More than two months have passed since the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 came into force. The Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on March 13, passed on March 24, affirmed by the Rajya Sabha the following day, and received the President’s assent on March 30. Among its many far-reaching consequences and years of un-doing of a movement, the amendment left unresolved the question of what would happen to transgender persons already midway through hormone replacement therapy when the law came into force. Since then, petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law have been filed in the High Courts of Rajasthan, Kerala, Karnataka, Delhi and now the Supreme Court itself. Trans persons and their allies are fighting back.

On May 4, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, directing that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. Notice was made returnable in six weeks to the Union government, all states, and Union Territories through their Advocate Generals and Standing Counsels.

A report in the New Indian Express stated that on May 27, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court to consolidate and transfer all pending challenges from the various High Courts to the apex court. The Chief Justice, however, appeared reluctant.

“Sometimes we can have the advantage of a high court view as well,” the CJI remarked. When the law officer pressed the point, the CJI said he “will see.”

What the 2026 Amendment Changes and Why It Is Contested

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was Parliament’s legislative response to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) in which the Court explicitly rejected the biological test (the principle that chromosomes or genitalia should determine legal sex) in favour of a psychological test. The Court ruled:

“Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes one’s right to expression of his self-identified gender.”

“Article 21, as already indicated, protects one’s right of self- determination of the gender to which a person belongs. Determination of gender to which a person belongs is to be decided by the person concerned. In other words, gender identity is integral to the dignity of an individual and is at the core of “personal autonomy” and “self-determination””

In its operative directions, the Court declared that “any insistence for SRS for declaring one’s gender is immoral and illegal.”

The 2019 Act, with its own imperfections, encoded foundational principles that gender identity is self-perceived and that Trans persons have an enforceable right to a certificate of identity based on self-declaration alone.

The 2026 amendment retreats from each of these principles.

The amendment deletes Section 4 (2) of the 2019 Act, which stated that a person recognised as transgender under sub-section (1) shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity. The Statement of Objects and Reasons justifies this deletion by claiming the Act was never intended to protect persons with various gender identities, self-perceived sex/gender identities or gender fluidities, and that legislative policy was always aimed only at those facing exclusion due to biological reasons.

Under the 2019 Act, Trans persons could also apply directly to the District Magistrate for a certificate of identity and medical evaluation was not a prerequisite. The 2026 amendment replaces this with a mandatory two-stage medical filter. First, the applicant must obtain a positive recommendation from a state-appointed medical board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Then, the DM may seek further evaluation from ‘other medical experts’ at their discretion. Neither stage specifies what criteria the board is assessing, and no appellate mechanism is prescribed. Since the certificate is the gateway to welfare schemes, healthcare, insurance, educational and employment reservations, and government-funded gender-affirming surgeries, those without it are excluded from all these entitlements.

The new Section 7 (1A) also requires every medical institution where gender-affirming surgery is performed to furnish details of that patient to the concerned District Magistrate and the medical board. However, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court had held that any intrusion into informational privacy must be sanctioned by law, pursue a legitimate state aim, and satisfy proportionality. The burden of demonstrating all three rests on the State.

A few of the key changes have been summarised in the table below for the ease of comparison:

The 2026 amendment also adds four new offences. Abducting and causing grievous hurt to force someone into a trans identity carries ten years to life imprisonment for adults, and life imprisonment where the victim is a child; compelling someone to present as Trans and subjecting them to begging or servitude carries five to ten years for adults and ten to fourteen years where the victim is a child. By contrast, sexual abuse, physical violence, and economic exploitation committed against trans persons remain punishable by a maximum of six months to two years.

In March this year, SabrangIndia had reported that:

“…the language of these provisions is vague and potentially overbroad, as such clauses may inadvertently criminalise support systems that have historically sustained transgender communities, including families, chosen kinship networks, and civil society organisations. There is concern that by framing transgender identity in the context of inducement or coercion, the law risks reinforcing the idea that such identities are not self-originating but externally imposed.”

The full report can be accessed here.

Petitions Filed in High Courts

Kerala High Court

On April 7, Advocate Padma Lakshmy filed two petitions in the Kerala High Court on behalf of Akhil K. Thampi (34) and Neethu (38), plausibly the first petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. Senior Counsel Arundhati Katju, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that both were receiving hormone therapy, which the hospital had discontinued following the amendment act.

“Because the definition excludes me from the definition of transgender persons. There are people who are getting medical attention. But because of the change in the definition of transgender, the institutions which were earlier providing me medical treatment by way of hormonal therapy…Now the private medical institution is declining to provide it to him. It is like a sudden shock to the system.” counsel submitted.

The petitioners had sought a declaration that Section 2 (k) and related provisions are unconstitutional as violative of Articles 13(2), 14, 15, 19, and 21, and that the right to self-identification of gender is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Justice Bechu asked the Additional Solicitor General whether a person already undergoing hormone replacement therapy could be affected by the change in definition, and suggested that rather than staying the provision, the Court could grant relief individually to the petitioners.

“There cannot be a stay of statute. There is a presumption of constitutionality of a statute,” he observed orally.

On April 10, the Court permitted the two petitioners to continue hormone replacement therapy, subject to the condition that they had already commenced treatment.

“Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that an abrupt stoppage of the hormone replacement therapy already started by the petitioner, would lead to adverse and absurd results. Such an object cannot prima facie be deciphered from the statutory provisions, as amended,” the order read.

The orders passed by the Kerala High Court may be read here:

Delhi High Court

On April 8, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the Central Government on a PIL filed by Advocate Dr. Chandresh Jain (W.P. (C) 4587/2026). The petition contended that the amendment undermines fundamental rights and dilutes the legal recognition of gender identity as a matter of personal autonomy, and challenged the State-controlled verification and certification mechanisms introduced by the amendment.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 22.

Rajasthan High Court

On April 21, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta issued notice in a PIL filed by the non-profit organisation Nai Bhor Sanstha, which claims to be Rajasthan’s first LGBTQ community-based organisation, working on trans and LGBTQ rights for over two decades.

The matter was listed after four weeks; court records however do not appear to reflect subsequent hearings.

Karnataka High Court

On May 7, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum of the Karnataka High Court passed an interim order in two separate writ petitions (WP 11652/2026 and WP 11655/2026) filed by two trans persons, one undergoing hormone replacement therapy for several years, another also in the process of changing her name and gender in official documents.

The Court found that the medical records produced prima facie indicated both petitioners had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy since November 11, 2023, and that abrupt discontinuation could have adverse and detrimental consequences on their physical and mental well-being.

It directed that the petitioners be permitted to continue hormone replacement therapy as per the existing medical protocol and that concerned doctors and medical authorities facilitate continuation of such treatment without interruption. It also said that the continuation of treatment be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and any orders passed by the Supreme Court, including in any transfer proceedings.

The matter was listed for further consideration after the summer vacation which were to take place from Monday, May 4, 2026, to Saturday, May 30, 2026.

The Central Question

At its core, the controversy over the 2026 amendment is a question about the relationship between the individual and the State: can identity be subjected to verification, or must it be recognised as an inherent aspect of personhood?

In NALSA, the Supreme Court placed identity firmly within the domain of personal autonomy. The 2026 amendment moves in the direction toward verification, classification, and administrative control. How the Courts ultimately resolve that tension will determine not only the fate of this legislation, but the constitutional foundations on which the rights of trans persons in India rest. 

Update: HC Proceedings Stayed

On June 15, a bench comprising of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana stayed proceedings before the four high courts and issued notice on the Union government’s plea seeking transfer of all such cases to the apex court to avoid conflicting rulings on the legislation.

Dr. Chandresh Jain, petitioner in the Delhi High Court, opposed the transfer request and informed the court that as a qualified doctor, his challenge was among the most comprehensive and involved substantial medical and scientific issues. He suggested that if consolidation was required, the matters could be heard together by a High Court, so that the Apex Court would have the benefit of a considered judgment before examining the issues- invoking, in effect, the Court’s own wisdom that High Court rulings often enrich constitutional adjudication at the apex level before it is finally undertaken.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also requested that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench. Is this a step toward hoping that NALSA is overruled altogether? The concern is not without basis as Mehta himself appeared to acknowledge the structural problem when he pointed out that High Courts may find it difficult to take a view contrary to the precedent set in NALSA.

Opposing the submission, Dr. Jain contended that his challenge was not founded on NALSA at all, and in fact questioned provisions introduced through the amendment itself. He argued that the new law was not only unconstitutional but also lacked any credible medical basis.

The High Courts were doing their part by issuing interim protections and beginning to develop a record. With those proceedings now stayed, that work is suspended. The centre of gravity has shifted back to the Supreme Court, and with it, the anxiety about what the apex court will do with a precedent the government appears uncomfortable leaving undisturbed.

It is difficult not to feel that the clock has, in some measure, been turned back. The institutional uncertainty and the dependence of an entire community on the disposition of a single court bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the period before 2014.

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

Related Articles:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered | SabrangIndia

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW! | SabrangIndia

9 years since the passing of the NALSA judgment, has the cycle of discrimination and ostracism finally been broken for the transgender community? | SabrangIndia

The post A regressive 2026 amendment to rights of Trans persons is under legal challenge even as pride month is celebrated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: Members of the transgender community submitted a memorandum to the Police Commissioner demanding strict action against inflammatory social media posts spreading Hindu-Muslim division. They urged increased monitoring, legal action against offenders pic.twitter.com/6K3Lj4QtvS

— IANS (@ians_india) June 4, 2026

Ironically, while they had approached the Police Commissioner as conscientious citizens, they were not allowed to enter the premises but had to submit the memorandum at the gate. The social media post reflected a police official accepting the memorandum after perusing the contents.

Related:

A Law of Identity, Passed Without Listening: Inside the Transgender Amendment Bill, 2026 and the crisis it has triggered

Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 NOW!

The post Varanasi: Transgender Community demands action against communal social media posts, CP denies them entry into premises appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images: From Sheema Kermani’s page

Related:

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

The Taliban Tried To Stop Lida Mangal From Employing Afghan Women

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

The post Karachi, Pakistan: Women march for autonomy, gendered equality, resistance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

Shubha case: Reformative Justice meets Gendered Realities

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

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

Complaint and allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessity of police investigation in cyber context

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

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

Court criticises inadequate police response

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

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

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

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

Parallel defamation proceedings before Delhi High Court

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

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

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

Delhi, Mumbai: Media organisations sharply criticise UNI eviction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy: CounterView

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

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

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

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

Detailed report may be read here.

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

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legal Core: What the FIRs actually establish

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

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

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

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

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

The Investigation: Scope, Method, and Limits

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

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

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

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

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

The Company Response: Institutional responsibility under scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) April 17, 2026

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

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

— Meer Faisal (@meerfaisal001) April 17, 2026

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

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

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

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

— AajTak (@aajtak) April 16, 2026

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

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

Victim Narratives: Allegations of control, coercion, and silence

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

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

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

The Narrative Shift: From workplace crime to communal conspiracy

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

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

Grooming Syndicate Busted

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

— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) April 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 20, 2026

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

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

— News18 (@CNNnews18) April 17, 2026

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

— NDTV (@ndtv) April 14, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Media Conduct: Language, framing, and responsibility

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

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

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

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

The APCR Findings: A critical intervention in a distorted narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voices of Dissent and Solidarity: A counter-current emerges

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

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

Dear Nida Khan,

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

— Prof Sumathi (@ProfSumathi) April 19, 2026

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

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

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

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

— Varsha Torgalkar (@varshasuman) April 18, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The danger of stories that outrun evidence

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

These 13 questions – sharp, insistent, and impossible to brush aside – cut through the carefully crafted and cunning narrative on women’s empowerment projected by Narendra Modi and his government. Shivasundar is not merely interrogating policy; he is challenging the very intent, timing, and political calculus behind this charade of a law

Through this Shivasundar exposes how the women’s reservation issue has been transformed from a long-awaited democratic reform into an electoral instrument — announced with fanfare, deferred with design, and deployed in moments of political convenience. Here are the questions. Read On.

Question #1

After amending Article 334A of the Constitution in 2023 with unanimous support of all parties and making women’s reservation a law, what was the need for another constitutional amendment?

Question #2

As demanded unanimously by opposition parties in 2023, why was 33% reservation not implemented within the existing 543 seats? Why were unnecessary conditions added—such as implementing it only after delimitation based on the 2026 census—making it impossible to enforce women’s reservation until 2034?

Question #3

Why was the Act, passed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in 2023, approved by the President and gazetted, not notified until April 16, 2026?

Question #4

If the intention of bringing the 2026 constitutional amendment bill was to implement women’s reservation quickly, why were manipulative sub-conditions like delimitation based on the 2011 census included?

Question #5

Even knowing that adding highly controversial delimitation conditions would prevent securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament, why was this process initiated?

Question #6

Even now, why is your government unwilling to call a special session and introduce a simple amendment to provide 33% reservation within the existing 543 seats?

Question #7

In 2023, you introduced a women’s reservation bill that could not be implemented until 2034—just one year before elections.

Now, during ongoing elections in five states, despite clearly knowing the bill would fail (due to delimitation conditions), you deliberately introduced and ensured its defeat. You have also started a false and divisive campaign blaming opposition parties for this failure.

Was this bill introduced merely to defame the opposition?

Does this not mean you have consistently betrayed women’s reservation for petty electoral gains?

Question #8

Since 1996, proposals for women’s reservation have been repeatedly introduced in Parliament by Congress governments, United Front governments, your own Vajpayee government, and later the UPA government. One major reason as to why they were not passed was the objection that there was no sub-quota for OBCs within women’s reservation.

Why did even the Vajpayee government not attempt to implement women’s reservation with an OBC sub-quota, like other governments?

Why does the 2026 bill you introduced also not include an OBC sub-quota?

Question #9

One of the reasons why attempts between 1996–2014 failed was coalition governments. But in 2014 and 2019, the Modi government had a full majority. Why did you not use that to pass women’s reservation without delimitation conditions, as you did for EWS reservation for upper caste?

Instead,

a) In 2023, you ensured it could not be implemented until 2034

b) In 2026, you added malicious delimitation conditions and ensured the bill’s defeat

Does this not make the Modi government the most anti-women and opposed to women’s reservation?

Question #10

If the BJP truly has commitment to women’s empowerment, why not voluntarily give 33% tickets to women in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections without waiting for a law? Except for TMC, why does BJP—like most other parties—still limit women’s tickets to around 12–15%?

Question #11

After the bill’s defeat, Prime Minister Modi allegedly misused government machinery and, acting like a BJP leader, delivered hate-filled election speeches falsely branding opposition parties as anti-women. Since institutions like the Election Commission and Supreme Court are not acting against this, does this not further prove that the bill was introduced just to label opposition parties as anti-women and gain women’s votes?

Question #12

In yesterday’s speech, Prime Minister Modi called himself a protector of women.

But over the past 11 years, in cases like Manipur, Kathua, Unnao, harassment of women wrestlers, and honoring of Bilkis Bano case convicts by BJP leaders—why has he remained silent, even when BJP MPs and leaders themselves were accused of crimes against women? Why protect such perpetrators instead of speaking out?

Question #13

Modi compared the failure of women’s reservation to female foeticide. Female foeticide reduces the proportion of women in society compared to men.

In reality, why do states like Gujarat (long ruled by BJP), and Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (with strong BJP and Sangh influence), have among the lowest female-to-male ratios in the country?

Conversely, why do states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telangana, and West Bengal—where BJP influence is relatively weaker—have higher female population ratios compared to “Hindi-Hindu” states?

Just asking.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Women’s Reservation – 13 Questions to Modi And His Associates in Government – Just Asking !! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sadly, as a core cadre member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Modi’s avtar as a messiah of women is fraught with deceit.

Not delving into the glut of sex scandals involving RSS top cadres which were exposed by RSS leading ideologues like Balraj Madhok (Zindagi kaa Safar 3: Deendayal Upadhyay kee Hatya se Indira Gandhi kee Hatya Tak, 2003) and Hemendra Nath Pandit (The End of a Dream: An Inside View of the RSS Today, 1950) we today need to scrutinize the RSS archives to know the deep and core levels of this male chauvinistic anti-Hindu women ideology. This is also evident in their practice.

1. Inside the RSS: Males are Volunteers

RSS founded in 1925 was to be an exclusive male organisation, its cadres were to be known as swayamsevak or volunteers. The RSS top brass made its intentions clear of treating women as of lower status than males when it decided to start its women wing; Rashtra Sevika Samiti in 1936. Its nomenclature made it clear that women members were not called as swayamsevak or volunteers but Rashtr Sevika (servants for the nation) or female servants for the Hindu nation. This identity of women in the Rashtr Sevika Samiti as servants was not only a technical issue but outcome of RSS’ attitude towards Hindu women which glorifies the subservient role of women in the society.

These are Rashtr Sevika Samiti members [who according to its website number around three lakh] only who pledge to maintain ‘faithfulness/virginity’, remain ‘modest’, ‘steadfast’, and not fall prey to ‘immorality and evil habits’. The RSS male swayamsevaks make no such commitment.

RSS Demands Manusmriti as Constitution Of India

In fact, this anti-woman attitude of RSS was glaringly visible when on the eve of the ratification of the democratic secular constitution by the Indian Constituent Assembly [November 26, 1949] it rejected it and demanded promulgation of Manusmriti or Manu Code as the constitution of India. A perusal of chapters V and IX will show how Hindu women were to be treated as sub-human creatures.

Laws of Manu concerning women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (Chapter IX/sloka 2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)
4. Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded. (IX/12)
5. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
6. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
7. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)
8. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule. (IX/18)

3. GANDHI PEACE PRIZE to GITA PRESS Which Denigrates Hindu Women

Gita Press, Gorakhpur was awarded the 2022 Gandhi Peace Prize, the prestigious international award instituted by Government of India in 1995 while commemorating 125^th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. It was to be conferred on those individuals/organisations which contributed to carrying forward the ideals espoused by him. The jury which conferred it to Gita Press was headed by PM Modi.

PM Modi congratulated Gita Press, “on being conferred the Gandhi Peace Prize 2021. They have done commendable work over the last 100 years towards furthering social and cultural transformations among the people,” Incidentally, Gita Press was also celebrating its centenary in 2022.

Award to Gita Press was not only shocking for all those who cherished Gandhian values, humanism and civilized norms but all those who opposed gender-based persecution. It was a sad day for the Indian democratic-secular Republic as that Modi government idolized Gita Press which publishes  ‘Hindu’ literature  propagating Sati  and beating  of  women.  It publishes “popular” religious, ‘Hindu’  literature  which opposes remarriage of widowed/divorced/discarded women, seeking employment by them and even reporting rape as we will find by the perusal of some of its publications. According to this literature, this is the way for Hindu women to end in swarg or paradise.

Gita Press has published more than a dozen titles on the subject, the most prominent of which are: Nari Shiksha (Education of Women) by Hanuman Prasad Poddar, Grahsth Mein Kaise Rahen [How to Lead a Household Life] by Swami Ramsukhdas, Striyon ke Liye Kartawya Shiksha (Education of Duties for Women) and Nari Dharm (Religion of Woman) by Jai Dayal Goindka and a special issue of magazine Kalyan on women. These are available in English and other Indian languages. The English titles are popular with the non-resident Indians.

Some glimpses of anti-Hindu women content of Gita Press publications:

‘What should the wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?” Swami Ramsukhdas offers the following sagely advice to the battered wife and her parents:

“The wife should think that she is paying her debt of her previous life and thus her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this, they can take her to their own house because they have not given their daughter to face this sort of bad behaviour.”

And there is another piece of heavenly advice for a rape victim and her husband.

“As far as possible, it is better for woman (rape victim) to keep mum. If her husband also comes to know of it, he too should keep mum. It is profitable for both of them to keep quiet.”

Can a woman remarry? The answer is very straight forward,

“When once a girl is given away in marriage as charity by her parents, she does not remain virgin any more. So how can she be offered as charity to anyone else? It is beastliness to remarry her.”

But can a man remarry? No problem,

“A man can have a second wife for an issue in order to be free from the debt which he owes to manes (pitr-rin) according to the ordinances of the scriptures, if there is no issue from the first wife.”

But this is not the only reason for which a man is allowed re- marriage. A man, “whose desire for pleasure has not been wiped out, can get remarried because if he does not get remarried, he will indulge in adultery and    go to prostitutes and will incur a badly sin. Therefore, in order to escape the sin and maintain the decorum he should get remarried according to the ordinance of scriptures.”

Of course, no widow is allowed to remarry. However, she may be allowed to choose to be some male’s concubine.

“If she cannot maintain her character, instead of indulging in adultery here and there, she should accept her affinity for a person and live under his protection.”

Is it proper for woman to demand equal rights? The sagely answer is quite unambiguous:

“No, it is not proper. In fact, a woman has not the right of equality with man…in fact it is ignorance or folly which impels a woman to have desire for the right of equality with man. A wise person is he/she who is satisfied with less rights and more duties.”

This literature about Hindu women openly preaches and glorifies the ghastly practice of Sati. To the question:

“Is ‘Sati Pratha’ (viz., the tradition of the wife being cremated with the dead body of the husband on the funeral pyre) proper or improper?”

The sagely answer is:

“A wife’s cremation with the dead body of her husband on the funeral pyre is not a tradition. She, in whose mind truth and enthusiasm come, burns even without fire and she does not suffer any pain while she burns. This is not a tradition that she should do so, but this is her truth, righteousness and faith in scriptural decorum…It means that it is not a tradition. It is her own religious enthusiasm. On this topic Prabhudatta Brahmachariji has written a book whose title is Cremation of a Wife with her Husband’s Dead Body is the Backbone of Hindu Religion, it should be studied.”

Apart from glorifying Sati, the Gita Press publication like Nari Dharm produces dozens of shlokas from ‘Hindu’ scriptures to establish that women are not capable of enjoying independence. This book begins with the chapter swatantarta ke liye striyon ki ayogeta (incapability of women for independence). Another notable facet of this literature is that long a list of rituals is laid down to be practiced by pregnant women so that ‘bright, talented, brave and religious inclined son’ is born.

Unfortunately, parliamentary opposition which intends to confront PM Modi on his hoax of love for women did not confront him with the above stated facts due to ignorance of the dehumanized ideology and practices of RSS. The moral of the story is that RSS-BJP government juggernaut led by PM Modi is able to befool the women specially Hindu women of India not due to its respect for women but because opponents are totally ignorant of the criminality of RSS. For Modi ignorance of his opponents is blessing!

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

Related:

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

Indian tricolour & the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

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

The post Womens Reservation Bill 2026: Women’s Rights & the RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.