 4 against GOI’s “cover-up” of Manual Scavenging deaths

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown

Permission to Protest? Why the right to dissent needs no licence

Ken-Betwa protest exposes the cost of state-led displacement

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

The post After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Issued on Quit India Day, the letter gives the Sangh until August 14—a week before Independence Day—to act, warning that “silence is complicity.”

The Remarks That Sparked Outrage

Between July 24 and 26, Mohandas published a series of videos on his YouTube channel Pathrika. In the July 26 video, he described in detail how he would handle the student protests at Jantar Mantar if he were “in charge”:

“I would impose curfew over about a 4-square-kilometre area around Jantar Mantar. I would announce over loudspeakers, asking the crowd to disperse. I would make the announcement three times. Then I would open fire. People would scatter and run. Some people would die, some would survive, and some would be left permanently disabled. Within about four hours, the situation would be under control. The bodies would be collected and taken to hospitals… This is a solution. Clean.”

Of the women among the protesters, he said:

“Rapes will happen, mass rapes… there are girls who like rape… there are people who like rapes, especially, leftist, secular, democratic, proletarian class of people… When mass rapes happen there won’t be any complaints, because these are the people who like rape.”

Mohandas has not denied speaking these words, instead calling them “satire” and complaining that clips were taken out of context.

The Man and His Sangh Links

The letter notes that Mohandas served as state convener of the BJP’s Intellectual Cell in Kerala and as the party’s television spokesperson. He was General Secretary and later Vice-President of Bharatiya Vichara Kendram, the RSS-affiliated “think tank” in Kerala, and managed RSS-linked publications. The ALIFA letter states that the RSS “groomed this man, and given him numerous platforms for forty years”.

Following the controversy, the RSS distanced itself from Mohandas. Senior Sangh functionary K.B. Sreekumar said in a statement: “T.G. Mohandas’s comments on the recent protest are his personal thoughts. He is not an RSS official at any level. RSS doesn’t agree with his views and they should be condemned in every highest possible manner”.

The BJP’s Kerala unit also distanced itself, with general secretary Dr J. Pramila Devi calling Mohandas a “free thinker” while maintaining that the party does not endorse his statements.

‘The Machinery Exists’

The letter draws a sharp contrast with the BJP’s swift action against Nupur Sharma in June 2022, when the party suspended its national spokesperson within a day of diplomatic protests from Gulf nations over her remarks. “The machinery exists. It moved within hours when there was a political expediency to act,” the letter states. “The students, youth and women of this country are waiting to know whether they and their cause matter as much.”

Legal Action Underway

The Kerala Police’s Cyber Cell has registered an FIR (Crime No. 95/2026) against Mohandas following complaints by student organisations including the SFI, AIYF and AISF. The FIR invokes Sections 192 and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. Police have alleged that the videos were uploaded and circulated on July 24 and 25 with the intention of “disturbing public tranquillity”.

Four Demands, One Week

The ALIFA letter places four demands before the RSS and BJP:

1. A written and public condemnation of Mohandas’s statements by name, and immediate severance of all platforms and courtesies extended to him by Sangh Parivar organisations.
2. A statement from the Sarsanghchalak’s office affirming that women, youth and citizens who protest are entitled to dignity and constitutional rights.
3. Pro-active support for the legal process against Mohandas, with the letter noting that the Supreme Court’s directions in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) require registration of hate speech cases without waiting for complainants.
4. Takedown of the videos in question, with certified copies preserved for investigation.

The letter concludes: “If this August 15 passes in silence, we will read the silence as an answer… Silence is complicity.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Feminist group demands RSS condemn Mohandas’s ‘rape’ slander appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 3, 2026, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi acquitted Brij Bhushan Singh and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar in the sexual harassment case filed by six women wrestlers, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwini Panwar delivered the verdict after more than two years of trial proceedings, including in-camera hearings, reported LiveLaw. The court had earlier framed charges against Singh under provisions relating to sexual harassment, assault with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman and criminal intimidation.

While the court’s decision establishes that the prosecution could not meet the criminal standard required for conviction, the verdict has left India’s leading women wrestlers, who had risked their careers, reputations and public standing to speak out, expressing deep disappointment and announcing that their legal battle will continue.

For the wrestlers, the case the legal battle was only one part of a much more varied and substantive struggle. It has been about whether institutions meant to protect athletes would stand with them when allegations were raised against the person controlling one of India’s most important sporting federations.

Olympic medallist Vinesh Phogat, one of the complainants, reacting to Bhushan’s acquittal said that the verdict had caused immense pain but would not end their fight. In a statement posted on X, Phogat said the wrestlers had gathered extraordinary courage to come forward against a politically powerful figure.

“We had to gather a lot of courage to take to the streets and get an FIR registered against a powerful leader of the ruling party.”

She alleged that Singh had used his influence and power to intimidate women wrestlers and force some complainants to withdraw.

“Using power and muscle power, Brij Bhushan intimidated several girls and forced them to withdraw their names.”

Phogat said that despite the pressure, several women wrestlers continued to stand firm throughout the legal process.

“Several women wrestlers stood firm and fought the legal battle against Brij Bhushan in court.”

However, she alleged that the institutional response from the beginning had been tilted in favour of the accused.

“From the very beginning, the entire system, the government and the administration have been engaged in protecting Brij Bhushan.”

However, she emphasised that all the women wrestlers would challenge the verdict before a higher court.

“We have not lost hope, and the wrestlers will continue their fight.”

pic.twitter.com/iDnAdceZa3

— Vinesh Phogat (@Phogat_Vinesh) August 3, 2026

Olympic bronze medallist Bajrang Punia also described the verdict as deeply disappointing, while recalling the struggle the wrestlers faced simply to have their allegations formally registered.

As reported by Hindustan Times, Punia said that the wrestlers had been forced to take to the streets because institutional mechanisms had failed to respond to their complaints.

“We had to fight a long battle, take to the streets and get an FIR registered against a powerful leader of the ruling party.”

He alleged that Singh’s position and influence created fear among complainants but said the women wrestlers who continued with the case demonstrated extraordinary courage.

The reactions from the wrestlers underline a central tension surrounding the case: a criminal court decides guilt based on whether evidence meets the legal threshold beyond reasonable doubt, but survivors often experience the justice process as a much longer struggle involving social pressure, institutional resistance and unequal power structures.

A protest born out of institutional silence

The allegations against Brij Bhushan Singh first came into public focus in January 2023, when some of India’s most decorated wrestlers gathered at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar demanding action against the then WFI president. The protestors included Olympic medallists Vinesh Phogat, Bajrang Punia and Sakshi Malik, along with other national and international-level wrestlers. They alleged that Singh had sexually harassed and intimidated women wrestlers over several years, including during training camps, tournaments and official interactions.

The allegations were particularly significant because Singh was not merely a sports administrator. He was a six-time Member of Parliament, a senior political figure of the Narendra Modi-led government and the head of the national federation responsible for governing wrestling in India.

The wrestlers demanded:

• Singh’s removal from the WFI;
• an independent investigation;
• dissolution of the federation’s existing leadership structure;
• protection for athletes who came forward with complaints.

However, the initial institutional response became one of the biggest points of contention. The wrestlers approached sports authorities, including the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the Union Sports Ministry, seeking intervention. Following their complaints, the IOA constituted an oversight committee headed by prominent sportspersons, including boxer Mary Kom and wrestler Yogeshwar Dutt. However, the wrestlers later expressed dissatisfaction with the process, alleging that their concerns were not adequately addressed and that instead of accountability, they faced delays and uncertainty.

The controversy highlighted a long-standing problem in Indian sport — athletes often depend on administrators for selections, training opportunities and career progression, creating a significant power imbalance when allegations are made against those very administrators.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here and here.

The Supreme Court Intervention: When the FIR was finally registered

One of the most critical aspects of the case was the delay in registration of the FIR. The wrestlers eventually approached the Supreme Court, seeking directions to register a criminal case against Singh. In April 2023, the Supreme Court took note of the allegations and observed that they were serious in nature. Following the court’s intervention, Delhi Police registered two FIRs against Singh.

The development was significant because, according to the wrestlers and their supporters, it demonstrated the difficulties survivors often face in getting their complaints formally recognised when the accused occupies a position of power. The Supreme Court proceedings also brought attention to concerns regarding the safety of one of the complainants, who was a minor at the time of the allegations. The police later filed a chargesheet against Singh and Vinod Tomar in June 2023 under:

• Section 354 IPC — assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty;
• Section 354A IPC — sexual harassment;
• Section 354D IPC — stalking;
• Section 506 IPC — criminal intimidation.

The chargesheet alleged that incidents took place between 2016 and 2019 at locations including the WFI office, Singh’s official residence and during international tournaments.

From charges to trial

Following the registration of the FIRs, the case moved into the criminal justice system, where the central question became whether the prosecution could establish the allegations against Brij Bhushan Singh beyond reasonable doubt.

In June 2023, Delhi Police filed a chargesheet against Singh and Vinod Tomar, the former assistant secretary of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). The chargesheet invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to sexual harassment, assault with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, stalking and criminal intimidation.

The allegations made by the women wrestlers were not limited to a single incident. The complaints referred to a pattern of alleged misconduct between 2016 and 2019, including incidents at the WFI office, Singh’s official residence and during overseas competitions.

The prosecution case was built around the statements of six women wrestlers who accused Singh of inappropriate behaviour, unwanted physical contact, harassment and intimidation. Singh denied the allegations from the beginning, claiming that the accusations were politically motivated and part of a conspiracy against him.

In July 2023, the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Singh and Vinod Tomar while imposing conditions restricting them from influencing witnesses or leaving the country without permission. The trial, however, became a prolonged legal battle for the complainants. For women athletes who had already challenged one of the most powerful figures in Indian sport publicly, the courtroom became another arena where they had to repeatedly defend their allegations.

Charges Framed: Court finds material to proceed against Brij Bhushan Singh

In May 2024, the trial court found sufficient material to proceed against Brij Bhushan Singh. The court framed charges against him under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code for allegations involving sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of women. Charges of criminal intimidation were also framed in relation to allegations made by some complainants.

The court, however, discharged Singh in relation to one of the complaints, observing that there was insufficient material to proceed on that particular allegation. For the remaining allegations, the court held that a trial was necessary. The framing of charges was significant because it meant the court found a prima facie case requiring examination through evidence.

It did not determine guilt, but it rejected the argument that the allegations were entirely without basis. The trial formally commenced thereafter, with proceedings conducted in-camera due to the sensitive nature of the allegations.

Detailed report may be read here.

The Minor Wrestler’s Complaint: Allegations, withdrawal and pressure

One of the most sensitive aspects of the Brij Bhushan Singh case was the complaint filed by a minor wrestler, which initially led to the registration of a separate FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The minor wrestler had accused Singh of sexual harassment, following which the Delhi Police registered a case under the stringent child protection law after the intervention of the Supreme Court in April 2023. The allegation added another layer of seriousness.

However, the case later took a different course. During the investigation, the minor wrestler and her father changed their position, following which Delhi Police filed a cancellation report in the POCSO case, stating that the allegations could not be substantiated. In May 2025, the Patiala House Court accepted the cancellation report and closed the proceedings.

While the police treated the development as a reason to close the case, supporters of the wrestlers pointed to the larger concerns surrounding complaints made against powerful individuals — particularly by young survivors who may face immense social, institutional and personal pressure. The minor wrestler’s father had earlier alleged that the family faced pressure and intimidation after the complaint was filed, raising questions about the circumstances under which the statement was changed. The allegations of pressure were strongly denied by Singh and his supporters.

Detailed report may be read here and here.

A federation, a powerful president and questions of accountability

At the heart of the allegations raised was not only the criminal case against Singh but also the functioning of the Wrestling Federation of India.

The WFI president controlled one of India’s most important sporting institutions — an organisation responsible for selecting athletes, conducting tournaments and shaping the careers of wrestlers. The allegations therefore raised a fundamental question: What protection exists for athletes when the person accused of misconduct is also the person exercising institutional authority over their careers?

The wrestlers argued that their struggle was not merely against one individual but against a culture within sports administration where athletes often lack independent mechanisms to report abuse. Women’s rights groups repeatedly pointed to the need for stronger implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) within sports bodies. They argued that national sports federations cannot remain outside effective accountability mechanisms and that athletes must have access to independent committees free from political and administrative influence.

Detailed reports may be read here, here

The Verdict: Acquittal, but not the end of the battle

On August 3, 2026, after hearing arguments from the prosecution, defence and complainants, ACJM Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Court acquitted Brij Bhushan Singh and Vinod Tomar. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

This standard is fundamental to criminal law. An acquittal means the prosecution was unable to prove guilt to the legally required degree. It does not automatically mean that the allegations were fabricated or that the complainants acted dishonestly. In our judicial system, sexual harassment cases are often difficult to prove because they frequently occur in private spaces, without independent witnesses or immediate reporting. To the same, one can add the issue of survivors delaying reporting because of fear, professional consequences, social stigma or the power imbalance between the complainant and accused.

At the same time, criminal courts are bound by evidentiary standards and cannot convict unless the prosecution proves the charges beyond reasonable doubt. One cannot turn blind to the reality that the same system that had dragged the protesting wrestlers from Jantar Mantar had the responsibility of collecting evidence against the accused.  For the wrestlers, however, the issue goes beyond the courtroom outcome. Their central allegation is that the system failed them long before the judgment was delivered.

Women’s Rights Groups: “The fight for safe sporting spaces continues”

The acquittal triggered strong reactions from women’s organisations, activists and members of civil society. More than 250 feminists, women’s rights advocates and members of women’s organisations issued a joint statement expressing solidarity with the wrestlers and condemning what they described as the continued failure to create safe sporting environments.

The signatories include senior lawyer Indira Jaising, academician Uma Chakravarti, social activist Aruna Roy, PUCL India President Kavita Srivastava, Kalyani Menon Sen, publisher Urvashi Butalia, danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, author and activist, Teesta Setalvad, activists Sujata Gothaskar and Shabnam Hashmi, women’s leaders  Jagmati Sangwan and Annie Raja and Nisha Sidhu of National Federation of Indian Women, Maimoona Mollah of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Lalita Ramdas, Syeeda Hameed, Meena Saraswati Seshu, transparency activist Anjali Bharadwaj, lawyer Lara Jesani, Govind Kelkar, academic Shilpa Phadke and journalists Rituparna Chatterjee and Laxmi Murthy.

The signatories described the wrestlers’ struggle as a fight against powerful structures within Indian sport where money, political influence and institutional control often determine whose voices are heard. They said the acquittal would not end the movement for accountability. The statement recalled that the FIRs against Singh were registered only after Supreme Court intervention and argued that the wrestlers had repeatedly attempted to seek institutional remedies before approaching the courts.

It also criticised the treatment of the wrestlers during their protests in 2023, including the police action against them when they attempted to march towards the new Parliament building on May 28, 2023.

The organisations demanded:

• implementation of POSH mechanisms across all sports institutions;
• independent complaint mechanisms for athletes;
• protection for whistleblowers and survivors;
• sporting institutions free from political interference.

Senior advocate Rebecca John, who represented four of the complainants, described the acquittal as “deeply disturbing”. She maintained that the verdict would be challenged before a higher court.

Political Reactions: Opposition questions government’s claims on women empowerment

The acquittal triggered sharp criticism from opposition parties, who questioned the government’s response to the allegations and accused it of failing to stand with women athletes.

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra criticised what she described as a contradiction between political messaging on women’s empowerment and the treatment of the wrestlers. “On one hand they say they are with the young generation, they talk about women empowerment and women reservation, and on the other hand this,” she said, reported Times of India.

Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal said the verdict reflected a failure to protect women athletes who had brought international recognition to India. As per the report of The Telegraph, he accused the government of ignoring the allegations made by the wrestlers and alleged that political power had shielded Singh.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation criticised the acquittal, stating that the case exposed the persistence of political patronage and institutional protection enjoyed by powerful individuals. The party argued that the case had been weakened from the beginning due to delayed FIR registration, the composition of inquiry mechanisms and the treatment of protesting wrestlers.

Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant questioned why BJP leaders had not supported the wrestlers when they were protesting publicly at Jantar Mantar. Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MP Mahua Maji said that while judicial decisions must be respected, many women were disappointed by the verdict and feared that such outcomes could discourage survivors from reporting harassment. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor adopted a more cautious position, stating that judicial processes must be allowed to continue and that courts’ decisions should not be prejudged.

Brij Bhushan’s Defence: “Truth Has Prevailed”

Following the verdict, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh welcomed the court’s decision and maintained that the allegations against him were false and politically motivated. Speaking after the judgment, Singh claimed that he had never considered himself guilty and that the court’s decision had vindicated his stand. He said that from the beginning he had maintained that if even one allegation against him was proved, he would accept punishment.

Singh described the acquittal as an “honourable” clearance and alleged that the protests by the wrestlers had later turned into a political campaign against him. He claimed that the case was not a genuine movement by athletes but had become an effort by opposition parties to target him politically.

The current Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) leadership also welcomed the judgment. WFI president Sanjay Singh said the allegations had caused significant damage to Indian wrestling and described them as politically motivated. He said the acquittal was a victory for the sport and a rejection of what he called false accusations.

Did the system fail women wrestlers before the court did?

The Brij Bhushan Singh case now enters its next phase with the wrestlers preparing to challenge the acquittal. But beyond the legal appeal lies a larger unresolved question: Why did some of India’s most celebrated athletes have to fight for months on the streets before their allegations even reached a courtroom? The controversy exposed deep structural problems within Indian sports governance. The wrestlers were not ordinary complainants approaching an unfamiliar system. They were Olympic medallists and international champions who had represented India on the world stage. Yet, according to them, even their public stature did not shield them from institutional resistance.

The wrestlers’ struggle was never limited to one criminal case; it exposed deeper structural problems within Indian sports governance. At the centre of their concerns was the difficulty of challenging powerful administrators who control athletes’ careers, opportunities and futures. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh was not only the president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) but also a politically influential figure. For athletes dependent on federations for selection, training facilities and international opportunities, raising allegations against the person at the top carries enormous personal and professional risks. The wrestlers alleged that this unequal power dynamic enabled intimidation and discouraged some women from pursuing complaints, highlighting the vulnerability of athletes within institutions where authority and accountability often remain concentrated in the same hands.

The controversy also brought renewed scrutiny on the lack of effective accountability mechanisms within sports bodies. Although the POSH Act requires workplaces to establish Internal Complaints Committees to address complaints of sexual harassment, women’s rights groups have long argued that sporting institutions require stronger and more independent systems. Athletes often have direct professional dependence on coaches, administrators and federation officials, making internal mechanisms controlled by the same institutions inadequate. The wrestlers’ protest therefore became a larger demand for independent grievance redressal bodies, transparent investigations and protection for athletes who speak against misconduct.

Detailed piece may be read here.

The movement also exposed the immense personal cost of speaking out against powerful individuals. The wrestlers, who had been celebrated as national sporting icons for winning medals for India, found themselves on the streets at Jantar Mantar demanding that their allegations even be heard. They faced public scrutiny, political attacks and questions about their motives, while supporters argued that instead of receiving institutional protection, they were forced to fight for recognition and accountability. Their protest became symbolic of a larger struggle faced by survivors — where seeking justice often requires confronting not only the accused but also the systems that are expected to provide protection.

For Vinesh Phogat, Bajrang Punia and the other wrestlers, the acquittal is not the end of their fight. They have announced plans to challenge the verdict before a higher court, while continuing to demand broader reforms in Indian sport — including independent sexual harassment committees, effective implementation of POSH provisions, protection for athletes who report misconduct and greater transparency in sports administration. The case has already changed the conversation around women athletes in India. The medals won by these wrestlers brought national pride, but their protest tested whether the same institutions that celebrated their victories would stand with them when they challenged authority. The court has delivered its verdict in the criminal case, but the larger question raised by the wrestlers remains: when a woman athlete challenges the most powerful person in her sporting institution, does the system protect her — or does she have to fight the system itself?

Related:

Women Wrestlers & Lawyers’ battle for justice: Feminists, women leaders in support

Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case

“I changed my statement because I was scared, my family is living under constant threat”: father of the minor wrestlers’ complainant

Mumbai: Silent protest organised to condemn the injustice meted out to women wrestlers

FIRs suggest wrestlers had informed PM about their repeated sexual trauma in 2021

#STOPKILLINGUS Protest at Jantar Mantar on August 4 against GOI’s “cover-up” of Manual Scavenging deaths

The post Brij Bhushan Acquittal: The system vs the wrestlers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The signatories include senior lawyer Indira Jaising, academician Uma Chakravarti, social activist Aruna Roy, PUCL India President Kavita Srivastava, Kalyani Menon Sen, publisher Urvashi Butalia, danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, author and activist, Teesta Setalvad, activists Sujata Gothaskar and Shabnam Hashmi, women’s leaders  Jagmati Sangwan and Annie Raja and Nisha Sidhu of National Federation of Indian Women, Maimoona Mollah of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Lalita Ramdas, Syeeda Hameed, Meena Saraswati Seshu, transparency activist Anjali Bharadwaj, lawyer Lara Jesani, Govind Kelkar, academic Shilpa Phadke and journalists Rituparna Chatterjee and Laxmi Murthy.

In their statement, they observed that the legal struggle was not easy from day one. The filing of the FIR after a public protest by the wrestlers that turned violent and the entire period of trial which lasted more than two years saw a legal team led by Sr. Adv Rebecca John who left no stone unturned in eliciting sound testimonies from the violated wrestlers and presenting powerful arguments to the court.

The statement said that “the judgement has acquitted the accused but the fight will continue for justice.” The womens’ organisations and individual feminists have demanded the implementation of POSH in the sports arena, a safe playing field be created for all, free of political interference and the crass use of money and muscle power said that they will continue to support the wrestlers in the struggle for creating a sexual harassment free wrestling arena and its spin off in other sports fields.

Womens’ groups and Feminists Hail Our Wrestlers and Their Lawyers Fighting for Justice 

In the statement, the signatories who include members of women’s’ organisations and independent feminists in India stated that “they are are shocked at the acquittal of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, former MP (BJP) and the erstwhile President of the Wrestlers Federation of India by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi.”

Further, the statement said that, “While the full order is yet to be shared in the public domain, our detailed comments on its merits, or demerits as the case may be, will follow. However, at this point, we stand in solidarity with our courageous wrestlers who never said die. We hail the fight for justice against seemingly impossible odds, as they waged an inspiring battle against the highly politicised power structures of sports associations in India, where money and muscle power rule the arena.

Tracing the timeline of the case, the statement reads,

“The FIRs were lodged in April 2023 on the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, due to the public pressure created by the dharna of wrestlers, who left their training and other commitments, jeopardising their careers as they took on Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and his supporters on the streets. Of the two FIRs lodged against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, one was from a minor and the second was by five wrestlers.

“Prior to this, the wrestlers were forced to make numerous representations before a series of committees, held meetings with the Union Sports Minister, the Chairperson of the Indian Olympic Association and other officers but all these efforts, instead of responding to their genuine grievances, resulted in attempts to silence the complainants.

“We recall the manner in which the wrestlers had to struggle for over six months for just the right to wage a legal battle on their sexual harassment charge against Singh in April 2023.

“The effective struggle in the month of April – May 2023, led by the wrestlers in Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the alleged harasser, brought people from all over India, including senior sports persons, farmers, students, women and human rights groups, was met with a violent backlash by the Delhi police, who used excessive force to stop the marchers to march to the new Parliament, on May 28, 2023. This crackdown was followed by mass scale detention of the marchers and the wrestlers.

“Undeterred the wrestlers did not give up and tried to come back to Jantar Mantar to continue their protest. The state fear of these women was such that huge barricades were erected to stop any further agitation.

“Nevertheless the focus of the Wrestlers became the legal battle, with the Chargesheet being filed on June 15, 2023.

“The struggle and public pressure also forced an otherwise intransigent Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to refrain from standing for the next elections of WFI. He, however, ensured that his supporter would be elected. The BJP dropped him from the 2024 Lok Sabha election in Kaiserganj in Uttar Pradesh but his son was fielded in his stead and won the seat.

“From day one, the legal struggle was not easy. In the month of May 2023 itself, the minor who was also a complainant, of sexual harassment by BBSS changed her statement, news reports of that period claimed that the family was brought under a lot of pressure. And could not withstand the consequences of taking on Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

“The entire period of trial which lasted more than two years, from May 2024 when charges against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh were framed to date, saw three of the witnesses present robust statements and courageously take on the cross examination, although two of the five complainants changed their statements.

Specifically , the statement makes mention of and congratulates the legal team led by senior advocate Rebecca John who left no stone unturned in eliciting sound testimonies from the violated wrestlers and presenting powerful arguments to the court.

While, today the judgement has acquitted the accused but the fight will continue for justice. The wrestlers who spoke out and struggled, despite being victimised in their careers by the federation, still have a large support of the people. We stand by them in their challenge to this judgement in the higher court.

The struggle of the last three and a half years, has also initiated an awareness within the sports arena, where POSH and its predecessor Vishakha Guidelines which had remain un-implemented, were brought in under Supreme Court directives. As women’s organisations and members of the women’s movement in India, the women signatories have stated that they will continue to support the wrestlers in the struggle for creating a sexual harassment free wrestling arena and its spin off in other sports fields. They have also demanded that POSH be implemented in the sports arena and that sportspeople who raise complaints are protected, instead of being penalised and silenced. Further they have demanded that “a safe playing field be created for all, free of political interference and the crass use of money and muscle power.”

List of Signatories

1. Kavita Srivastava
2. Navsharan Singh
3. Geeta Seshu
4. Amita sheereen
5. Mamta Jaitly
6. Padma Singh
7. Annie Raja
8. Sankalpa Satapathy
9. Smitha kumar
10. Nandini Rao
11. Amrita
12. Ladkumari jain
13. Purwa Kushwaha
14. Abhilash Durugkar
15. Smita Gupta
16. Nivedita Menon
17. Koel Chatterji
18. Nisha Biswas
19. Avanti Deshpande
20. Lara Jesani
21. Feminists in Resistance
22. Joycia
23. K. Sreemathy
24. Shabnam
25. Seema jain
26. Pamela Philippse
27. Shalini Gera
28. Manju Lata Sanhghatan (मंजू लता संगठन)
29. Madhusree Dutta
30. Chanda Asani
31. Nymphea Reddy
32. Shobhita
33. Laxmi Murthy

30. Anuradha Kapoor
31. Muskan Tibrewala
32. Adv Dr Shalu Nigam
33. Kalpana Chakravarthy
34. Shilpa Phadke
35. Radha Kumar
36. Runu
37. Anwiti
38. Priyakshi Agarwal
39. Rituparna Chatterjee
40. Kritika S
41. Lalita
42. Anita bhartiya
43. Vanita Mukherjee
44. sheba chhachhi
45. Rakhi Sehgal
46. Sharanya
47. Avisikta Aditya
48. Sharanya Nayak
49. Sujata Patel
50. Arundhati Dhuru
51. Kumudini Pati
52. Manisha Chaudhry
53. Ramlath Kavil
54. Jahan Ara
55. Vanita Mukherjee
56. Uma Shankari
57. Monisha Behal
58. Sagari Ramdas
59. Dr dyuti A
60. Seethalakshmi
61. Jagmati Sangwan
62. Suvidha
63. Meena Saraswathi Seshu
64. Sajaya
65. Sanju Sadaneera

70. Meenakshi Sethi Zaidi
71. Mitra Mukherjee Parikh
72. Vidhi Churiwala
73. Archana Srivastava
74. Shabnam Hashmi
75. Cynthia Stephen
76. Priscilla Rawade
77. Nisha Siddhu
78. Jashodhara Dasgupta
79. B
80. Mudit Singhal
81. Chaitanya Reddy
82. Manisha Banerjee
83. Alaka Basu
84. Varsha
85. Sanjeev Chandan
86. Kavitha Muralidharan
87. Mona Mishra
88. Varna Sri Raman
89. Sanjay Madhav
90. Adv Vertika Mani
91. Nandini N
92. Vishal Solanki
93. Rachel A J
94. Sushma Varma
95. Rishika Agarwal
96. Aruna Gnanadason
97. Shikha bhardwaj
98. Vijay Rukmini Rao
99. Anurita
100. Sujata Gothoskar
101. Suneeta Dhar
102. Ammu Joseph
103. Norat Mal
104. Teesta Setalvad
105. Sohini Bhattacharya
106. Amit Ambedkar
107. Kiran Moghe
108. Virginia Saldanha
109. Indira C

110. Subramanian
111. Soudhari varalaxmi
112. Anjali
113. Geetha Nambisan
114. Elina Horo
115. Dev Desai
116. Leena Dabiru
117. Lakshmi Lingam
118. Dr RuShashi Puri
119. AS Vasanta
120. Yamini Dikshit
121. Mary E John
122. Anjali Bhardwaj
123. Shashi Puri
124. Amrita Johri
125. Rati Rao E
126. Anwesha Banerjee
127. Parvathi Nair
128. Prof F Minusia
129. Malavika
130. Nandini Manjrekar
131. Shweta Raj
132. D
133. Roger Samuel
134. Biraj
135. Rinchin
136. Vani Subramanian
137. Inee koshi
138. Sehjo singh
139. Harish Pejavar
140. Anuvinda
141. Anita Mathur
142. Devyani bhardwaj
143. Indira Jaising
144. Malik
145. Bindhulakshmi Pattadath
146. Ritambhara
147. Mrs Kamlesh Dagar
148. Mridula Mukherjee
149. Bhavna Sharma

150. Sudha Shankar
151. Kamal
152. Sejal Joshi
153. Sirimane Nagaraj
154. Veena Shatrugna
155. Riddhima Sharma
156. Beena Pallical
157. Geetha
158. Purwa Bharadwaj
159. Hemalatha Shenoy
160. Maya Chilwal
161. Sudha Goparaju
162. Renu Khanna
163. Sadhna
164. Deepa Bhushan
165. Mallige Sirimane
166. Hemalatha
167. Anuradha GR
168. Sunita Lakra
169. sandhya Phadke
170. Alka
171. Urvashi Butalia
172. Alka Ranjan
173. Sarika Sinha
174. Vijayakumar
175. Sumana Ray
176. Ranjani
177. Clifton D’ Rozario
178. Jyothi
179. Rita Chadha
180. Kalyani Menon Sen
181. Rajiv Lochan Sah
182. Lata Bhise Sonawane
183. Meghna Nair
184. Nonibala Narengbam
185. Deepti Mary Minj
186. Kiran
187. Koninika Ray
188. Palashka
189. Yashodhara

190. Ritash
191. Anuja
192. Deepa
193. Kamini Tankha
194. Sandeep
195. Poonam Kaushik
196. Minakshi Singh
197. singh
198. Ammu Abraham
199. Madhuri
200. Swarnamala Sirsi
201. Deepa
202. Seema e
203. Nalini Nayak
204. Sudhir Vombatkere
205. Savita
206. Maimoona Mollah
207. Ramya
208. Asha V.
209. Gouthami
210. Kavitha Gajendran
211. Raynah Marise
212. Susheela K
213. Prasad Chacko
214. Nivedita jha
215. Sanyogita Dhamdhere
216. Manjeet Rathee
217. Komal Srivastava
218. Shakeel
219. Mallika Sarabhai
220. Aruna Roy
221. Tanuja Sharma
222. Satish Kumar Singh
223. Madhuri
224. Anupama
225. Prasanna Moses
226. Karuna DW
227. Syeda hameed
228. Kaninika Ghosh
229. Sathya

230. Ritika
231. Reena Mohan
232. Shilpi Gulati
233. Archana
234. Roselle Solomon
235. Natasha Badhwar
236. Davy Tim
237. Komal saigal
238. Indira Jaising
239. Ramnarayan
240. Leila Passah
241. Uma Chakravarti
242. Alaka Basu
243. Ritu Menon
244. Pyoli Swatija
245. Sandhya Phadke
246. Renu Khanna
247. Govind Kelkar
248. ri@gmail.com
249. Varsha Sharma
250. Fatema C
251. Shampa Sengupta
252. Rangoli Agarwal
253. Sehba
254. Pranav Kumar Das
255. Hemalatha M
256. Aruna
257. Amitabha Basu
258. Zeenat Niazi
259. सहमत SAHMAT
260. Radhika Desai
261. Renuka Kad
262. Rajshri
263. Nandini Sundar
264. Sandhya gokhale
265. Raja Chandra
266. Batul Mukhtiar
267. Libania
268. Lalita Ramdas
269. Na Divakara

270. Bittu K R
271. Swarna Rajagopalan
272. Mariam Dhawale

Related:

Delhi Court frames charges against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Singh, says it found sufficient material on record to charge with sexual harassment of 5 wrestlers

Bajrang Punia returns Padma Shri, in open letter to PM Modi states “My fellow women wrestlers gave up sports for safety, that’s why I am returning this “honour” to you”

Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case

The post Women Wrestlers & Lawyers’ battle for justice: Feminists, women leaders in support appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In other words, the Supreme Court recognised that the labour performed within households is labour. It creates value, sustains lives, reproduces communities, and makes possible the very forms of productive activity that economists, governments, and policymakers are accustomed to celebrating.

Yet beneath the welcome symbolism of the judgment lies a more disquieting question. If homemakers are indeed nation builders, why has the nation found it so difficult to see them? Why does recognition arrive most readily at the moment of death, when a court is compelled to calculate the consequences of a woman’s death, while the labour itself continues to unfold every day in a space that remains curiously peripheral to the language of economics?

The question is worth dwelling upon because it directs attention away from the judgment itself and towards the assumptions that make such recognition appear exceptional in the first place. For decades, feminist scholars have pointed out that the distinction between productive and unproductive labour, between economy and household, between production and reproduction, is neither natural nor self-evident. It is a political distinction that has acquired the appearance of nature or natural through repetition. Once established, however, it produces a peculiar inversion. The activities most essential to sustaining life become those least likely to be recognised as economically significant.

This was the insight that animated the ‘Wages for Housework’ campaign of the 1970s. When Silvia Federici, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, and Selma James demanded wages for domestic labour, they were not merely seeking a salary for homemakers, they sought to expose the hidden structure upon which capitalist economies rest. The worker arriving at a factory, an office, a school, or a government institution does not arrive fully formed. Somebody has fed that worker, cared for that worker during illness, raised that worker as a child, absorbed emotional crises, maintained living spaces, and performed the innumerable acts of care through which human beings become capable of participating in economic life. Yet the labour that reproduces labour power strangely remains outside the categories through which production is understood.

Federici’s contribution lies in her insistence that housework is not external to capitalism but one of its conditions of possibility. Capital accumulates not merely through what happens in factories and offices but through its ability to extract enormous reservoirs of labour for which it does not pay. Domestic labour though highly valuable, is ignored because its invisibility is economically useful.

If Federici exposes why domestic labour remains unpaid, Marilyn Waring reveals why women remain uncounted. In her influential work If Women Counted, Waring demonstrated that national accounting systems were never designed to measure the activities that sustain social life. They were designed to measure only the market transactions. Hence, the frameworks through which nations calculate wealth and prosperity were constructed in ways that rendered large portions of women’s work conceptually invisible from the very outset. To put it simply, it sounds nothing short of absurd. A woman preparing meals for her family contributes nothing to GDP. The same meal purchased from a restaurant contributes to economic growth. A mother caring for her child remains economically inactive. The same care purchased through the market becomes productive labour. The activity remains unchanged. What changes is its relationship to exchange.

Waring’s argument exposes the extent to which economic measurement reflects a particular philosophy of value. GDP records transactions with extraordinary precision while remaining largely indifferent to the activities that make those transactions possible. It can quantify military expenditure, financial speculation, and commodity production, yet fails to recognise the labour involved in feeding children, tending to the elderly, caring for the sick, or maintaining households. The economy, in other words, counts what passes through markets and quietly excludes much of what sustains life.

Devaki Jain, the Indian economist explained this conundrum by demonstrating how statistical categories themselves reproduce invisibility. Through her ‘Time Use Surveys’, Jain shows that women who appeared “economically inactive” within conventional labour statistics were often engaged in a dizzying array of activities like collecting water, gathering fuel, tending livestock, processing food, caring for children, supporting agricultural work, managing households, and sustaining networks of community survival. Once ‘time’ instead of ‘wages’ become the unit of analysis, an entirely different economy comes into view. Women who had been categorised as ‘non-workers’ now emerged as individuals performing longer hours of labour than men.

The ‘Time Use Survey’ extends beyond methodology as it reveals that invisibility is produced through the categories by which societies choose to organise knowledge. Michel Foucault’s analysis that systems of knowledge do not simply describe reality but actively organise it, reveals that statistics, classifications, surveys, and economic indicators function not as neutral instruments but as technologies of visibility. They determine what becomes legible and what recedes into oblivion. GDP does not simply measure the economy, more dangerously it defines what economy is. And if the homemaker disappears, it is because the dominant economic frameworks have already determined where value resides. Even when the homemaker finally gets recognition as with the Court’s ruling, it only addresses the cultural invisibility because as Nancy Fraser argues, it is the redistribution that would addresses material inequality. The problem confronting homemakers is that they have historically been denied both. Their labour has been culturally devalued and materially uncompensated. In order to recognize homemakers as nation builders, structural redistribution is essential, lest it remains only a symbolic inclusion.

Diane Elson extends the argument in analysing how economies depend upon women’s unpaid labour not only within households but also as a mechanism through which states manage crises. When public healthcare deteriorates, when childcare remains inaccessible or when welfare provisions are reduced, the resulting burdens do not vanish, it gets transferred and more often than not, they reappear within households as additional responsibilities carried by women. Elson’s description of women as the economy’s “shock absorbers” remains one of the most powerful formulations in feminist economics because it captures the silent transfer through which public failures become private obligations which we all witnessed at a large scale during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The fiscal prudence at the level of policy during whether during emergencies, lockdown or any other calamity translates into longer days, intensified caregiving responsibilities, and greater unpaid labour at the level of everyday life for women.

Does it mean that we are asking the wrong question all this time and it’s not really about the monetary value of domestic work. Amartya Sen’s capability approach offers a useful way of thinking beyond the language of valuation alone. Sen’s central insight was that human well-being cannot be reduced to income. What matters are the substantive freedoms individuals possess to live lives they have reason to value. The predicament of homemakers is not merely that they remain unpaid. It is in reality those decades devoted to sustaining households that of the leave women physically unfit without independent assets, pension rights, social security, economic autonomy, or meaningful control over their futures. Thus, we need to move the conversation from compensation to capability.

A society genuinely committed to recognising care would therefore have to think beyond symbolic gestures and beyond wages alone. It would require pensions for caregivers, universal social security, robust childcare systems, healthcare guarantees, inheritance protections, and policies that expand women’s capabilities rather than merely assigning monetary value to their labour like 30,000 rupees.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is not merely the value of domestic labour but the limitations of the frameworks through which value itself is understood. For too long, economies have been imagined through the language of production while treating the reproduction of life as an afterthought. Feminist scholars have spent decades challenging this hierarchy. Societies survive not because markets function efficiently but because vast amounts of labour continue to be performed beyond the market’s gaze.

The homemaker has always been a nation builder. The real challenge posed by the Court’s judgment is whether we are prepared to reconstruct our understanding of the economy around that fact, or whether we will continue to celebrate the labour that sustains society while organising our measures of prosperity around everything except the work that makes life possible.

(The author teaches at Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women’s Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)

[1] “We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. The homemaker builds nation. So we have laid down the principles, and as a nation builder, we have housewife, we have quantified the amount that the loss of domestic care monthly income minimum in any event would be 30,000 per month,” Justice Karol said at the time of pronouncement. “The homemakers, to put it directly, actually are the ‘nation builders’ and they ought to be recognised as such.” The Court stringently observed that homemakers continue to be perceived as dependent on earning members despite the household substantially depending on their labour and care. The bench noted that unpaid domestic and caregiving work performed by women remains economically undervalued despite its enormous contribution to society and the economy. “It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependant on earning members, when, in reality the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker,” the Bench said. The judgment contains an extensive discussion on the social, emotional, economic and psychological contributions made by homemakers. Referring to women as the first teachers of children and the unseen force behind families, the Court said homemakers play a central role in shaping human capital, social bonds and national development: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/homemakers-are-nation-builders-supreme-court-quantifies-homemaker-contribution-as-rs-30k-per-month-537483

Related:

‘Married woman told to do household work will not be seen as maid servant’: Bombay HC

Kerala HC: “Even if a woman wears a ‘provocative dress’ that cannot give a licence to a man to outrage her modesty”

The post Women: Nation builders, missing from the nation’s books appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two days after the child, who had stepped out on Saturday afternoon to buy a birthday gift, was allegedly abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered, Surjyapur remains suspended between grief and rage. Four arrests have been made, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been constituted and further raids are underway. Yet for residents, the biggest question remains unanswered: could the crime have been prevented had authorities acted faster?

Nearly two years after the rape and murder of a trainee doctor inside RG Kar Medical College Hospital triggered one of Bengal’s biggest public movements, another brutal crime against a girl has once again shaken the state. This time, however, the epicentre of anger is not Kolkata but this village in South 24 Parganas, where protests continue to erupt in different corners rather than under one organised banner.

On Tuesday, there was no single protest site. Small groups of residents could be seen outside the victim’s house, near the Surjyapur police outpost, around the block office and at local crossings. The slogans may have become quieter than Sunday’s fury, but the demand has remained unchanged: justice without delay.

Surjyapur Residents Allege Police Delay, Demand Swift Justice

“We are not scared because police are here,” says Sagir Ali, who witnessed the recovery of the child’s body from the pond. “We are scared because if this could happen to an 11-year-old in our village, it can happen to anyone.”

He recalled standing a short distance away as villagers pulled the body from the water.

“I could not go closer. She was just a little girl. I felt shattered. Around 10 to 12 of us were present, but there was no administration at the spot when the body was recovered. We want nothing less than the severest punishment for those responsible.”

Residents repeatedly alleged that they, not the police, took the lead in tracing the suspects.

Juli Seikh, one of the villagers who participated in the search, claimed locals reviewed CCTV footage from nearby shops, identified two suspects, tracked them down and caught them before handing them over to police.

“It was us who checked the CCTV footage and caught them,” he alleged. “If villagers had not acted immediately, would the arrests have happened this quickly?”

Several residents also accused the police of failing to respond promptly after an FIR was lodged at Baruipur Police Station.

There are further allegations that local BJP workers attempted to intervene after villagers handed over the suspects to police, and that pressure was exerted to secure their release on Sunday. The allegation could not be independently verified, and there has been no official response from the BJP.

The sense of insecurity has spread far beyond the victim’s family. Parents say they are no longer allowing young children, especially girls, to step out alone even for routine errands. Conversations in tea stalls, markets and village lanes repeatedly return to the same question: “If an 11-year-old is not safe here, who is?”

The child’s body, stuffed inside a sack, was recovered from a pond in the Surjyapur Haat area on Sunday morning after she had gone missing the previous afternoon. The shocking discovery transformed grief into fury.

Hundreds of residents from Surjyapur and neighbouring villages poured onto the streets, blocking the Baruipur–Joynagar Road and railway tracks for several hours. Tyres were set on fire, a police vehicle was vandalised and protesters demanded immediate arrests and exemplary punishment.

Amid the violence, one man suspected by the crowd of involvement in the crime was allegedly beaten to death by an enraged mob, underscoring the intensity of public anger.

Political Reactions Intensify as Protests Continue in Surjyapur

Facing mounting pressure, police arrested four persons in connection with the case by Monday. A Special Investigation Team has been formed and further raids are continuing.

Inspector General of Police Kankarprasad Barui assured that every person found involved in the crime would face the maximum punishment under the law. The post-mortem report is awaited to determine the exact cause of death and whether sexual assault took place.

Thousands of people again assembled in Surjyapur on Monday, demanding a fair, transparent and time-bound investigation. Although road blockades had ended by Tuesday, the protests had not. Many villagers said they would continue demonstrating until they were convinced the investigation was moving in the right direction.

The incident has also snowballed into a political flashpoint.

CPI(M) leader Md. Lahek Ali visited the victim’s family and joined protests on both Sunday and Monday. Indian Secular Front (ISF) MLA Nawsad Siddique was prevented by security personnel from meeting the bereaved family.

Meanwhile, heavy deployment of police and Central Armed Police Forces outside former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s Kalighat residence on Sunday night triggered a separate political controversy. The Trinamool Congress alleged the security arrangement amounted to “house arrest” and was intended to prevent her from travelling to Surjyapur. On Monday evening, unable to visit the village, she led a candlelight march in Kolkata condemning the killing and demanding justice for the child.

Back in Surjyapur, however, politics appears secondary to the pain etched on every face.

The pond where the body was found has become a grim reminder of a tragedy the village cannot forget. Outside the victim’s home, neighbours continue to arrive quietly, offering condolences to a family struggling to comprehend its loss.

For the people here, the story is no longer only about a child who left home to buy a birthday gift and never returned. It is about whether a village’s cries for justice will continue to be heard after television cameras leave, political leaders move on and public outrage fades.

That question still hangs heavily over Surjyapur.

Antara is a freelance independent journalist based in Kolkata, West Bengal. She reports on climate change, environmental issues, human rights, and crime, with a focus on stories that highlight marginalised voices and public interest. She holds a Bachelor’s (Honours) degree in Philosophy from the University of Calcutta.

Courtesy: The Enewsroom

The post Just 11, Her Last Birthday Gift: Inside Surjyapur’s Fight for Justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.