The full text may be read here:

“This is to draw your attention to the ongoing process of ‘identification of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants’ by the Delhi police and several other agencies under directions from the Home Ministry. We have received several complaints of harassment of genuine citizens of India on
grounds that they speak Bengali. On July 10, 2025, we along with a team of leaders of the CPI(M) from Delhi visited Bawana JJ colony in Delhi and met several of the complainants. We were shocked to find blatant violation of minimum human rights, harassment and in some cases, corruption amounting to extortion.

“We give below some examples:

“1.    Md Nizamuddin, from Godda district, Jharkhand had migrated to Delhi several decades ago. Both he and his wife have family connections in Jharkhand. He was allotted a plot by DDA in 2004 in Bawana JJ colony and presently resides there. On July 5, a team of police personnel from the local thana went to his house and accused him of helping a Bangladeshi to get illegal papers. He explained to the police that the tenant was staying there three years ago and he has no contact and had no idea of the person’s whereabouts. On July 6, the police came back at around 6 am and they handcuffed Nizamuddin and in full public view, as though he is a hardened criminal, literally dragged him to the thana. This time they accused him of being a Bangladeshi. His 28 year old daughter Shabnam followed him to the thana and produced all the documents including the property the family owned in Jharkhand. However, the police beat Nizamuddin abusing him in filthy language asking him to confess that he gave shelter to a Bangladeshi and or else he would be declared a Bangladeshi. The police picked up his entire family including an 11 year old and an 8 year old, abusing them all the time. They were released at 1 am. Again the next day on July 8, at 6 am they were taken to Vijay Vihar police station. Here again they were harassed. Their photographs were repeatedly taken including the photographs of the young women of the family. It is to be noted that no senior officer was present during this period and some junior personnel, including someone from the SHO’s office were doing the interrogation, threatening, abusing and intimidating. After some time they were released. However in the next few days, teams of police from different thanas have been going to their house demanding to see their papers. They were told that all their photographs have been uploaded on a police site and therefore they should expect such police inquiries. This case is a clear example of the lawless behaviour of the police to harass law abiding citizens of India. This family’s reputation, particularly those of the young women, have been shredded by the repeated visits of the police. All such photos should be deleted from police records as the family are bonafide Indian citizens who have committed no crime. Also action should be taken against those who beat Nizamuddin in custody.

“2.    Sajan Saudagar Das who lives in the jhuggi settlement in Bawana C block was picked up by the police on May 6. He was taken to Pritampura thana and was badly beaten there by two policemen who abused him saying that he should confess that he is a Bangladeshi. When he pleaded with them, they hit him with lathis, threw him on the ground and kicked him on his ears with their boots. One ear was badly injured. Another police officer checked his mobile phone and then said that he was picked up “by mistake.” They later told him they had got “information” that he was speaking in Bengali and so they picked him up. This is another clear case of human rights violation.

“3.    We met three aged women from 60 years to 70 years who were brought to India from Bangladesh by their parents decades ago when they were children. Their parents have died years ago. These women have married in India, their children have been born and educated here and have their own families. All three of them are widows. They were picked up by the police and taken to the police chowki in Sector 5 where they were kept for three days and nights. All their documents were taken away from them. They were produced before an officer in RK Puram, their bio-metrics taken and then they were sent back to their jhuggis. Here too police from different thanas are going to their jhuggis to question them. They have lived in India for decades and their children are Indian citizens by birth. They have no families in Bangladesh. They live in terror every day that they will be forcibly deported. This treatment to such poor, vulnerable single women is inhumane and unjust.

“4.    Similar instances are there from other places in Delhi. For example in May, in Vivekanand Camp, Chankayapuri, the police took away all ID papers of Bengalis living in the area. It was also reported that police personnel were demanding money to return the papers. When some responsible social activists inquired into this and met the police, the senior officer said he had not given any such orders. Later, the papers were returned. In two other instances, the Crime Branch personnel from Kamla Nagar and Malviya Nagar picked up two citizens of India, who are Bengali Muslims and kept them in custody. They had proof of their birth and home in West Bengal, yet they were harassed. This happened on June 24.

“5.    On June 26, in a shocking incident, eight Bengali migrant workers living and working in Delhi were forcibly sent to Bangladesh despite having proof of their residence in Paika village in Birbhum district, West Bengal. Among them were a woman and a five-year-old child. What would be their plight in Bangladesh? Now their family members in Paika village are forced to undertake the expensive and difficult task of approaching the courts for justice. The process of identification of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in the capital of India is an example of violation of minimum human rights. In the process, genuine Indian citizens are being targeted on grounds of language and religion. Is it now a crime in India to speak Bengali? Further, are all Bengali speaking Muslim citizens of India to be treated as criminals and illegal immigrants? We would like to remind you that 26 per cent of the population of West Bengal are Bengali speaking Muslims. Also, there are international norms for deportation of illegal immigrants. The present
methods of identification in Delhi violate all such norms.

“We hope you will consider these issues and intervene to restore human rights, humane behaviour of the law enforcement agencies and adequately compensate the victims for their losses.

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Brinda Karat
(Special Invitee, CC & Ex-MP)
Anurag Saxena
(Delhi State Secretary & Member, CC)”

Related:

Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states

Bengali-Speaking Migrants Detained En Masse in Odisha: National security or targeted persecution?

The post Harassment by Delhi Police, blatant extortion & human rights’ violation in process of identification of “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants”: Brinda Karat to HM Amit Shahs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Rajjak Sk., the father of Sainur Islam, a migrant worker employed in Jagatsinghpur, Odisha. According to the plea, Sainur was picked up by Odisha police during a “special identification drive” and has not been seen or heard from since. The petitioner claims no formal arrest intimation or case details have been shared with the family, raising grave concerns about arbitrary detention and denial of constitutional rights.

“Where are the migrant workers now? On what basis were they detained? Has any action been taken against them?” the court asked while hearing the case, as reported by LiveLaw.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Raghunath Chakraborty submitted that the young man, like many others from Bengal, had travelled to Odisha in search of work and had been rounded up solely because he spoke Bengali. It was alleged that he was held beyond 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate—an act in direct violation of Article 22 of the Constitution and settled law under DK Basu v. State of West Bengal.

The Court was also informed that such detentions are part of a disturbing pattern. Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, who appeared in support of the petitioner, cited recent instances of Bengali-speaking labourers facing similar treatment in other states, including Assam, where language and appearance are being used as grounds to presume foreign nationality.

Taking note of these submissions, the Bench observed that the allegations raised serious questions of fundamental rights violations and could not be brushed aside simply because the alleged illegal detention took place outside West Bengal. “This Court cannot remain a silent spectator,” the judges said, affirming the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs, including habeas corpus, even in cases where detention occurs outside their territorial jurisdiction.

“This Court has the power to issue writs including habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which allows it to address violations of fundamental rights, even if the detention occurred in another State.”

“In view of the nature of allegations made, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is maintainable and this Court cannot be a silent spectator. The authorities need to be directed to produce all relevant documents to enable this Court to infer as to whether Sainur had been illegally detained.”

Before passing any formal directions to the Odisha authorities, the Court framed six pointed questions that must be answered:

1. “Whether Sainur had been detained or is missing?”
2. “If detained, whether such detention is in connection with any Court’s order?”

• “If detained, what are the grounds towards such detention?”

1. “Whether Sainur had been detained upon informing him of the specific grounds for his arrest?”
2. “Whether Sainur’s arrest is related to any investigation being conducted by the Odisha police authorities or the officials of the State?”
3. “Whether there has been any correspondence between the authorities of the State of West Bengal and the authorities of the State of Odisha?”

To facilitate an inter-state response, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of West Bengal to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate directly with the Chief Secretary of Odisha, transmit the Court’s queries, and ensure submission of all relevant documents before the Bench by the next date of hearing.

“For compliance of the order and for placement of all necessary instructions and documents before this Court on the returnable date, we direct the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to coordinate with the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha.”

West Bengal Advocate General Kishore Dutta, appearing for the state, assured the Court that the government would extend full support to the affected workers and engage with the Odisha administration to resolve the issue. The Bench expressed its expectation that both states would act swiftly and transparently.

The matter will next be taken up on Monday, July 14, 2025, at 12:00 noon, when the Court expects detailed responses and documentary evidence from both states.

As the order was passed in open court in the presence of the Advocate General, the Bench clarified that no further communication is required from the petitioner to West Bengal officials. However, a server copy of the order must be served upon the first three respondents in the case, with an affidavit of service filed on record before the returnable date.

The complete order may be read below.

Related:

Bengali-Speaking Migrants Detained En Masse in Odisha: National security or targeted persecution?

Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

The post Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order comes amidst a heated legal and political debate surrounding the ECI’s stringent revision process, initiated just months before the Bihar Assembly elections in November 2025. Petitioners, represented by a formidable legal team, argued that the current guidelines are arbitrary, discriminatory, and threaten the fundamental right to vote for millions. What is being debated and questioned is whether, the ECI, under political pressure, is using the SIR to determine a person’s citizenship. The next date for hearing will now be July 28.

Special Intensive Revision: an unprecedented exercise without legal basis  

The petitioners, led by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankarnarayanan (for ADR), Kapil Sibal (for RJD MP Manoj Jha), Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shadan Farasat, and Vrinda Grover, launched a multi-pronged argument on the ECI’s impugned exercise.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan set the tone by questioning the very legality of the “Special Intensive Revision.” He argued, “What is permitted under the Act of 1950 and the registration of electors rules is two types of revisions. Intensive revision and summary revision.” He stressed that this “special intensive revision,” covering an astonishing 7.9 crore people in Bihar, is a “de novo exercise” being undertaken “for the first time in the history of India” and lacks any explicit backing in law. Sankarnarayanan pointed out the inherent contradiction in the ECI’s approach, which, despite annual summary revisions in other states, has now embarked on this “special” drive with a strict 30-day timeline.

Arbitrary distinctions and discriminatory safeguards

A key grievance raised by Sankarnarayanan was the arbitrary differentiation between voters.

“They gave the clarification that if you are in the 2003 roll then you don’t have to submit the documents but you still have to submit a fresh form. If you don’t submit that fresh form you are out of the electoral roll,” he explained.

This, he argued, created an “artificial distinction which the law doesn’t permit,” particularly by presuming citizenship for pre-2003 voters while demanding extensive documentation from those enrolled later, even if they had voted in multiple elections. The petitioners also highlighted discriminatory “safeguards” that exempted certain classes like “members of the judiciary and people proficient in arts, people who are great in sports etc.,” allowing officials to collect forms from their homes, while ordinary citizens faced stringent requirements.

The burden of proof and citizenship Screening

The core of the petitioners’ concern revolved around the shifting of the burden of proving citizenship from the state to the individual voter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly argued, “The burden is not on me to prove citizenship. Before they remove me from electoral roll they have to show that they have some document in their possession that proves that I am not a citizen.”  Besides, the ECI is a constitutional body mandated to conduct, oversee free and fair elections, including ensuring every person votes and those who are not do not; however it is not the competent authority to decide citizenship.

Sibal highlighted the impracticality for many citizens, especially migrants and the poor, to furnish the required documents, citing a Bihar government survey showing low possession rates for passports (2.5%) and matriculation certificates (14.71%). Sibal expressed dismay at the exclusion of Aadhaar, MNREGA cards, and even birth certificates, questioning, “Where will I get birth certificate of parents? This exercise is beyond the scope of Election Commission of India completely.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that “this is absolutely an exercise of doing citizenship screening,” which falls under a different legal procedure and outside the ECI’s direct purview. He pointedly questioned the ECI’s stance on Aadhaar: “The entire country is going mad after Aadhaar and then ECI says that Aadhaar will not be taken.” Advocate Vrinda Grover further emphasised that this “citizenship screening… is disproportionately targeting the poor, the migrants. Article 14 squarely comes in here.”

Threat to democratic principles

The overarching concern for the petitioners was the potential for mass disenfranchisement and its corrosive effect on democratic principles. Singhvi powerfully articulated, “Disenfranchising even one eligible voter hits level playing field, that hits democracy and that directly hits basic structure.”

The timing of the exercise, so close to the Bihar Assembly elections, also raised eyebrows, with Singhvi suggesting it “should be delinked with an impending election.”

ECI’s Defence: Constitutional mandate and statutory power

Representing the ECI, Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, K.K. Venugopal, and Maninder Singh, defended the revision as a necessary exercise to maintain the purity and accuracy of the electoral rolls.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted the ECI’s constitutional authority under Article 324 and statutory power under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to conduct such revisions. He argued that the ECI “cannot and does not have any intent whatsoever to exclude anybody from the voter list unless and until the hands of the commission are compelled by the provision of law itself.”

He cited data indicating significant changes in the electoral roll, including 1.1 crore deaths and 70 lakh migrations, as necessitating an intensive revision.

Assurances of due process and hearings

A critical assurance from Dwivedi was that all the procedure will be followed all principles of natural justice will be followed. When pressed by Justice Dhulia on whether hearings on objections (in case of exclusion) would be granted, Dwivedi affirmed, “of course.” He clarified that pre-filled forms based on the January 2025 electoral roll are being distributed, and signatures are being collected door-to-door, implying that existing voters are not being ignored. He assured that only after all application forms are received would the stage of objections and claims begin, at which point Aadhaar could be used if an identity objection is raised.

Aadhaar as proof of identity, not citizenship

On the contentious issue of Aadhaar, Dwivedi initially clarified that “It is not a proof of certain things. It is only proof of identity.” He maintained that Aadhaar, while widely prevalent, does not automatically confer citizenship, as it can be issued to all residents. However, he also stated that the list of 11 documents was “not exhaustive,” which allowed the bench to question why Aadhaar, a document that often forms the basis for other listed documents like caste certificates, was excluded. His flip-flop on ration cards—initially conceding the list was non-exhaustive, then saying, “We will not accept ration card”—drew a sharp observation from the bench.

Bench’s observations and directives: a pragmatic approach

The two-judge bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi engaged actively with both sides, making several important observations.

Questioning the timing and purpose

Justice Bagchi repeatedly questioned the ECI on the timing of the exercise while saying that, “that’s why the question is why you are making this exercise relatable to an election coming in November. If it is an exercise that can be independent of the election for the whole of the country.”

Justice Dhulia concurred, remarking, “If you are to check citizenship under the SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar, then you should have acted early; it is a bit late.” He further observed, “The right to vote… there is no question that this issue is an important issue and goes through the very root of democracy.”

Focus on identity vs. citizenship

The bench noted the ECI’s conflicting stance on documents. Justice Bagchi highlighted, “all the documents you have listed are related to identity. The entire exercise is about identity.” He pressed Dwivedi that “Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.”

Justice Dhulia pointedly remarked, “A document that is the basis of so many other documents you are not allowing,” referring to Aadhaar.

Practicality and perception

Justice Dhulia also raised practical concerns about the short timeline and the potential for inadvertent omissions, stating, “We have serious doubt on whether you can follow this timeline. Remember you have to follow the procedure. It is something that is not practical.” He also highlighted the “matter of perception” created by the ECI’s actions.

No stay, but clear observations

Despite the petitioners’ strong arguments, the Supreme Court opted not to grant an interim stay at this juncture, primarily because the draft electoral roll is scheduled for publication only on August 1, 2025, and the matter is listed for further hearing before that date. This pragmatic decision allows the ECI to continue its data collection while ensuring judicial oversight.

The Court’s Order explicitly stated that “Mr. Dwivedi submits that the list of 11 documents is not exhaustive as the order June indicates then it is our view that the Election Commission will also consider the following documents such as the Aadhaar card, the EPIC voter ID card issued by the Election Commission, and ration card.”

The order further specified that a counter-affidavit from the ECI must be filed within one week, and any rejoinder before July 28, 2025, the date of the next hearing. The Court acknowledged the three key points of challenge; the ECI’s power to conduct the SIR, the procedure adopted, and the timeline.

However, the Supreme Court’s clear directive marks a significant development in the Bihar electoral roll controversy. While the ECI avoided an immediate stay, the implicit message is that the purity of electoral rolls cannot come at the cost of excluding genuine voters through overly restrictive or legally ambiguous processes. The onus is now on the ECI to demonstrate its willingness to incorporate the Court’s suggestions and address the petitioners’ concerns regarding fundamental rights. The July 28 hearing promises to be a crucial juncture, determining not only the fate of Bihar’s electoral rolls but also setting a precedent for future revisions across the nation, especially as elections approach.

SC order can be read here.

Related:

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post Bihar:  SC signals that ECI should consider Aadhaar, EPIC (Voter ID card) & Ration card for electoral roll revision  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioners contend that the ECI’s decision to conduct the SIR is arbitrary, lacks proper justification, and infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. A key aspect the Court will examine is whether the SIR process violates principles of due process and natural justice, particularly concerning potential voter deletions. Furthermore, the petitioners have questioned the practicality and reasonableness of the timeline set for the SIR.

This issue is not merely a legal one; it has become a focal point of concern among opposition political parties and civil rights activists. The timing of the SIR, just months before the Bihar Assembly Elections, has raised questions. In January 2025, the final electoral rolls for the state Vidhan Sabha (VS) elections had been finalised. The SIR has, moreover been analysed by many including Sabrangindia to be a sinister move since the constitutional body appears to be “Usurping the powers to test ‘Indian citizenship’, powers that do not lie with the ECI, the latest move by CEC Gyanesh Kumar is not just unlawful and hasty but violative of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”

Political commentators and civil rights activists have also viewed it as a potential strategy to disenfranchise a substantial number of voters, especially those from marginalised communities. The apprehension is that if these voters cannot produce specific documents alongside the enumeration forms, they could be unjustly removed from the electoral rolls, effectively shifting the burden of inclusion onto the most vulnerable and transforming a fundamental right into a document-centric ordeal. The eleven listed documents are inaccessible to many small farmers, landless labourers, migrant worker communities and women. The documents requested for this revision are largely not proofs of Indian citizenship, and with the exception of a birth certificate, none verify the date or place of birth in India.

The ECI move –politically guided and driven –appears clearly to be motivated by a clear desire to disenfranchise the unlettered voter who “owns no property.” Worse, after the “announcement” to the effect that “all electors must submit an enumeration form, and those registered after 2003 have to additionally provide documentation establishing their citizenship violates not just the Constitution but Clause 15 and 19 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1950!

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar

On June 24, 2025, the ECI formally announced the initiation of a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across all assembly constituencies in Bihar. The ECI has framed this intensified exercise as crucial for maintaining the integrity of the democratic process and ensuring free and fair elections. While the Commission has stated its intent to eventually roll out SIR nationwide as a constitutional mandate, Bihar has been prioritised due to the upcoming legislative assembly elections later in 2025. The SIR for other states is expected to be announced subsequently.

The ECI has cited a combination of demographic and administrative factors to justify this comprehensive revision. These include rapid urbanisation, frequent migration patterns, the continuous addition of newly eligible young voters, the underreporting of deaths, and, significantly, the need to address the potential inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants on voter lists. The explicitly stated objectives of the SIR are threefold: to ensure every eligible citizen is enrolled without exclusion, to purge the rolls of any ineligible voters, and to systematically remove names of individuals who are deceased, have permanently shifted their residence, or are otherwise absent.

Implementation and initial stringent documentary requirements

To implement this revision, the ECI established a clear procedural framework. The electoral roll from 2003, with a qualifying date of January 1, 2003, was designated as the foundational or “probative” evidence of eligibility. Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were directed to presume the citizenship of individuals on this roll unless contradictory information emerged. However, the SIR introduced new and notably stringent requirements for those not listed on the 2003 roll or for younger voters. Opposition parties have demanded that the Electoral Rolls used for the Lok Sabha polls of 2024 should be the base rolls used for the revision.

Initially, any person whose name did not appear on the 2003 Electoral Roll was required to submit proof of eligibility from a prescribed list of government-issued documents. The process was even more rigorous for citizens born after 1987. For instance, an individual born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, had to furnish an approved document for themselves and a separate document for either their father or mother to establish their date and/or place of birth. For anyone born after December 2, 2004, the requirement was stricter still: they had to provide their own documentation in addition to documents for both their father and mother. If one parent was not an Indian citizen, a copy of their passport and visa from the time of the elector’s birth was to be submitted.

Crucially, the Aadhaar card, Ration Card and the Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) were conspicuously absent from the list of eleven acceptable proofs. The validated documents included passports, birth certificates, matriculation certificates, permanent residence certificates, SC/ST/OBC certificates, and various other official documents issued by government authorities, banks, or PSUs prior to July 1, 1987, such as identity cards, pension orders, land allotment certificates, or entries in the National Register of Citizens (though not applicable to Bihar).

This initial stringent requirement raised concerns about potential discrimination. While individuals in certain societal positions (e.g., government servants, landholders) might more easily produce documents, others, particularly those born in the 1970s and 1980s for whom birth certificates are often scarce, were left heavily reliant on this single, often unavailable, document.

Furthermore, the provision exempting those on the 2003 voter list from producing documents was criticised as discriminatory, as it bypassed the very verification process being applied to others.

Backtracking from initial stringent conditions: ECI drops parental birth document requirement

Responding to the formidable backlash that ensued, the ECI announced substantial relaxations to its controversial SIR requirements in Bihar on June 30, 2025. This effectively reversed its initial stringent demand for parental birth documents. The backtrack came in direct response to intense criticism from opposition parties and civil society, who had vehemently protested the original June 24 directive as an impractical disenfranchisement risk and a covert attempt to introduce a National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Under the revised guidelines, the ECI now leverages the 2003 Bihar electoral roll, which contains 4.96 crore electors, as a primary verification tool. Individuals born after 1987 are no longer required to provide their parents’ birth documentation if either their own name or their parents’ names appear on this 2003 list. This change is projected to streamline the process for approximately 60% of the state’s electorate, who can now simply verify their details against the 2003 data and submit an enumeration form. Even if an elector’s name is absent from the 2003 roll, they can use an extract from it to substantiate their parents’ details without needing further corroborating documents, although they must still provide their own proof of eligibility.

This move, a clear afterthought is however likely to adversely impact vast sections of Bihar’s youth that reel under an absence of access and documentation.

While rolling back the contentious measures, the ECI defended the underlying principle of the SIR, framing it as a fundamental statutory exercise mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and a routine part of maintaining accurate electoral rolls for over 75 years. To facilitate this revised process, the Commission has directed that the 2003 rolls be made widely available to Booth Level Officers in hard copy and accessible to the public for download on its website.

Bihar: the most document scarce state in the country

Reliable studies consistently show Bihar to be among the most “document scarce” states in India, a critical factor that amplifies the challenges of the ECI’s voter verification drive and its “proof of citizenship” demands. An analysis of the 11 documents initially suggested as proof reveals significant limitations in their widespread availability.

For instance, identity or pension cards from government undertakings or PSUs are an option, yet data from the 2022 caste census indicate that less than 2% of voting-age Biharis hold government jobs, rendering this proof largely inaccessible for the majority. Birth certificates are another problematic requirement; the National Family Health Survey-3 (NFHS-3) shows only 2.8% of Bihar’s population born between 2001 and 2005 possess them, with the percentage likely even lower for older generations. Similarly, only about 2.4% of Biharis possess passports.

Latest 2022 statistics by the Civil Registration System (CRS) 2022[1] show that Bihar is among 14 states like Tripura, Assam, Telangana, West Bengal, Kerala, Jharkhand, Ladakh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir that are in the “the category of more than 50 percent to less than of registration of births” (Statement 12, page 38 of the documenyt) This government document shows that Bihar has 61.2 % (Registered Births in Rural Bihar, 2022) 38.8 % (Registered Birth in Urban Bihar) (Statement 18, Page 47).

While matriculation certificates are more common, with the National Family Health Survey-2 (NFHS-2) and NFHS-5 revealing that approximately 45-50% of 18–40-year-olds are matriculates, a substantial gender gap persists. Forest rights certificates, while an option, are relevant to a minuscule segment of the population, given that Scheduled Tribes constitute just 1.3% of Bihar’s populace, and only a fraction of those actually reside in forest areas. Caste certificates (OBC, SC, or ST), according to the India Human Development Survey-2 (2011-12), were possessed by about 16% of Biharis, roughly one in four households in these categories; upper castes, by definition, would not hold such certificates. Furthermore, the presence in an NRC or family register, both listed as proofs, is not applicable to Bihar. Lastly, government-issued land/house allotment certificates are suggested, but these are not provided for beneficiaries of schemes like the PM Awas Yojana, leaving ambiguity about who receives such documents and their overall coverage. These data, highlighted in The Hindu on July 1, 2025.

The emerging concern: from voter to doubtful/disputed voter – a looming fear

A series of electoral and administrative procedures creates a perilous journey for individuals whose citizenship comes under scrutiny—an exercise that has to be performed under due process by the state and not the ECI–potentially transforming a routine voter verification into a path towards disenfranchisement and the daunting status of a “suspected foreigner.” This process, ostensibly aimed at ensuring the integrity of electoral rolls, is fraught with measures that can lead to severe and life-altering consequences for those unable to meet documentation requirements. The situation unfolds in a connected sequence of events, each escalating the potential for an individual to lose their right to vote and, ultimately, their claim to citizenship.

The initial point of concern arises from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. While being on the electoral roll is not a definitive guarantee of citizenship, the SIR process itself subjects existing electors to rigorous scrutiny. The true fear for individuals begins with a specific guideline within the Election Commission’s order dated June 24, 2025. Para 5(b) of these guidelines empowers Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) with a critical and twofold authority: if an elector fails to produce documents that satisfy the ERO, the officer can not only delete their name from the voter list but is also mandated to report that individual to the “competent authority” as a “suspected foreigner.” This single provision creates a high-stakes scenario where the inability to provide the required, and often ambiguously defined, documentation can instantly escalate a person’s status from a voter to a suspected foreigner, a direction criticised as draconian and arbitrary.

Once a person is flagged as having “doubtful/disputed” citizenship, a significant and immediate consequence is the suspension of their voting rights. The process dictates that individuals whose names are entered provisionally in the electoral rolls, marked with the letter ‘D’ to signify their doubtful status, are debarred from casting their vote. This prohibition is not temporary; it may extend to all future general elections to the Lok Sabha and any State Legislative Assembly elections. The individual remains in this state of civic limbo, stripped of a fundamental right while their case navigates a complex legal system.

The question that is being raised is, is the citizenship of thousands of Indians being tested in this rather surreptitious way?

Post-SIR: what can be next for voters who become doubtful/disputed voters?

The pattern that seems to be emerging from the politically-directed ECI’s move is that the union government wishes to use elections to introduce an Assam-like situation in the state without any legislative backing.  Due to the peculiar situation in that state post-Independence and that which emerged before and after the Assam Accord, two laws, the Foreigners Act of 1946 (now repealed by the Foreigners Act 2025) and the now repealed Illegal Migration Determination of Tribunals Act, 1983. In Assam, following an ECI Order of 1998 and directions before that hundreds of thousands of voters were declared ‘D’ Voters (doubtful voters) with their status to be adjudicated by Foreigner Tribunals (FTs) in the state. Twenty seven years later there remain approximately 1.2 lakh such disenfranchised citizens who have not been able to cast their vote. In Assam, laws mandated the formation of the FTs that have been since strongly critiqued for not functioning with a clear constitutional framework that follows the Indian law of evidence; in Bihar and the rest of India where the ECI has threatened to bring in the expanded SIR, there exists no law that mandates the formation of such Tribunals.

Under the prevalent practice in Assam –the ultimate decision concerning the “doubtful/disputed” persons in electoral roll lies with the Election Commission of India (ECI). When the commission is not satisfied and has reasonable doubt about the citizenship of any person, it can refer all such cases to the competent authority, which has been mandated to be the tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A person whose citizenship status is in question and under consideration before a Foreigners Tribunal is not eligible to vote unless the Tribunal decides in their favour that they are a citizen of India. As mentioned above, if this adjudication process is mired in bureaucratic delay, the constitutional right to vote is denied. This is because individuals whose citizenship status is doubtful or disputed, as indicated by a ‘D’ against their names in the electoral rolls, shall be barred from casting their vote in any ensuing general election. This restriction will persist until an appropriate Tribunal determines their citizenship status in their favour. The looming threat of an adverse tribunal decision, leading to an official declaration as a foreigner, brings with it the profound fear of potential detention and the complete forfeiture of all rights and the sense of belonging in their country. To repeat there exists no legislative framework for this exercise and the manner in which it is being conducted under executive diktat presently.

The constitutional and statutory bedrock

The entire electoral revision process is firmly anchored in India’s constitutional and legal framework governing elections. The foundational provisions for these regulations are Articles 326 and 327 of the Constitution. Article 326 establishes the principle of adult suffrage, stating that elections shall be held on the basis that every citizen of India, aged at least eighteen, is entitled to be registered as a voter, provided they are not otherwise disqualified by law. This article makes Indian citizenship a non-negotiable prerequisite for voting rights. Article 327 further empowers Parliament to enact laws concerning all election-related matters, including the preparation of electoral rolls. However, this power is explicitly “subject to the provisions of the Constitution,” meaning any law passed by Parliament must align with the principles outlined in Article 326.

Acting under this constitutional authority, Parliament enacted the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950 (for registration) and the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (for the conduct of elections). Section 16 of the 1950 Act details the “disqualifications for registration,” prominently stating that a person who is not a citizen of India is disqualified. In conjunction, Section 62 of the 1951 Act outlines the “right to vote.” While sub-section (1) of Section 62 entitles a person entered on the electoral roll to vote, sub-section (2) acts as a crucial check, stating that no person shall vote if they are subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 16 of the 1950 Act. This unequivocally clarifies that even if a non-citizen’s name is erroneously present on a voter list, they possess no legal right to cast a ballot. The inquiry into these qualifications is conducted during the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, and if a person is found disqualified, their name can be struck off, and they are barred from voting.

ECI deploys BLOs for house-to-house voter verification

In Bihar, the ECI has deployed thousands of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) to conduct a comprehensive house-to-house voter verification drive. As per instructions, BLOs will conduct door-to-door surveys, distributing and collecting pre-filled enumeration forms along with supporting documents from existing electors. These forms are also downloadable from the ECI website or can be filled and uploaded online. For transparency and privacy, verification documents will be uploaded to ECINET, a secure platform accessible only to authorised election officials.

The ECI has also urged active participation from political parties, requesting them to appoint Booth Level Agents (BLAs) to help resolve discrepancies early in the process. Claims and objections raised by electors or political parties will be assessed by Assistant Electoral Registration Officers (AEROs). The final electoral roll will be published by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) after all claims and objections have been resolved. These draft final rolls are slated for publication on August 1, 2025, and will be made publicly accessible on the ECI and Chief Electoral Officer websites, in addition to being shared with recognised political parties.

Plenary powers of the Election Commission

Article 324 of the Constitution serves as a foundational provision, entrusting the ECI with comprehensive responsibility for conducting both national and state elections. This includes the essential powers required to fulfill that duty effectively. Specifically, Article 324 grants the ECI plenary powers of superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections for Parliament and every State Legislature. These powers are particularly crucial in areas where specific legislation is absent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act, 1950), explicitly acknowledge the Commission’s authority to issue general or special directions concerning the preparation and correction of electoral rolls.

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Comr. (1978) 1 SCC 405, clarified the limits of this broad authority. The Court ruled that while the ECI can issue instructions and orders in areas not covered by legislation, this power must not be exercised in a malicious, arbitrary, or biased manner, nor without due consideration.

SIR Status till July 8

As of June 24, 2025, Bihar’s electoral roll comprised approximately 7.90 crore electors (7,89,69,844). The ECI has reported significant progress in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. By July 5, 2025, at 6:00 PM, 1.04 crore Enumeration Forms (13.19% of total electors) had been submitted, with 93.57% of forms distributed. This momentum continued, with 1.69 crore forms (21.46%) received by July 6, 2025, 6:00 PM, including 65.33 lakh collected in the preceding 24 hours. As of July 7, 2025, 6:00 PM, submissions surged to 2.88 crore forms (36.47% of total electors), with 1.18 crore collected in the last 24 hours. The ECI anticipates completing the collection of Enumeration Forms well before the July 25, 2025 deadline, having already received 3.71 crore forms (46.95% of total electors) by 6:00 PM on July 8, just 14 days after the SIR instructions were issued.

It is likely, if the Supreme Court understands the wider and problematic implications of the present exercise, that the petitions will be extensively heard and argued. The people of India will await with concern their outcome.

Related

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate

[1] VITAL STATISTICS OF INDIA BASED ON THE CIVIL REGISTRATION SYSTEM 2022 brought out by the OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS VITAL STATISTICS DIVISION CIVIL REGISTRATION SYSTEM SECTION

The post SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Oh look who’s going back to their home?

In Assam, we welcome guests with open arms but those trying to illegally prolong their stay are treated with the special gesture of PUSHBACK.

18 illegal Bangladeshis pushed back today in wee hours from Cachar and Sribhumi. pic.twitter.com/9U9fZobTNL

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) July 5, 2025

In his social media post, Sarma reiterated the state’s position: while Assam welcomes guests, illegal residents would not be permitted to stay. The early-morning operation, executed by Assam Police, was part of an intensified campaign against undocumented immigrants, with Sarma stating that nearly 330 such individuals have been expelled from the state in the past month alone.

For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free.

WE ARE TOLERATING IT NO MORE.

We have begun intensified operations against illegal infiltrators and in the last 1 month, in Cachar district alone, we have pushed back 88 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas back to Bangladesh. pic.twitter.com/e7fDcWLLk8

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 25, 2025

Security officials, however, have raised red flags. As per India Today NE, it has been reported that many individuals deported under this policy managed to return shortly after being expelled, some allegedly through porous borders in Meghalaya. Several were reportedly refused entry by the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), particularly those identified as Muslims, due to lack of coordination or documentation.

These individuals are believed to have been pushed into no man’s land by the Border Security Force (BSF), often during night hours, without proper documentation or adjudication through Foreigners Tribunals, raising serious concerns about violation of national and international legal norms.

July 7: CM Sarma Defends Crackdown, Announces Expansion of Eviction Drive

Speaking to reporters in Kokrajhar on July 7, Sarma defended the state’s actions and promised to expand the eviction campaign. He alleged that individuals from areas such as Karimganj, Dhubri, Chappar, and Silchar had begun settling in Lakhimpur, leading to their eviction to “protect the land rights of the indigenous people.”

“If anyone has a problem with the removal of 350 illegal Bangladeshis, they will have to bear it. Many people have been martyred in the fight to drive Bangladeshis out,” said Sarma, according to the report of India Today NE.

The Chief Minister further stated that the campaign would not be halted due to political criticism. “Now they [opposition parties] are doing politics in the name of this girl to provide security to Bangladeshis,” he added, as reported by India Today NE, alleging that the real intent was to sabotage the BJP-led government’s campaign.

Sarma also announced that evictions would soon be carried out in Chappar, Dhubri, and Bodoland, stating, “No outsider should be allowed to enter Bodoland”.

PIL in Gauhati High Court: Pushback policy challenged as unconstitutional

These aggressive deportation measures have now come under judicial scrutiny. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All BTC Minority Students Association in the Gauhati High Court alleges that the Assam government’s “push-back policy” is being implemented arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

According to the report of LiveLaw, when the matter came up on June 27, a division bench comprising Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria was informed that several individuals had been detained and pushed back without any formal process. The petitioner’s counsel said he had collected the particulars of such individuals, whose whereabouts remain unknown after being picked up by the police.

According to the LiveLAw report, the PIL stated that “Deportation without notice, adjudication or opportunity to appeal constitutes a grave violation of constitutional due process… The State of Assam has undertaken an arbitrary policy of ‘push back’, which is bereft of the principles of natural justice.”

The matter is next listed for July 22, 2025. The petitioners had earlier moved the Supreme Court, but withdrew their plea after the Court expressed its inclination to dismiss it, opting instead to approach the High Court.

What does the petition entail?

1. No Tribunal Orders, No Deportation Proceedings: Violations of Foreigners Act alleged by petitioners

The plea highlights that the pushbacks are being carried out without any judicial declaration from the Foreigners Tribunals, as required under the Foreigners Act, 1946. It argues that such practices lack legal backing and amount to arbitrary and extrajudicial expulsions.

It also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), where the Court underscored the necessity of following due process in identifying and deporting foreign nationals, warning against wrongful deprivation of citizenship, particularly for vulnerable populations.

As per a report in Bar&Bench, the PIL also challenges the state’s interpretation of the Rajubala Das v. Union of India judgment dated February 4, 2025, which directed deportation of only 63 specific individuals with verified foreign nationalities. The petition contends that the state has wrongly used this order as a blanket licence to detain and push back many more without following legal procedures.

2. Pattern of Abuse: Allegations of Muslim profiling and secret detentions

According to the petition and supporting media reports, more than 50 individuals have been picked up from different districts and transferred to the Matia Detention Centre in Goalpara. These individuals were later handed over to BSF and allegedly expelled at night, without access to lawyers or family. The PIL also refers to the case of a government school teacher who was deported, indicating a pattern of wrongful identification and profiling.

The petition emphasises that once a person has entered Indian territory, pushbacks without a tribunal order or civil authority clearance are illegal under both domestic and international law, including Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India, though not a signatory, is bound to uphold in spirit as part of its constitutional commitment to human rights.

Aadhaar Under Watch: Assam moves to limit access for ‘fresh entrants’

In a related policy development, the Assam Cabinet is considering restricting Aadhaar card issuance. On July 5, Sarma announced that the government may introduce a law empowering only District Commissioners to approve Aadhaar applications for individuals over 18. He claimed that most adults already have Aadhaar, and limiting new issuances would prevent alleged illegal immigrants from gaining documentation.

“Fresh people coming from Bangladesh will not be able to take them,” Sarma said, as provided in the report of The Hindu, adding that the move would serve as an administrative filter against infiltration.

Experts, however, have warned that such restrictions could result in exclusion of genuine Indian citizens, particularly the poor, marginalised, and illiterate, many of whom struggle to prove documentation under existing mechanisms like the NRC or Aadhaar enrolment.

Assam’s aggressive deportation campaign, framed by the state as a defence of indigenous identity, is fast becoming a legal and human rights crisis. The ongoing PIL, multiple media exposés, and testimonies from affected communities point to a systematic subversion of constitutional protections and established legal processes.

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ajith never made it to a formal police station. As per the report of The News Minute, he was not produced before a magistrate. No official FIR named him an accused. And yet, he was driven across multiple remote locations overnight, tortured in front of his brother, and eventually died from what forensic experts called an “extremely painful” death caused by a combination of pain shock and hypovolemic shock, that is, severe blood loss.

A Catalogue of Torture: What the post-mortem revealed

The post-mortem conducted at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, began at 5:45 PM on June 29 and lasted nearly four hours. The report, accessed by The News Minute, recorded 44 visible injuries, many of them deep tissue wounds with the depth extending into the underlying muscle. Notably, these injuries were clustered across his arms, legs, chest, and abdomen.

Dr. Dekal Varadharajulu, forensic surgeon and Head of the Forensic Department at Meenakshi Medical College, reviewed the findings and explained that overlapping injuries masked the true count, with some areas showing multiple contusions layered over each other. For instance, injuries numbered 13 to 18 alone were said to include at least 15 separate blows. One single injury at the end of the report included five distinct wounds.

“This kind of trauma is consistent with repeated, targeted beatings using blunt instruments like lathis or wooden sticks,” he said. “Each injury would have bled. Taken together, the internal haemorrhaging would have caused his blood volume to plummet below survivable levels,” he added, while speaking to The News Minute.

A second government forensic expert confirmed that while none of the injuries were independently fatal, their cumulative impact would have caused death in a very short span of time, especially due to neurogenic or pain shock, caused by unbearable physical trauma.

What was the allegation?

The complaint that led to Ajith’s detention was alarmingly flimsy. Two women. Sivakami and her daughter Nikita, reported that 10 sovereigns of gold had gone missing from their car parked outside the temple. Ajith, who had only helped them park the vehicle, had no access to the car’s interior and did not drive it himself. He had briefly handed over the keys to another person before returning them.

Even so, Ajith and four other temple workers were detained by the Thiruppuvanam police for questioning. Though initially released, a “special team” of six policemen later picked them up again and began a night-long torture session across several secluded locations in and around Thiruppuvanam.

“He Collapsed in Front of Me”: The brother’s testimony

At around 4 am on June 28, Naveen Kumar, Ajith’s younger brother, was also picked up by the same special team. Naveen’s sworn statement to the Judicial Magistrate paints a harrowing picture of the ordeal. He recounted that Ajith was tied up and tortured in three locations:

• Near the Thiruppuvanam Veterinary Hospital
• Behind the Madapuram school hostel
• Near a lake behind the local bus depot

Under unbearable duress, Ajith falsely confessed that he knew where the missing gold was hidden. But when police took him to the spot, he broke down and admitted that he had lied—just to stop the beatings.

“He collapsed soon after,” Naveen told the magistrate, as per the TNM report, while adding that “They didn’t take us to a police station. They just drove us around all night, tying my brother’s hands and hitting me to make him confess”.

Ajith was taken to a private hospital, where doctors declared him brought dead.

High Court Slams Police: “Even a murderer would not inflict such injuries”

When the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reviewed the preliminary autopsy report on July 1, the reaction was damning. “Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused these many injuries,” observed Justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete. The Bench acknowledged that the state had “conceded the custodial death” and flagged the high risk of evidence tampering, especially of CCTV footage, by local police, as per the report of The Hindu.

Declaring the local police as “unsafe custodians”, the court ordered that all material evidence be placed under independent judicial custody. A judicial inquiry was also ordered under District Judge S. John Sundarlal Suresh, with findings due by July 8.

Arrests, revisions, and CBI transfer

Following public outrage and judicial scrutiny, five policemen—Raja, Anand, Sankaramanikandan, Praphu Ganesan, and Kannan—were arrested under Section 196(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which deals with custodial death, as reported by India Today.

Superintendent of Police Ashish Rawat was placed on compulsory wait, and DSP Shanumugasundaram of Manamadurai was suspended. Notably, the initial FIR, which absurdly claimed that Ajith “suffered a seizure while escaping custody”, was officially revised.

Under growing public pressure, Chief Minister MK Stalin transferred the investigation to the CBI. On July 2, Cooperation Minister KR Periyakaruppan visited Ajith’s family, handing over a technician job appointment letter to Naveen Kumar and a three-cent land patta and ₹5 lakh compensation to their mother Malathi.

Video evidence and witness intimidation

A shocking video showing Ajith being beaten with a stick while kneeling on the ground surfaced soon after his death. The footage was recorded by M Sakthiswaran, a 34-year-old temple worker from Madapuram, who later submitted it to the authorities.

In a letter dated July 2 to the DGP, Sakthiswaran claimed that he and other eyewitnesses were facing serious threats to their lives, particularly from S Raja, one of the accused officers. “We feel guilty for not protecting Ajith. I’m unable to sleep at night,” he wrote, requesting armed protection for himself and other witnesses in the Mayipuram area, according to the TNM report.

Not an Isolated Case: Another video, another assault

Even as the state was grappling with outrage over Ajith’s murder, another case of police brutality surfaced from Kacharapalayam police station in Kallakurichi district. A video showed a youth named Vicky being beaten inside the station on June 6.

The sequence began when Vicky’s aunt Malar approached police after her husband, Jayapal, returned from Dubai in deteriorated health. When she was ignored, Vicky confronted the police, only to be assaulted, as captured on video. Jayapal later died in hospital, as reported in The Hindu Tamil.

A pattern of brutality, a wall of impunity

Ajith Kumar’s death marks the 24^th custodial death in Tamil Nadu since the DMK came to power in 2021, according to civil society groups. Official data, however, remain lower- 13 deaths between 2020 and 2023, according to a response in the Lok Sabha, as reported by India Today.

But this is part of a national crisis. Between 2016 and 2022, Tamil Nadu recorded 490 custodial deaths, the highest in the South. Across India, 11,656 deaths in police or judicial custody were reported in the same period.

Despite this, not a single police officer in India was convicted for custodial death between 2017 and 2022, as per the report. Of 345 judicial inquiries, only 123 arrests and 79 chargesheets followed—but zero convictions.

Further, Scheduled Castes remain disproportionately affected. As of December 31, 2022, 38.5% of detenues in Tamil Nadu were SC, even though they represent just 20% of the population.

A colonial legacy, a reform deferred

Congress MP Karti Chidambaram called Ajith’s death the latest reminder of India’s colonial policing legacy. “The police are still using third-degree methods inherited from British rule,” he told India Today TV. “This is not about DMK or AIADMK. This is a national crisis”, Chidambaram added.

He called for systemic training in sensitivity and accountability, beginning from constables to DGPs, and urged the Centre to mandate nationwide police reforms.

Conclusion: A brutal system on autopilot

Ajith Kumar’s death is not just an aberration, rather it is a chilling reminder that police brutality in India operates without oversight, without consequence, and often without shame. Until the legal system guarantees institutional accountability, ensures protection for witnesses, and criminalises custodial torture, the cycle of violence and impunity will continue. Justice in Ajith’s case, if it comes at all, will only matter if it helps break that cycle.

Related:

Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias

The post “Even a Murderer Wouldn’t Do This”: Ajith Kumar’s custodial death and Tamil Nadu’s shameful culture of impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, challenging the single-judge order passed by Justice Rahul Bharti, which had strongly criticised Rashid’s removal as a violation of her legal status and fundamental rights. On July 3, the Division Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli admitted the appeal and granted an interim stay, halting the enforcement of the repatriation order until further hearing.

The stay now places the continued suffering of a woman already rendered vulnerable, alone in a country she has no ties to, on procedural pause, despite the gravity of findings already made by the High Court in her favour.

Justice Bharti’s June 6 order: “A case of constitutional SOS”

Justice Bharti’s order had framed Rashid’s deportation as not only procedurally flawed but morally and constitutionally indefensible. Rashid had arrived in India in the late 1980s, married an Indian citizen, and lived in Jammu ever since. Her LTV had been renewed annually, and she had applied for Indian citizenship in 1996, which remains pending to this day.

On April 29, in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 people were killed. The MHA issued an order cancelling visas of Pakistani nationals, but explicitly exempted LTV holders and Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. Rashid fell under both protected categories. Yet, early that morning, local police took her from her home and drove her to the Attari border, from where she was deported without a court order, without legal representation, and despite ongoing processing of her LTV renewal.

Justice Bharti took note of this in harsh terms, noting that Rashid’s deportation:

“This Court is bearing in mind background that the reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.” (Para 4)

He went on to declare that the Ministry of Home Affairs must retrieve her from Pakistan, stating:

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3)

“Given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case whereby the petitioner-Rakshanda Rashid wife of Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed has been purportedly deported to Pakistan in the recent drive undertaken by the Government of India post Pahalgam carnage, this Court is constrained to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to retrieve the petitioner back to J&K, India so as to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner with her husband-Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed in Jammu.” (Para 5)

The order gave the Union Government ten days to comply, listing the matter for July 1 for a compliance update. (Detailed piece may be read here.)

MHA’s Appeal: Technical objections, procedural deflection

Instead of complying, the MHA filed an appeal just as the deadline approached. In its Letters Patent Appeal, the MHA did not contest the humanitarian facts of the case or the petitioner’s prolonged residence in India. Instead, it advanced technical objections that sought to side-line the substance of the June 6 order.

Key arguments made by the MHA in the appeal included:

• LTV not valid at time of deportation: The MHA claimed that as of April 29, 2025, Ms. Rashid’s long-term visa had expired, and therefore she was no longer under legal protection. They argued that the exemption granted post-Pahalgam was not applicable, since the LTV “did not exist” on the date of deportation.
• Delay in filing LTV renewal application: The Ministry alleged that the LTV renewal application had been filed on March 8, not January as claimed by the petitioner. This discrepancy was used to argue that the application was late and hence invalid.
• Order interferes with sovereign deportation powers: The MHA asserted that the single-judge order unlawfully encroaches upon the sovereign and executive powers of the Union Government to determine immigration and deportation matters, particularly in the wake of a serious national security incident.
• Judicial overreach in “retrieving” a foreign national: The Ministry argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Union Government to bring a foreign national back into Indian Territory—an act, they claimed, that rests exclusively with the executive under foreign and immigration law.

These arguments, framed as legal proceduralism, evaded the central concern raised by Justice Bharti: that even the deportation of a foreign national must conform to constitutional safeguards, especially when the person in question has lived in India for 38 years and has not committed any offence.

Facts that contradict the MHA’s version

The MHA’s factual claims are sharply contradicted by documentary evidence provided in the original writ petition:

• Email dated April 26 from the FRRO acknowledged that the LTV renewal application was under process.
• Email dated May 9 confirmed that the application had been forwarded to higher authorities for approval.
• These emails undermine the MHA’s claim that no valid application existed at the time of deportation.

Further, Ms. Rashid’s daughter, Fatima Sheikh, told The Hindu that the application was filed in January, not March, and that the March 8 date was deliberately misrepresented by police to justify a pre-planned removal. She also said her mother was denied access to lawyers, given no notice, and is now struggling alone in Pakistan, with no relatives, no income, and deteriorating health, as provided by the report.

The Division Bench’s Stay: A reversal of urgency and rights

On July 3, without examining these contradictions or addressing the humanitarian stakes of the matter, the Division Bench granted an interim stay on the repatriation order, delaying relief without a finding of fault.

The stay has effectively nullified the urgency recognised by the single-judge bench. No timeline for repatriation. No safeguard for Rashid in Pakistan. Just indefinite suspension, as the case winds its way through another round of legal arguments.

This raises pressing constitutional and ethical concerns:

• Can the state correct an illegal act (a forcible deportation without process) by citing procedural technicalities in retrospect?
• Should courts allow such technicalities to override basic rights and urgent judicial directions rooted in justice and dignity?
• Does the judicial system recognise the harm caused by delay itself, especially when the person harmed is elderly, sick, and stateless in practice?

The appeal has been admitted and will now be heard on merits. Until then, Rakshanda Rashid remains stranded in Pakistan, in legal limbo, without family or resources. The SOS call issued by the Court has been muted by procedure, and a woman who never should have been deported in the first place is forced to wait for her humanity to be re-recognised.

What the High Court gave with one hand, compassion, clarity, and courage, the system has now taken away, at least for the moment. And the message it sends is deeply worrying: that even in clear cases of wrongful state action, relief can be stayed, and rights can be delayed, if not denied.

Related:

India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

Gauhati HC seeks verification of bail compliance in writ petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC closes habeas corpus petition after release of bail-compliant detainee, declines prayer for compensation

“State says handed over to BSF, Found Unconscious in Bijni” Gauhati HC demands answers after Samsul Ali returns home unconscious

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

The post Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the report of Hindustan Times, a division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh directed the Mondha Police Station to register the FIR within one week based on a complaint filed by Somnath’s mother, Vijayabai Suryawanshi, and asked the Superintendent of Police, Parbhani, to transfer the case to an officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) rank. The bench also took strong exception to the delay in registration of the FIR, despite the presence of post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports that collectively indicated that Somnath had suffered grievous injuries in custody.

Background and arrest

Somnath Suryawanshi, a final-year law student from Pune, had travelled to Parbhani to appear for his examination when he was caught in the aftermath of large-scale protests that erupted on December 10, 2024. The protests were sparked by the desecration of a glass-encased replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an act that allegedly followed a public meeting organised by the Hindu Sakal Samaj Morcha, a far-right outfit. Police launched sweeping arrests following the violence, picking up over 50 men and women, most of them from marginalised and Dalit communities.

Somnath was allegedly detained on December 11, and according to police accounts, he died on December 15, four days later, after collapsing inside the Parbhani Central Prison. Authorities claimed he had complained of chest pain and was shifted to a state-run hospital, where he was declared dead.

However, this narrative was forcefully challenged in a writ petition filed by his mother in April 2025, alleging that her son had been brutally tortured in custody, and that the police had tried to cover up the custodial killing. Her legal team, led by advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, argued for immediate FIR registration, suspension of the concerned officers, and the formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Postmortem and magisterial inquiry findings

A magisterial inquiry, concluded on March 20, 2025, unequivocally held the police responsible for Somnath’s death, confirming multiple instances of custodial violence. His post-mortem report documented 24 visible external injuries and several internal injuries, concluding that the cause of death was “shock due to multiple injuries.” The inquest report too noted visible trauma on the body.

Despite these findings, the police failed to initiate criminal proceedings against their own personnel. In her petition, Vijayabai also alleged that police officer Ashok Ghorband had offered her ₹50 lakh to not file a complaint against the department. She accused the police of acting out of caste-based hatred, and demanded full disclosure of the magisterial report and an impartial probe.

April 29, 2025: High Court intervenes

In a significant first intervention, the Aurangabad Bench on April 29, 2025, expressed grave concern over the direction of the ongoing police-led investigation. The court observed that the inquiry appeared to be conducted with a “preconceived notion,” undermining the credibility of the process. It restrained the police from proceeding further with the investigation, pending further review, and set the next hearing for May 8, emphasising the need to safeguard the integrity of the process.

The restraint order marked a serious judicial rebuke and indicated that the court was unwilling to let the same police force accused of custodial violence investigate the case unilaterally. (Detailed report may be read here.)

May 8, 2025: Ongoing scrutiny

At the subsequent hearing on May 8, the court continued to press for accountability and demanded updated records, while public prosecutor A.B. Girase, appearing for the state, maintained that no illegality had occurred and that the CID-led probe was ongoing. The petitioner’s counsel rejected this, arguing that continuing the investigation under the same agency—despite it being accused—was a violation of basic legal norms and natural justice.

Advocate Hitendra Gandhi cited the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case as a precedent, where the Bombay High Court had constituted an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde, an accused in a sexual assault case who was allegedly killed in a staged encounter. The court in that case had allowed Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, to constitute his own team, drawing officers from any department of his choosing.

July 4, 2025: FIR ordered, CID criticised

At the July 4 hearing, the court finally ordered the mandatory registration of an FIR, noting that the post-mortem, magisterial inquiry, and inquest reports provided sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant criminal proceedings. The bench also criticised the CID for seeking a second medical opinion from JJ Hospital in Mumbai, bypassing the original seven-member autopsy team, calling the move suspicious and unnecessary.

“The post-mortem report shows that there were 24 visible injuries. Of course, there are internal injuries also,” the court observed, as per the HT report. It questioned why such strong medical findings had not yet translated into criminal proceedings.

Public prosecutor Girase again argued against premature FIR registration, claiming the inquiry was still incomplete. The bench, however, rejected this argument, noting that continuing delay in the face of clear evidence amounted to obstruction of justice.

Towards judicial accountability in custodial deaths

The High Court’s categorical order to file an FIR, its castigation of the CID, and its early restraint on a biased probe mark a significant step in holding law enforcement accountable for custodial deaths, particularly those involving caste-based violence. The court’s observations also signal growing judicial impatience with institutional delays and systemic obfuscation in such cases.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2025. The outcome could have wide-ranging implications for custodial death jurisprudence in Maharashtra, and may set a precedent for mandatory independent probes in all such incidents. If an SIT is constituted under judicial supervision, it could strengthen demands for structural reforms in how police misconduct, especially involving vulnerable communities, is investigated and prosecuted.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Bombay High Court orders FIR in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death case, slams police for delay and bias appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protest, conspiracy, and the mechanics of delay

In February 2020, as nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) intensified (see detailed ground report by Sabrang India), Delhi found itself engulfed not merely in political dissent, but in targeted violent communal conflagration. What began as vibrant rights’ based protests to assert constitutional rights and freedoms through parallel sit-ins and road blockades soon deteriorated –with the active election-driven hate campaigns of the right-wing – into three days of bloodshed across North-East Delhi, leaving 53 people dead, hundreds injured, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes. The human toll was staggering—but what followed, in parallel, in the courts, was, in many ways, just as consequential. Two and a half years after the violence, a Citizens Inquiry Committee Consisting of Retired Judges severely indicted right-wing driven hate speeches and their amplification by an uncritical electronic media for the escalation.[1]

On March 6, 2020, (18 days before the NDA regime declared a nationwide lockdown on March 24) the Delhi Police’s Special Cell registered FIR 59/2020, alleging a “larger conspiracy” behind the riots. The charge sheet, filed on September 16, 2020, stretched over 17,000 pages, and wove together disparate acts of protest, civil disobedience, WhatsApp conversations, speeches, and financial transactions as the basis of an expansive narrative of terror conspiracy. Key provisions invoked included Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), and 153A (promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as several sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The UAPA designation was not incidental. It allowed the prosecution to sidestep conventional bail safeguards and extend pre-trial detention far beyond the thresholds permissible under the ordinary Criminal Law and Procedure. Over time, the 18 accused (mostly student leaders and activists), including Dr Umar Khalid, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, and Sharjeel Imam were arrested under the FIR. While some were already in custody in related cases, FIR 59/2020 became the prosecution’s keystone, binding together the politics of protest with the law’s harshest instruments. Khalid had been granted bail by ASJ Yadav on April 15, 2021, the order noting that he cannot be incarcerated on the basis of sketchy material. However, he remains in jail –after being arrested on September 14, 2020 under stringent UAPA charges for ‘being part of a larger conspiracy in the north east Delhi violence case of 2020.’

For rights activists, advocates and academics too, it is crucial to note that that the initial FIR (which speaks of the conspiracy by Umar Khalid and his ‘speeches’) did not even contain non-bailable offences let alone offences under the draconian UAPA. It is only after the initial set of arrested accused were released by the Magistrate on bail –were a set of non bailable offences were added.  At that point of time there already existed 750 FIRs for the different instances of violence and destruction of property and this FIR 59 was in addition to the same.  Safoora Zargar was arrested in one of the 751 FIRs and was granted bail within a day of two in the earlier offences. Before she could actually be even released from jail –the Delhi Police –in what a clear case of over reach and malice—arrested Safoora (who as mentioned above did not even find mention in FIR 59) by adding offences under the stringent UAPA.  This demonstrates that the purpose of the executive (prosecution) was to simply keep the student activists in jail, no matter what. Given that these were initial developments that had been called out by the defence in Court, the judiciary itself ought to have called this substantive and procedural injustice out.

As of mid-2025, not a single charge has been framed. The trial has remained frozen in its pre-charge phase for nearly five years. This extended inertia cannot be explained solely by the complexity of evidence. A significant part of the delay stems from what can only be described as judicial instability. The case has passed through multiple benches, with judges being reassigned, transferred, or rotated mid-way through critical proceedings. This institutional churn, as much as the statute books themselves, has shaped the case’s glacial pace and rendered a timely trial ever more elusive.

The calumny of calling out ‘delays’ by the defence

While at every bail hearing, virtually, accused rights defenders and their counsel have called out how the prosecution has (in a bid to bias the court and public opinion) sought to blame the defence for “delay”, even this tactic has been called out in court. Student activist, Khalid Safi has presented a detailed analysis of the delay in which he has demonstrated to the court that the delay is and has been only on account of a) the Prosecution; b)Judicial officers being unable to devote time and, c) the prosecution itself having sought and obtained a stay on the proceedings in order to contend that they would not make available the physical copy of the Final Reports / Charge sheets to the incarcerated accused, a contention which flies in the face of basic principles of natural justice.  How are incarcerated accused supposed to read 17000 pages in a charge sheet, without reasonable time to study these once they are provided, is the question asked?  Even if some time (and adjournments) by defence counsel are sought in the course of five long years, how can the plea for bail be ever resisted on that ground? Especially when the incarcerated accused have not in any manner gained from such delay. The delay has only prolonged their jail custody!

High cost of exercising fundamental freedoms

Of the total accused in the case, one, Tahir Hussain, is a politician and a former corporator. The rest, student activists and leaders protesting the anti-constitutional CAA 2019-NRC: Dr. Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, Sharjeel Imam, Faizan Khan, and Natasha Narwal. Of the 18 named in the FIR, only six have been released on bail. Those are: Ishrat Jahan, Mohammad Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. Even qua their (alleged) role in protests, a study of the charges reveals that there is no distinction that can be made between the roles of those human rights defenders (accused) who are in custody and those (already) granted bail.  What is more important is, that not a single act of violence, recovery of weapons, speech resulting in incitement, or call for violence can be attributed to them. This obvious lacunae is sought to be inserted or peppered in by belated third party statements which do not lead to recoveries (of such weapons) or connection to the rest of the 751 FIRS. Significantly, by the time the violence erupted in Delhi, Sharjeel Imam was in custody already (having been arrested on January 28, 2020 and Umar Khalid was not even present in Delhi when the violence took place.

Hence, ten Muslim student activists/human rights defenders—one woman and eight men, many of them bright youth leaders–are facing “charges of terrorism” in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case are enduring serious and questionable systemic failures in their judicial quest for bail. Judgements have been reserved while and after Judges have been transferred and hearings inexplicably delayed. Several of the petitions have been pending for several months in the Delhi high court.

One woman, Gulfisha Fatima and nine men– Dr Umar Khalid, Saleem, Sharjeel Imam, Abdul Khali Saifi, Meeran Haider, Salim Malik, Shifa Ur Rehman, Shadab Ahmed and Athar Khan – are those so unjustly incarcerated. Although a special bench consisting of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar listed the nine bail petitions for hearing between 34 and 60 times since April 2022 and even concluded hearings and reserved judgements in six between January and March 2023 – petitions of Saifi, Fatima, Haider, Malik, Rehman, and Saleem – it failed to deliver a final judgement.

Gulfisha Fatima who was arrested in April 2020 – two months after the Delhi riots has had an excruciatingly gruelling challenge to get bail. The bench comprising Justices Mridul and Bhatnagar had reserved its order on her bail application on February 13, 2023—a good nine months after she filed an appeal against a Delhi court’s refusal to grant her bail in March 2022! As if this were not enough, then came the double whammy when, on July 5, 2023, the Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Mridul’s transfer to the Manipur high court as its chief justice – which the Union government cleared three months later on October 16 – and a little more than a month later, Justice Bhatnagar’s transfer to the Rajasthan high court. A new bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur was then scheduled to hear the nine cases afresh, further prolonging incarceration. On November 1, 2023, Justices Kait and Kaur fixed dates for re-hearings thereafter in January and February the next year, 2024. Barely had this happened was the announcement of the judicial elevation of one of the judges, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait as Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with effect from September 2024!! Now, the matters lie before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Shailender Kaur.

The Amitabh Rawat phase: bail, paperwork, but no charge hearings

In the initial years of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat became closely associated with the 2020 riot-related UAPA matters. Sitting at the Karkardooma District Court, ASJ Rawat presided over several procedural applications and bail hearings, including the rejection of Umar Khalid’s bail under the Delhi Riots Conspiracy FIR in March 2022, in an order running over 40 pages that leaned heavily and only on the prosecution’s narrative. Khalid had put up a rigorous and detailed defence through advocate Trideep Pais arguing that  there were 750 FIRs registered before February 28, 2020 and the FIR 59/2020 (UAPA conspiracy case), that implicates Umar was registered on March 6, 2020. He argued that there was no occasion or event to register FIR 59/2020 and nobody should have been arrested under it. “The charge sheet filed before conclusively shows that there was no crime disclosed when the complaint was made”, he said. Secondly, Adv Pais had pointed out that the police relied on the speech from a YouTube clip used by news agencies (News 18 and Republic TV), and not the entire speech delivered by Khalid in Amravati, Maharashtra. He added that when the news channels were asked by the police to provide the source of the speech, they said that they relied on a tweet made by Amit Malaviya. More details of the previous hearings may be read in this SabrangIndia report. (Amit Malviya heads the Bharatiya Janata Party’s notorious IT cell and dubs himself National In-charge of BJP’s Information & technology division).

What is crucial to iterate –is how arguments on charge—i.e., whether there exists sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial in FIR 59/2020– had not even begun during the period that ASJ Rawat was hearing the case. Between 2020 and 2023, the case lingered in a kind of procedural purgatory. Defence counsel frequently complained of non-supply of documents, prosecution delays, and the overwhelming volume of evidence. In reality, much of the delay was structural.

In 2023, ASJ Rawat was transferred. That transfer, like many others in the Delhi judiciary, was part of an administrative reshuffle ordered by the Delhi High Court—routine, unremarkable, and yet, in this case, consequential.

The Bajpai phase: a brief flicker of momentum

Judge Rawat’s successor, ASJ Sameer Bajpai, took over and finally initiated arguments on charge in FIR 59/2020 in September 2023. It was the first real procedural movement in over three years. The prosecution, led by the Special Public Prosecutor, opened with oral arguments on the alleged chain of events, the documentary and electronic evidence, and the roles ascribed to each accused. These arguments spanned several months and were concluded by early 2024.

Between October 2023 and March 2024, five defence teams also completed their arguments on charge, contesting the admissibility, interpretation, and weight of the evidence. Some submissions focused on the unreliability of protected witness statements, while others attacked the temporal inconsistencies in the police narrative. At last, it seemed that the case was approaching the critical moment when the court would decide whether to frame charges and commit the accused to trial.In the period when the matter was before Bajpai, on May 28, 2024, he had declined bail to Dr Umar Khalid on the ground noting that “no ‘deep analysis’ of the facts of the case can be undertaken at this stage.[2] Then, just as the matter appeared to turn a procedural corner, it slipped back.

May 2025: Bajpai’s transfer

On May 30, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued a routine transfer order affecting 135 judicial officers, including ASJ Bajpai. He was posted out of Shahdara, where the UAPA-designated court was situated, and reassigned to a fast-track court in Saket. In his place came ASJ Lalit Kumar.

ASJ Kumar, upon assuming charge, directed on June 2 that arguments on charge must begin afresh. The logic, presumably, was that he had not heard the earlier submissions, and a judge cannot rely on oral arguments presented to another. That may be legally sound, but it placed defence lawyers, many of whose clients had already spent four to five years in pre-trial detention, back at square one. Their submissions, objections, and detailed rebuttals would now need to be repeated. While the prosecution, too, would have to reargue a 17,000-page brief.

This reset triggered public outrage. A few lawyers remarked, off the record, that the process resembled “litigating in a loop.” The wheel was being reinvented, they said, just as it had begun to move.

A rare act of introspection: The High Court reverses course

In an unusual gesture that revealed both institutional awareness and tacit acknowledgment of error, the Delhi High Court revoked Bajpai’s transfer on June 19, directing that he return to the UAPA-designated court from July 1. The order stated that in view of the advanced stage of arguments, and the complexity of the material involved, judicial continuity was paramount.

This reversal was not merely administrative, but a quiet admission that the justice system had come perilously close to collapsing under its own bureaucracy. While defence and prosecution lawyers alike welcomed ASJ Bajpai’s return, they also knew that the damage could not be entirely undone.

At any rate, the institutional volatility on display in FIR 59/2020 has not been unique to this case, but its consequences here are particularly acute. The accused are not free on bail, as many remain in custody under a preventive detention regime that forecloses easy release. The charges involve allegations of terrorism, which, under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, make bail nearly impossible unless the court can prima facie reject the prosecution’s theory—a standard that demands more than mere reasonable doubt. In such a context, delays are not procedural inconveniences, but become carceral sentences in and of themselves. However, despite these stringent legal hurdles, it needs recall, that the same Delhi high court that has refused bail in ten cases (11 including Tahir Hussain) did grant bail to three student activists, Asif Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita in June 2021, a year after their incarceration, looking at the same evidence under UAPA charges and making conclusive and creative interpretations on definitions of how legitimate protest cannot be interpreted, under a stringent anti-terror law as ‘act/acts of terrorism’.

Disruptions, duration, and separate interventions

Nearly 1,825 days have elapsed since FIR 59/2020 was lodged. The charge sheet was filed within six months (Sept 2020), but the trial court did not begin substantive charge‑arguments until September 2023, a gap of three years. Between then and the May 2024 transfer, roughly 40 sessions saw prosecution and defence arguments but those efforts were effectively nullified by judicial transfers and reshuffle.

Alongside trial delays, bail hearings have languished in similar fashion. A subset of eight accused — Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Khalid Saifi, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa‑ur‑Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Athar Khan, and Mohammad Saleem Khan have their bail pleas pending before the Delhi High Court since mid‑2022. Analysis and reporting by Scroll and CourtPractice shows:

These pleas have been listed, on average, 60–70 times each. Despite multiple benches finishing oral arguments, no orders have been delivered in most cases. Many listings were cancelled because:

• The special benches failed to assemble (44 occasions for Imam alone).
• Judges were unavailable due to workload or roster conflicts.
• Local administrative notes commonly record “bench did not assemble”.

Haider’s plea was listed 60 times, but heard only 9 times; similar lags affected others.

Justice Mridul & Bhatnagar bench’s involvement in several cases (Haider, Fatima, Saifi, Meeran, Ahmed, Athar) with orders reserved only to be derailed when Justice Mridul was transferred (Nov 2023); the pleas were withdrawn and re‑heard from scratch by a new bench.

The net effect: accused who had been in custody for over four years found themselves awaiting bail hearings under the same substantive arguments reargued all over again.

Several accused have sought higher‑court recourse. For instance:

• Sharjeel Imam filed a writ plea under Article 32 in the Supreme Court (Oct 2024), asking for expedited hearing of his Delhi High Court bail petition pending since April 2022. The SC directed the HC to act expeditiously. Clearly however, the matters have still stagnated.
• Gulfisha Fatima similarly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in Nov 2024 to expedite her HC bail plea; the SC politely declined interim relief but instructed the HC to decide swiftly. Here again, the matter languishes while Gulsfisha remains in jail.
• In May 2023, the SC dismissed the state’s appeal against bail granted to Kalita, Narwal, and Tanha, declaring that other accused could seek bail on parity grounds.

Several petitions request speedy trial direction or time-bound adherence to statutory limits. Yet to date, no constitutional court has set firm timelines, and the trial remains in procedural deep freeze.

Bail under UAPA: the framework

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by design, constructs a space where bail is not the rule but the exception. This inversion of the ‘bail, not jail’ standard presumption in criminal law is orchestrated through Section 43D(5). The provision stipulates that:

“…no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall be released on bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the CrPC, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.”

In practice, this replaces judicial discretion with a form of prosecutorial veto. It empowers the State to, effectively, keep an accused in jail until the court is prepared to rule (not on their innocence, but) on whether the State’s accusations might be believable on their face.

This presumption becomes crucial in cases such as FIR 59/2020, where the “offence” is not an overt act but a constructed chain of intent, coordination, and alleged incitement, which is, in essence, an interpretive and inferential exercise. UAPA thus raises the evidentiary burden at the bail stage and lowers the threshold for incarceration.

Key Supreme Court decisions: The shifting ground

1. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)

The Watali judgment remains the doctrinal cornerstone for bail under UAPA. The Court held that:

• At the bail stage, courts must not engage in a “detailed analysis of evidence.”
• If the materials prima facie support the allegations, bail should be refused.

This judgment placed extraordinary weight on the accusatory narrative of the police and practically barred trial courts from engaging in critical evaluation of the evidence. Bail became contingent not on the likelihood of conviction, but on the superficial cogency of the State’s documents.

In the years since Watali, multiple High Courts have invoked its ratio to deny bail in UAPA cases involving students, journalists, and civil society members. It became a script, prosecution affidavits were rarely interrogated; the court would peruse the material and affirm its prima facie acceptability.

2. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)

This case marked a modest pushback. The Court granted bail despite the UAPA bar, on the grounds that the accused had spent five years in custody without trial commencing. The court held that the five and half years Najeeb spent as an undertrial prisoner became a crucial factor. The Court invoked Shaheen Welfare Association v Union of India to hold that ‘gross delay’ in trial violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. A fundamental right violation could be used as a ground for granting bail. Even if the case is under stringent criminal legislation including anti-terror laws, prolonged delay in a trial necessitates granting of bail. Citizens for Justice and Peace has undertaken a comparative analysis of both judgements that may be read here

However, the judgement remains sparse and highly case-specific. In FIR 59/2020, for example, most High Court benches have not invoked Najeeb, despite similar facts.

3. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency: The Bombay High Court, on November 18, 2022, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him. The 72-year-old scholar had been in custody since April 14, 2020 when he was arrested by the NIA. While the NIA challenged this in appeal, the Supreme Court of India upheld the bail given by the Bombay High Court.

4.Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

In legal and academic circles, Vernon Gonsalves is seen as a vital course correction. The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and subtly recalibrated the UAPA bail standard set in Watali. While not explicitly overruling Watali, the Court held that a “surface-level analysis of the probative value of evidence” is essential when assessing whether the case is prima facie true under Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

This marked a departure from the mechanical, deferential reading of Watali that discouraged scrutiny of prosecution material. By requiring courts to assess some believability in the evidence and not merely its existence, the Vernon ruling offered a doctrinal opening for more meaningful judicial engagement at the bail stage. Yet, because both rulings came from benches of equal strength, the ambiguity remains to persist, leaving lower courts and prosecutors free to selectively rely on either approach unless the Supreme Court resolves the interpretive conflict explicitly.

The Delhi High Court’s continued deferral of bail orders in FIR 59/2020, despite the arguments being complete and the accused having spent 4+ years in custody, suggests that the inertia from Watali remains dominant.

High Court jurisprudence: Delhi’s reluctance and reticence

The Delhi High Court has had multiple opportunities to apply Vernon Gonsalves and Najeeb, especially in the context of FIR 59/2020. But the pattern reveals caution verging on abstention.

In Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi) and related cases involving Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha, the court (bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Justice Mridul) in 2021 granted bail on the ground that protest cannot be conflated with terrorism. The judgment examined the contours of what amounts to a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of UAPA and found that the State had overstretched the charge.  They also in almost a prophetic manner stated that though at that point of time, the accused had spent a year in custody, the principle of a constitutional court taking into consideration the right to speedy trial as an aspect of the right to life should apply.  This was irrespective of the stringent and restrictive bail provisions following the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in K.A Najeeb.  The court held so because, there was no movement whatsoever (in the trial) for a year. Given the volumes of witnesses and documents, further delay was inevitable, making the accused’s right to life through speedy trial otiose (obsolete) if bail was not granted. This prophecy –and the principles enunciated in those judgements—have come true because five years later, the case has not moved forward at all!

These judgments were subsequently challenged by the State in the Supreme Court, which stayed their precedential value, though not the actual bail orders. As a result, other UAPA accused, despite similar charges and material, could not invoke those bail precedents as binding except for seeking to invite the Courts’ attention to factual parity. It is however quite clear after the Judgments in Ranjitsing Brahmajeet Sing Sharma, Vernon Gonsalves, Shoma Kanti Sen and Sudesh Kedia, that the prosecution’s ipse dixit in the chargesheet is just not sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case be it simpliciter reading of statements, documents produced along with or the report itself for the courts are (i) required to go through all material and (ii) do a surface analysis of the material to see if the charge of terror is even made out.  The Judgment in Watali had been read and interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India to mean that the allegations in the Final Report and the statements had to be read as they are.  That interpretation is completely flawed for the reason that if that were so, where is the need for the Judiciary?  In fact Watali itself says, the material should ‘good and sufficient on the face of it’ such a finding would require some analysis of the material on record.    Despite these  Judgments in Ranjitsing, Shoma, Vernon and Kedia, Umar Khalid’s bail at every stage has simply been rejected only on the basis of the prosecution’s say so with absolutely no application of mind.  It is interesting that Justice Mridul has granted bail to Devangana, Natasha and Asif and in the same chargesheet with lesser allegations and lack of even presence has denied bail to Umar Khalid

In the case of Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and Meeran Haider, the Delhi High Court has heard arguments multiple times since mid-2022 but has withheld orders. The reasoning is neither public nor transparent. At times, it has appeared that judicial reassignment, rather than doctrinal difficulty, is to blame.

Even when Justice Siddharth Mridul’s bench heard and reserved judgment on some of these bail applications, his transfer derailed the outcome. Despite re-hearings, no decisions have been delivered. Judges who completed hearings have either been reassigned or replaced, returning the pleas to procedural limbo.

UAPA, delay and the punishment of process

Perhaps the most profound tension between bail jurisprudence and the structure of UAPA is the conceptual separation between trial delay and the statutory bar on bail. The prosecution consistently argues that the material is complex, the conspiracy vast, and the trial long. Yet, they simultaneously resist bail even when the accused have been in custody for four to five years.

In Siddique Kappan v. State (2022 Supreme Court), the courts reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial may violate Article 21, and bail cannot be refused merely on the ground that the UAPA bar exists. Still, the use of these cases remains sporadic.

In theory, Section 436A CrPC allows bail for undertrial prisoners who have undergone half of the maximum sentence (in non-capital offences). But UAPA offences often carry life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, making the threshold meaningless in practice.

The absence of time-bound charge framing, combined with the absence of mandatory periodic bail reviews, transforms UAPA into a tool of preventive detention without having to declare it as such.

Some other judgements in which the Supreme Court has, under UAPA, granted bail, may be read here. On April 6, 2024, the court reversed an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to grant academic Shoma Sen bail. Sen had argued that her prolonged detention since 2018 (six years) lacked prima facie evidence under UAPA and had also highlighted her advanced age and health issues. Though the bail conditions were stringent, the apex court, emphasised the necessity of prima facie evidence under Section 43D (5) of UAPA and underscored the importance of constitutional safeguards against prolonged pre-trial detention. Several judgements have been cited by the Supreme Court in support of its reasoning.

The path forward

What emerges from this study is a judiciary that is simultaneously constrained by precedent and unwilling to revise it. Despite Supreme Court signals in Vernon Gonsalves, Najeeb, and Kalita, many courts persist with the Watali-era conservatism.

To break the impasse:

1. Trial courts must critically evaluate “prima facie truth.” If the material is tenuous or contradictory, Watali must not apply. A “surface-level assessment” should become a routine part of bail hearings.
2. High Courts should expedite decisions in long-pending bail pleas. That some pleas are heard for 70 sessions without an order erodes public confidence in judicial efficacy.
3. Legislative reform may be necessary. A statutory amendment mandating bail review after two years in UAPA cases (much like TADA’s sunset clause) should be considered.
4. Judicial continuity should be prioritised. If a bench hears a bail application in full, it should be obligated to deliver an order, or the matter must be reassigned immediately with transcripts provided.

The evolution of UAPA bail jurisprudence is not merely a matter of law, it is a record of how fear, caution, and institutional deference have increasingly replaced scrutiny and principle. When a court does not rule for two years on a bail plea already argued in full, it is not the law that is failing, but the infrastructure around it.

In cases like FIR 59/2020, the punishment is the process. With trials yet to start, charges unframed, and pleas unheard, the UAPA becomes a penal sentence administered without conviction.

The law may say prima facie, but the effect is indefinite detention dressed in the robes of legality. A system that is so allergic to finality may well ask whether it is in the business of justice, or of deferral.

Image Courtesy: Burned shops in North East Delhi. Photo: Banswalhemant / Wikimedia Commons

Related:

UAPA: Delhi HC denies bail, Umar Khalid’s Incarceration to Continue

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

[1] The Citizens Commission of Inquiry commented upon the unbalanced (read biased) non-application of provisions of the Indian penal Code (IPC) against powerful hate offenders on the one hand (these include the notorious Kapil Mishra, Ragini Tiwari and Yati Narsinghanand among others) and failure to prosecute was matched by the unfair and selective application of the dreaded UA(P)A against young protesters, concludes the report. The absence of setting up of an independent Commission of Inquiry has also been commented upon. The report that may be read here was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court (chairperson); Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts and former Chairman, Law Commission; Justice R.S. Sodhi, former Judge of the Delhi High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; and G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), former Home Secretary, Government of India.

[2] The judge had also observed that Khalid’s bail plea had been earlier rejected by the Sessions Court and his appeal against the order was further dismissed by the Delhi High Court as the latter found the case against the accused prima facie true. Notably, Umar Khalid had filed second bail plea with the Sessions Court after he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court citing “change in circumstances” to try  his “luck” in trial court. Pertinent, before Khalid withdrew his bail petition from the SC, the case had already witnessed 14 adjournments. Earlier, the Session Court had rejected his first bail application on March 24, 2022, following which he moved to the Delhi High Court, which again rejected his appeal on October 18, 2022. As the Sessions Court rejects his latest bail petition on 28 May, Khalid continues to remain in jail for more than three and half years (this period is now close to five years!) even as some of the co-accused in the case have secured bail, including Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal. Khalid’s counsel pointed out this fact and argued that his client should be granted bail on parity, but the court rejected his arguments.

The post How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Historical Frame: Contesting sacred space

Sambhal is a Muslim-majority town (approx. 77.6%) in western Uttar Pradesh with historical and architectural significance. Sambhal is home to the Shahi Jama Masjid, one of only two surviving mosques built during Babur’s reign, with the other being in Panipat. The mosque stands as a rare surviving monument from the early Mughal era.  The town also holds significance in Hindu belief as the prophesied birthplace of Lord Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu. While the mosque is a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), right-wing groups claim it was built on the ruins of the “Hari Har Mandir”, allegedly demolished during the Mughal era. These claims rely on discredited 19th-century colonial accounts, particularly by ACL Carlleyle, whose report was rejected by the then ASI Director General, Sir Alexander Cunningham.

This confluence of history and myth set the stage for conflict, especially in a town that was once a stronghold of anti-CAA protests and continues to elect Muslim representatives like MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, whose family has long resisted the majoritarian politics of the ruling party. Over the past few years, this mythical narrative has been aggressively revived. Mahant Rishiraj Giri, a petitioner in the present dispute, has said he wanted to file a case even before the Babri suit. The town has already been declared a potential “Kalki Dham” by BJP leaders, and PM Modi laid the foundation of a Kalki temple in 2024.

November 2024: A timeline of escalation

• November 19: A civil suit by eight petitioners is filed alleging the mosque was once a temple. Within hours, by 3:30 pm, the Sambhal civil court grants permission for a survey, waives the notice requirement, and appoints an advocate commissioner. By 7:00 pm, the survey was underway. The mosque committee was neither notified nor given a chance to be heard.
• November 22: Friday prayers occur under heavy police presence.
• November 23: Authorities begin preventive detention under Section 107/116 of the CrPC; 34 persons, including the father of MP Zia Ur Rahman Barq, are bound by peace bonds up to ₹10 lakh.
• November 24: A second survey is conducted without fresh court orders. Police are accompanied by PAC, RAF, and officials from multiple districts. This time, a video went viral showing members of the survey team chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, and a rumour spread that the mosque was being excavated. The ablution tank was drained, and water was seen seeping from the structure, fueling panic. A protest breaks out. Police respond with tear gas, lathis, and gunfire. Five Muslim men are killed.

Police Firing: Lethal force, denials, and eyewitnesses

According to Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, the protest on November 24 was peaceful until CO Anuj Chaudhary responded to concerns with verbal abuse and an unprovoked lathi charge. he police, led by CO Anuj Chaudhary, responded with verbal abuse, a lathi charge, and then tear gas. As people began to flee, the police escalated, firing live ammunition.Tear gas followed, and then live rounds were fired. The crowd began to disperse, but police pursued them into lanes and homes. Eyewitnesses reported police using slurs, destroying property, and shooting indiscriminately.

Five Muslim men were killed, including a minor:

• Kamran (17), shot in the chest.
• Nasir, Abbas, Basim, and Nabeel—each with fatal injuries, many allegedly from police bullets.

Videos circulated showing police shouting “Goli chalao” (fire the gun), pelting stones, and dragging minors. Authorities denied using firearms but later admitted to firing “warning shots”. Zafar Ali, who openly accused the police, was detained and later arrested under serious charges.

Authorities claimed the protesters were armed and that police only fired in retaliation. Yet, no police injuries or gunshot wounds from “desi kattas” were documented. The families dispute the claim of crossfire and assert that their relatives were unarmed and shot from the front. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Suppression of victim families and testimonies

The families of the deceased report:

• Denial of postmortem reports.
• Being forced to sign blank papers or coerced to remove references to police in their complaints.
• Rapid burials under police pressure.
• Heavy surveillance at their homes, making it difficult to speak to outsiders or pursue legal recourse.

For example, Kamran’s family was called to identify his body, made to give thumbprints on documents, and forced to bury him amid a police convoy. Nasir’s mother said she saw two bullet wounds but received no documentation. Basim, before dying, told his family he was shot by police. The police allegedly forced them to rewrite their complaint, removing the word “police”.

The Legal Offences: Violating due process and the law

As per the report, the lower court’s order violated:

• Section 80(2) CPC: No genuine urgency justified bypassing notice to the mosque committee.
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: This law bars alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947.
• Article 26 of the Constitution: Grants religious denominations autonomy over their places of worship.

Despite these clear violations, the Allahabad High Court later upheld the survey, and referred to the mosque as an “alleged masjid” even in a whitewashing plea. The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings but failed to undo the communal spectacle that the survey facilitated. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Myth-Making: Temple discoveries and state rituals

Shortly after the violence, local officials claimed to “discover” a hidden temple near the Shahi Jama Masjid. The structure was cleaned and declared sacred. District officials performed worship ceremonies, and a priest claimed the idol “smiled”. This triggered a wave of temple “discoveries”, 24 sites were surveyed by the ASI within weeks. Carbon dating was announced, and claims emerged that 56 temples and 19 sacred wells had been hidden by Muslims.

The government launched a spiritual tourism project titled “Kalki Nagri.” Plans were made to develop 87 religious sites and a 24-Kosi Parikrama Marg. Authorities, priests, and right-wing figures declared temple idols had been “discovered” at sites like wells and drains. In some cases, idols were immediately installed and worshipped. The state began institutionalising the narrative that Sambhal is a Hindu holy site under siege.

Muslim residents refuted these claims, saying these were existing sites in disrepair. As per the report, a local lawyer remarked: “They are digging up new temples every day. We fear they will come into our homes and dig one up there too.”

A new police chowki named “Satyavrat Chowki” was built outside the Shahi Jama Masjid using stones from the protest site. The chowki was inaugurated with Hindu rituals, including a havan and shlokas etched on its walls

Administrative Reprisals: Raids, Demolitions, and Surveillance

In the weeks after the firing:

• Mass detentions occurred. 83 people, including minors and Masjid Committee President Zafar Ali, were jailed. Over 160 bail pleas have been rejected. (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Zafar Ali, who publicly stated he saw police firing, was arrested on March 23, just before he was scheduled to testify before a judicial commission. He had not been named in any FIR prior. His arrest included disproportionate BNS charges, including those carrying life imprisonment or death penalty. Dormant cases from 2018 and 2021 were suddenly revived against him.
• Police launched electricity theft drives: 1440 cases were registered, mostly against Muslims, including 16 mosques and two madrasas. A total fine of ₹11 crores was imposed. MP Barq alone was fined ₹1.91 crores (Detailed report may be read here.)
• Encroachment demolitions began in Muslim areas. Some residents pre-emptively dismantled their own homes.
• The Janeta Sharif Dargah, previously a site of interfaith worship, was marked for probe, its clinic shut down, and its fair cancelled.
• Loudspeakers were removed from mosques.
• Police built a new outpost, engraved with Hindu shlokas, using stones allegedly “thrown by Muslims” on November 24.
• The administration questioned the Dargah’s Waqf status, and its land was bulldozed. This marked the first major Waqf land crackdown since the 2024 Amendment Act. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Surveillance and silencing of victims

Families of victims report constant police surveillance. The report recorded one mother stating that “They sit outside our house 24×7. You are lucky you met us while they were away.”

Many families, like those of Nasir, Abbas, and Nadia, reported being beaten, having property vandalised, and facing threats if they spoke to media or filed complaints. The DVRs of CCTV footage were seized. Police broke into homes and slapped women, dragged children, and refused to register complaints.

Constructing a new narrative: From victims to villains

The state and media spun a narrative portraying Muslims as aggressors:

• UP CM Adityanath claimed Muslims had turned mosques into “mini power stations”.
• He invoked a fabricated figure of 168 Hindu deaths in the 1978 Sambhal riots to justify crackdowns.
• Posters branding Muslims as “pathharbaaz” (stone pelters) were plastered across the town.
• The Kalki Dev Tirth Samiti was instituted to develop “religious tourism”, with 87 sites being prepared for Hindu pilgrimage.

The result is a manufactured transformation of Sambhal from a Muslim-majority town to a contested Hindu religious centre, without public debate, evidence, or consent.

Legal recommendations and civil society appeals

The report calls for:

• Independent investigation into police killings and torture.
• Immediate release of detainees without proper FIRs.
• Enforcement of the Places of Worship Act in both letter and spirit.
• Rebuilding trust through compensation and an end to bulldozer demolitions.
• Holding judicial commissions accountable for bias.
• A nationwide civil society campaign to reject communal myth-making and support Sambhal’s residents.

Conclusion: Sambhal as a “Template”

The report ends on a haunting note:

“Ultimately, the situation in Sambhal is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of narrative construction that seeks to redefine the Muslim community as a problem to be managed rather than a population deserving of rights and protection. As such, it calls for a reevaluation of how narratives are formed, disseminated, and challenged in the pursuit of justice and communal harmony, alongside a robust resistance to the forces that seek to communalize and polarize Indian society.”

Sambhal, the authors of the report warn, is not an aberration, rather it is a preview. If unchallenged, the Sambhal model will become the blueprint for future communal engineering. The report is a call to document, resist, and refuse—to protect the republic from turning against its own.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

The post “Sambhal: Anatomy of an Engineered Crisis”- How a peaceful Muslim-majority town was turned into a site of manufactured communal conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.