The Supreme Court was hearing Prataphgarhi’s petition challenging an FIR filed by the Gujarat police over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The poem in question, titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones), was featured in the background of a mass marriage video and was posted by Pratapgarhi on the social media platform X. Pratapgarhi created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar. Allowing Pratapgarhi’s appeal against the high court order, the Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the high court’s reasoning.

“Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life. Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view.

“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.”

The court also reportedly criticised the Gujarat high court for not quashing the FIR against Pratapgarhi. On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat high court had refused to quash the FIR saying that the poem had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony, the report said.

The court said, that the MP should have known the repercussions of such a post and should have refrained from promoting public disharmony. It observed that further investigation was necessary Pratapgarhi then challenged the high court’s decision before the Supreme Court, which provided interim relief to him on January 25.

“The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. Particularly, the Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.

The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy,” the court said.

About the police officers’ haste in filing an FIR, the court said, “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution. The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”

The FIR against the Congress MP was filed under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

For the offence under Section 196 of the BNS, the court said, “The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.

Gujarat high court had refused to quash FIR

Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Gujarat HC had refused to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the first information report (FIR) against Congress Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi, underlining the significance of free speech and reproaching the Gujarat police authorities for seeking to criminally prosecute a person for ostensibly delivering a message of peace through a poem that Pratapgarhi posted on social media. “No offence was attracted at all,” held a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while reading out the operative part of the judgment.

The bench emphasised that the free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society.

“Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group must be countered by expressing another point of view,” the court observed.

This case against Pratapgarhi stems from the FIR filed in a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoking various provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to harmony.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced that “even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, makes human life more meaningful.”

“The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and its respective ideals,” the bench noted.

The judgment further stressed that it is the duty of the courts, particularly constitutional courts, to zealously protect fundamental rights.

“It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, including free speech, which is one of the most cherished fundamental rights for a healthy and vibrant democracy”, it read.

The court observed that the “endeavour of the judiciary should always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is the most important right citizens can have in any liberal constitutional democracy.”

The ruling also delivered a stern message to law enforcement, asserting that “police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself.”

The entire judgement may be read here:

Related:

Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

‘Free speech under threat’: again, Jamia student moves court against ‘highhanded’ suspension

The post ‘Courts, Police Have Duty to Protect Freedom of Speech’: SC on FIR against Congress MP Over Poem appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This decision sparked significant public outrage, with legal fraternity and child rights activists criticising the ruling as a gross misinterpretation of sexual offence laws. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the gravity of the issue, intervened suo moto. Hearing the suo-moto case, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih strongly rebuked the High Court’s observations, terming them “shocking” and indicative of a “complete lack of sensitivity” in the judicial reasoning.

Supreme Court’s observations

The Supreme Court took particular exception to the rationale of the High Court, noting that the judgment was not issued in haste but was delivered after being reserved for nearly four months. This indicated that the judge had ample time to consider the legal implications, making the insensitivity of the judgment even more alarming. The bench specifically pointed out paragraphs 21, 24, and 26 of the judgment, stating that they reflected an “inhuman approach” and a complete departure from established legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court stayed these observations and issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and other parties involved in the proceedings before the High Court.

For reference, following are the mentioned paras from the judgment of the High Court:

“21. In the present case, the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down lower garment of the victim and for that purpose they had broken string of her lower garments and tried to drag her beneath the culvert, but due to intervention of witnesses they left the victim and fled away from the place of incident. This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on victim as apart from these facts no other act is attributed to them to further their alleged desire to commit rape on the victim.”

“24. The allegations levelled against the accused Pawan and Akash and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination.”

“26. After giving a thoughtful consideration and meticulous examination of the facts of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that mere fact that according to prosecution version two accused Pawan and Akash grabbed the breasts of the victim and one of them namely Akash broke the string of her pyjama and tried to drag her beneath the culvert and in the meanwhile on interference of passersby/witnesses the accused persons fled away from the spot leaving the victim behind, is not sufficient to hold that a case of Section 376, 511 IPC or Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act has been made out against the accused persons.”

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also appeared before the Supreme Court and condemned the High Court’s judgment, calling it “disturbing” and “untenable.” The court took cognisance of the case based on a letter submitted by Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta on behalf of the NGO ‘We the Women of India,’ highlighting the potential ramifications of such a ruling on child safety jurisprudence.

Facts of the case and High Court’s ruling

According to the prosecution, the accused persons, Pawan and Akash, assaulted an 11-year-old girl by grabbing her breasts, breaking the string of her pyjama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert. The trial court, considering this a case of attempt to rape or attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault, invoked Section 376 of the IPC along with Section 18 of the POCSO Act and issued a summoning order under these provisions.

However, when the accused challenged the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court, the single-judge bench presided over by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled that the allegations did not meet the threshold for attempt to rape. The court made a legally questionable distinction between preparation and attempt, arguing that the prosecution had not established that the accused had moved beyond the stage of preparation towards committing the offence. Instead, the High Court directed that the accused be tried under the lesser offence of Section 354-B IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) along with Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated sexual assault.

The High Court’s ruling has been widely condemned for its regressive and flawed interpretation of sexual violence laws. By holding that a greater degree of determination was required to establish an attempt to rape, the court demonstrated an outdated and restrictive understanding of sexual crimes. The ruling also suggested that unless complete disrobing or a near-penetrative act occurred, the offence of attempt to rape could not be established. Such an interpretation ignores decades of legal evolution, including Supreme Court judgments that have recognised a broader and more victim-centred approach to defining sexual violence.

Furthermore, the judgment was riddled with factual inconsistencies regarding the victim’s age. While at one point, the High Court referred to her as 14 years old, in another instance, it described her as “older than 11 years.” However, since the court invoked Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act—applicable in cases where the victim is below 12 years—it can be inferred that the court assumed the victim to be between 11 and 12 years old. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the judicial application of key statutory provisions.

More concerning was the High Court’s failure to consider the victim’s psychological trauma and the terror she must have experienced during the attack. Legal experts have pointed out that the court’s approach was not just legally unsound but also deeply insensitive to the lived realities of sexual violence survivors.

The judgment of the HC may be read below.

Previous dismissal of writ petition challenging the High Court order

In a separate but related development, the Supreme Court had on March 25 dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which sought to challenge the Allahabad High Court’s ruling. The petition was filed by an unrelated third party who was not part of the original criminal proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale ruled that such a challenge should have been filed as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136, rather than as a writ petition under Article 32.

During the hearing, an advocate appearing for the petitioner attempted to invoke the government’s “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” campaign to highlight the case’s broader significance. However, Justice Trivedi immediately interjected, stating that “lecture baazi” (sermonising) would not be entertained in court. She also questioned the absence of the Advocate on Record (AOR) and the petitioner. Following these observations, the court summarily dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the view that procedural technicalities should not be bypassed in challenging judicial orders.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s intervention

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Allahabad High Court’s order is a necessary and urgent corrective measure for several reasons:

1. Judicial accountability: The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the need for High Courts to exercise sensitivity when adjudicating sexual offence cases. Judges must be held accountable for legal interpretations that dilute the protections granted to victims.
2. Gender justice: The ruling highlights the persistent challenges in ensuring a gender-sensitive legal system. The High Court’s flawed reasoning reflects a need for continuous judicial training on laws related to sexual violence.
3. Legal precedent: By staying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has signalled that outdated and restrictive interpretations of sexual offences will not be allowed to shape legal discourse.
4. Child protection: The judgment serves as a reminder that courts must prioritise the best interests of children in cases of sexual violence, rather than engaging in overly technical distinctions that undermine victim/survivor rights.

This case is a stark reminder that while legal statutes provide a framework for justice, the judiciary’s interpretation of these laws plays a crucial role in determining whether justice is truly served. The Supreme Court’s intervention reassures the public that regressive judicial reasoning will not be allowed to weaken protections for survivors of sexual assault.

Related:

Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state

The illusion of the glamourous Malayalam cinema falls apart: Justice Hema Committee report provides insight into systematic harassment and exploitation of women actors

“How does dictating attire empower women?” Supreme Court partially stays Mumbai College’s Hijab Ban

Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention

The post Supreme Court intervenes in POCSO case, stays Allahabad HC’s “shocking” judgment that downplayed sexual assault against minor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shockingly, the bench noted that despite Khan challenging the said notice and mentioning the same before it on Monday morning (March 24), the authorities pulled down the house amid heavy security and drone surveillance in the entire area, on Monday afternoon. Advocate for the NMC argued that the demolition was already a fait accompli!

“We therefore, mentioned the matter again at 2:30 PM and the bench heard us. We apprised the bench of the facts of the case and how the NMC hurriedly demolished my client’s house. The bench was not at all impressed with the NMC. In fact, the bench questioned the authorities about their conduct and even pulled them for their high-handedness,” stated advocate Ashwin Ingole, who represented Khan in the HC.

Following brief arguments, the bench prima facie found the action in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, (the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) wherein a bench led by Justice Bhushan Gavai had held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

“But for the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, further factual matrix appears to be identical and prima facie we are satisfied that the respondent-Authorities are conducting demolition in contravention of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” the judges said in the order.

The bench noted that another accused Abdul Hafiz, too received a similar notice and his house was also partially demolished by the authorities. It therefore, stayed the operations of the demolition notice.

“That being so, the entire action pursuant to the notice dated March 21, 2025 issued to the petitioners shall remain stayed until further orders,” the bench ordered.

Besides the bench stated that, “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record.”

On the other hand, advocate Jemini Kasat representing the NMC informed the judges that the demolition action is already over. The bench recorded the statement. “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record,” the judges said while adjourning the hearing till April 15.

Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate with Shri Amit Prasad, Advocate for respondents.

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

The post ‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid heavy police security, civic authorities demolished a two-storey house of #Nagpurviolence key accused Fahim Khan over unauthorised construction, officials said.https://t.co/KUgWpxbvV8 pic.twitter.com/PxUxA0DgB8

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) March 24, 2025

#WATCH | Maharashtra: House of Nagpur violence accused Faheem Khan being demolished in Nagpur. Police personnel are present at the spot. pic.twitter.com/RKzAFCokED

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Demolition of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, also an accused in the Nagpur violence case, was also reported on the same day.

#WATCH | Nagpur, Maharashtra: NMC’s (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) anti-encroachment squad demolishes the illegal construction of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, accused in the Nagpur violence case.

Visuals from Johripura, Mahal. pic.twitter.com/K1f9rbsWjL

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

It is essential to note that the Municipal authorities have claimed the demolition was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, citing “unauthorised construction” as the reason. However, the selective and arbitrary nature of such demolitions raises serious questions about due process and the rule of law. Khan, who remains in judicial custody, is among more than 100 individuals—mostly Muslims—arrested in connection with the violence. Local residents have accused the police of bias and indiscriminate arrests, further deepening fears of state-sponsored communal targeting. The suggestions of there being biased enquiry into this violence can also viewed from the fact that the 11 members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had allegedly burnt the effigy of Aurangzeb as well as a chadar from a local Dargah to demand the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, had been given bail hours after surrendering to the police.

In regards to the demolition of Fahim Khan’s house, Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s deputy engineer, Sunil Gajbhiye, asserted that the demolition was conducted after an “investigation” and a 24-hour notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. However, the absurdity of such rapid enforcement—especially when encroachments by politically influential individuals often remain untouched for decades—suggests that this was less about urban planning and more about political retribution.

#WATCH | Nagpur: “…We had the order to investigate into a complaint. We did a proper investigation. As per Sec 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966) a notice was issued for 24 hours. As soon as the duration completed, this action was… https://t.co/9eEE1GJsAm pic.twitter.com/6edPdYfegh

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

While Indian law does not permit property demolitions as a punitive measure, the BJP has increasingly used this tactic as an extrajudicial weapon against Muslims, particularly in cases of communal violence. Despite a Supreme Court stay on such measures, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis brazenly justified the “bulldozer action,” declaring on March 22 that it would be used “wherever required.” He further stated that damage caused during the violence would be recovered from the accused, failing which their property would be seized and auctioned. The CM also alarmingly suggested that those accused of inciting violence through social media would be treated as co-accused, raising concerns about potential misuse of state power to silence dissent.

The government’s rhetoric has been disturbingly violent, with Maharashtra minister Pratap Sarnaik openly advocating for extrajudicial violence, stating, “The bulldozer should be run over him, not his house, if anyone is involved in such violent activities.” His remarks, reported by the Deccan Herald, reflect the growing normalisation of state brutality and the erosion of legal safeguards.

The pattern of bulldozer politics, seen recently in Sambhal and other BJP-governed regions, is not just a violation of legal norms but a deliberate strategy to intimidate and collectively punish Muslims. That such actions continue despite the Supreme Court’s directives underscores the growing impunity of state actors who use communal violence as a pretext to enforce their majoritarian agenda.

With at least 105 individuals arrested and multiple FIRs registered, the situation in Nagpur reveals a deeply disturbing reality: rather than upholding the principles of justice and accountability, the state is resorting to bulldozers and arbitrary punishment, sending a chilling message about whose rights matter in today’s India.

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

It is also crucial to provide here that the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17 has now resulted in the death of a 38-year-old man, Irfan Ansari, who succumbed to his injuries at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital on March 23. A welder by profession, Ansari had left home to catch a train to Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh but was caught in the chaos near Central Avenue. He was brutally attacked by a mob, sustaining severe head injuries. His family was informed only after the police took him to the hospital, where he briefly regained consciousness before succumbing to his wounds.

The Nagpur police have arrested a total of 105 individuals in connection with the violence, including 14 people, among them 10 minors, who were detained earlier this week. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lohit Matani, 13 cases have been registered, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor Megha Burange confirmed that 19 accused individuals had been remanded in custody until March 24.

The violence occurred just hours after Hindutva groups held a demonstration demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders across 11 police station jurisdictions. While restrictions were gradually eased in some areas by March 21, the curfew was fully lifted on March 24, with police continuing to patrol sensitive localities.

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

On Sunday, March 23, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Nirupam had made unverified claims about the involvement of individuals linked to Bangladesh in the recent violence in Nagpur. At a press conference, Nirupam alleged that the unrest was “pre-meditated” and part of a larger conspiracy. He also accused one of the arrested individuals of using social media to fund “Mujahideen activities,” without providing any substantial evidence.

His statements took a political turn as he attacked the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), insinuating that its leaders were aligning with extremist elements. “Is the Sena (UBT) aligning itself with the Mujahideen? Are the Thackerays and (Sanjay) Raut supporting them?” he asked, attempting to stoke communal and political divisions. Furthering his rhetoric, he claimed that Uddhav Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, would soon display a photo of Aurangzeb alongside those of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj—an inflammatory remark aimed at discrediting the opposition.

The political exploitation of the violence has been evident in the statements of BJP allies like Sanjay Nirupam, who, instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, have chosen to push unverified claims of a “foreign hand” in the violence. His remarks, along with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ endorsement of punitive bulldozer actions, signal a dangerous trend of targeting minorities under the pretext of law enforcement.

The use of such rhetoric not only undermines due process but also diverts attention from the failure of law enforcement to prevent the violence in the first place. The events in Nagpur mirror a broader pattern of state-sponsored impunity, where accountability is selectively applied, and majoritarian politics dictate justice.

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

The Maharashtra Police have booked six individuals, including Minorities Democratic Party leader Fahim Khan, on charges of sedition and spreading misinformation on social media. The accused are among 50 others named across four FIRs.

Authorities have charged primary suspect Fahim Khan with sedition, among other offences. Police records indicate that Khan allegedly coordinated a demonstration outside a Nagpur police station on March 17. His criminal history includes charges of electricity theft and participation in protests during 2023-2024.

According to the FIR, Khan led a group of 50 to 60 individuals who illegally assembled outside Ganeshpeth police station on Monday to submit a memorandum opposing an earlier Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protest. Officials stated that Khan and eight others later went to the Bhaldarpura area, where they found 500 to 600 people gathered near Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, which led to his arrest.’

Besides the sedition case, a separate FIR has been filed against individuals accused of editing videos of the protest against Aurangzeb, allegedly “glorifying violence” and circulating them online. Another case pertains to video clips allegedly made to incite communal clashes, while a third concerns social media posts that further fuelled tensions.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber Cell) Lohit Matani stated that misinformation was initially spread on social media, triggering the violence, followed by more videos that glorified it. “He [Fahim Khan] edited and circulated the video of the protest against Aurangzeb due to which the riots spread,” ANI quoted Matani as saying. “He also glorified violent videos.”

More than 120 people, including 11 minors, have been taken into custody, according to Commissioner Singal. Additionally, on March 19, Commissioner Singal had confirmed that investigations were ongoing to identify additional assailants and determine the involvement of individuals mentioned in the FIR regarding Khan’s suspected role in orchestrating the violence.

It is also being reported that the law enforcement has established 18 dedicated teams to pursue and capture those responsible for the unrest in Nagpur. According to a senior official, the police have identified 200 suspects and are working to determine the identities of 1,000 more individuals recorded on CCTV during the violence. Authorities have lodged five First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ganeshpeth and Kotwali police stations, naming 200 accused persons. Officials confirmed that they are reviewing CCTV recordings to identify additional participants.

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Nagpur Commissioner of Police Dr Ravinder Kumar Singal briefed journalists about the special teams, which include personnel from Ganeshpeth, Kotwali, and Tehsil police stations, along with the Crime Branch. These teams are working in conjunction with the cyber cell to support the identification of suspects.

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

In a related development, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the night of March 19 had installed tin sheets around Aurangzeb’s tomb, following orders from the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar district administration.

“The green net covering two sides of the tomb was in bad shape, and the structure was visible to those visiting the nearby Khwaja Syed Zainuddin Chishti grave,” an ASI official told PTI. “So we have installed tin sheets.”

The demand for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb has been intensifying in recent weeks, with Hindutva groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, claiming that the structure is a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

On March 20, Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal had informed the media about forming a team of party leaders to visit the riot-affected areas of Nagpur. The delegation includes senior leaders such as Manikrao Thakare, Shomati Thakur, Hussain Dalwai, and Sajid Pathan. Nagpur district Congress chief Thakare will serve as the convenor, while AICC Secretary Praful Gudade Patil has been appointed as the coordinator.

Meanwhile, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, a cleric from the Barelvi sect, had written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking a ban on the film Chhava, alleging that it incited communal tensions and was directly responsible for the Nagpur violence.

Sequence of events and aftermath

The violence in Nagpur erupted hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb. The clashes broke out at 7:30 pm in central Nagpur’s Chitnis Park, where stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth bearing the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burned during a Hindutva-led agitation.

Unidentified Bajrang Dal office-bearers told The Indian Express that its members had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb during the protest. However, another clash erupted in Hansapuri, close to Chitnis Park, between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. The violence soon spread to Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas, prompting the police to fire tear gas shells and resort to lathi charges to disperse the mobs. Prohibitory orders barring public gatherings were imposed within the limits of 11 police stations.

A preliminary survey found that over 60 vehicles were damaged in the violence, including 20 two-wheelers and 40 four-wheelers. Two cranes were also set on fire, with a construction company reporting a loss of Rs 70 lakh. Authorities announced that individuals whose vehicles were fully damaged would receive Rs 50,000, while those with partially damaged vehicles would be compensated with Rs 10,000. The said compensation is said to be given to the victims on March 25.

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

The Nagpur violence and the state’s response underscore a disturbing trend of bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests, and communalised governance. The punitive demolition of Fahim Khan’s house—while the state turns a blind eye to Hindutva organisations inciting violence—reveals a stark bias in law enforcement. Statements from ministers and ruling party leaders openly endorsing extrajudicial action further normalise the idea that the law can be bypassed when dealing with minorities.

This particular incident of demolition of the house of an accused belonging to a minority religious community is not the first incident that has taken place in Maharashtra after the BJP has formed the state government. On February 23, (Sunday) during the highly anticipated India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match 2025, a local passer-by, owing allegiance to the Vishwa Hindu Parisha (VHP), accused a 15-year-old boy from a Muslim scrap metal trading family of shouting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match. This event took place reportedly around 9:30 pm on February 23. Varadkar, while the complainant one Sachin Varadkar, was on his bike riding to a friend’s house and claimed to have overheard the boy and a group of others shouting what he described as “anti-India” slogans. Later that evening, when passing by the area again, Sachin Varadkar reportedly saw the boy cycling and chose to confront him. What initially seemed like a minor disagreement quickly escalated, with Varadkar allegedly taking the matter to the authorities.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals. Just like in Nagpur, state sponsored illegal action in the name of demotions had taken place Muslim accused with following the due procedure of law. (Detailed story on the Malvan demolition may be read here.)

The broader context of the Nagpur violence reflects an alarming state strategy: use communal tensions as a pretext for aggressive law enforcement against one community while shielding provocateurs from accountability. This pattern not only erodes faith in the justice system but also contributes to deepening social divisions in Maharashtra and beyond.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Contextualising the situation by flagging India’s dismal ranking of 159 out of 180 countries in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) by Reporters without Borders (RSF), a marginal improvement from 161 in 2023. Justice S Muralidhar was delivering the B G Verghese Memorial Lecture on ‘Media, Courts and Freedom of Expression’, and he stressed on the systemic issues plaguing India’s media ecosystem, from internet shutdowns to the safety of journalists and the role of the judiciary. The event was held at the India International Centre in Delhi last week, on March 21.

Safety of journalists, media persons: a major concern

The safety of journalists today remains a critical issue. Two years back, in 2023 alone, five journalists were killed, and 226 were targeted, with state actors responsible for 148 of these cases. Delhi emerged as the most dangerous region for journalists, with 51 targeted by state agencies. Recent incidents, such as the brutal attack on Odisha-based journalist Jyotiranjan Mohapatra and the beheading threat received by Nagpur journalist Vinay Pandey, highlight the perilous environment for press professionals. Journalists, especially those exposing or covering sensitive issues like environmental crimes or political corruption often face the brunt of violence and intimidation.

“Stopping journalists of them from travelling abroad, at the last minute, while they are set to board a plane, has also been happening with regular frequency. While Rana Ayyub could get the Delhi High Court to come to her rescue when she was set to travel to Europe to deliver talks on violence against women journalists, Sanna Irshad Mattoo, a Kashmiri photojournalist who won a Pulitzer Prize was in October 2022 stopped at the Delhi airport despite having a valid US visa and prevented from receiving the prestigious award in New York. No reasons were given. Fahad Shah, Sajad Gul, Aasif Sultan and Majid Hyderi are some of the other Kashmiri journalists who have faced arrests under draconian criminal law provisions including the Public Safety Act and have been released after long periods of incarceration,” he said.

Muralidhar focussed on the fact that, while the legal framework for media regulation exists, its effectiveness is questionable. The Press Council of India (PCI) and the News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA) have been criticized for their lack of enforcement power. Commenting on the PCI, Muralidhar said: “The PCI exerts high moral authority but is sadly by and large an ineffective oversight body. When its website prominently displays the PM’s Pariksha Pe Charcha programme urging viewers to ‘join the event and get unique tips’ from him, it raises eyebrows.”

Although the NBDA does adjudicate complaints and pass orders, these are often not complied with, making self-regulation a meaningless term.

Media and judiciary require one another to be free and independent

Muralidhar emphasised the need for an independent judiciary to safeguard press freedom, noting that the judiciary itself relies on a free media to hold it accountable.

“In order to be truly free and independent, the media in a democratic polity needs an independent judiciary. For an independent judiciary to remain effective in a democracy, it requires a free media.”

Internet shutdowns and chilling impact on free speech

Muralidhar also raised the issue of the habitual and frequent use of internet shutdowns as a significant barrier to press freedom. The Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, which ruled that internet shutdown orders must not be disproportionate, has seen little enforcement. Despite court directives, the government has continued to impose shutdowns, particularly in conflict-prone regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where journalists face severe restrictions on their ability to report.

“Internet shutdown orders are now almost routinely issued throughout the country. Farmers’ protests, Manipur violence, and even during exams!! These orders are not in the public domain and so remain inaccessible and unchallenged. India, Iran, Myanmar and Ukraine are among the countries with the highest number of internet shutdowns in 2022 and 2023. According to an Access Now report 2024 saw 294 internet shutdowns globally and India accounted for 84 of these at 28%.”

Government’s crackdown on dissent

The government’s intolerance of criticism was evident in its response to the BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots and the blocking of Tamil magazine Ananda Vikatan’s website for publishing a satirical cartoon of the Prime Minister. Muralidhar criticised the Madras HC order asking Vikatan to remove its Modi-Trump cartoon as a condition to lift the blocking of its website.. “This is totally contrary to the settled legal position that mere criticism of the government, even if ill-informed, is not anti-national. It cannot result in a chilling effect on free speech,” he said.

Mentioning these controversial actions, coupled with the use of draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) against journalists, have raised concerns about the shrinking space for dissent.

“The nation wants to know why in the times now, in our republic, in India today, it is so hard to tolerate a healthy sense of humour, the ability to laugh at oneself, or take a dig at the government?,” he asked.

He also lamented that take-down orders and gag orders by the State and by the courts, at all levels, have become commonplace. “Ironically, fact-checkers who call out fake news are accused of spreading harm!” he sighed.

Role of social media and misinformation/disinformation

Touching on a vital issue, Muralidhar spent time on the deleterious effect of social media, who’s rise has added another layer of complexity to India’s media landscape, Muralidhar stressed on the dichotomy. While social media does provide a platform for independent voices, it has also become a breeding ground for misinformation and disinformation. Muralidhar warned against the government’s attempts to control online content through take-down orders and gag orders, which could stifle genuine dissent. He cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling against the government’s move to become the exclusive fact-checker as a step in the right direction.

Finally, Muralidhar concluded by urging journalists to remain steadfast in their pursuit of truth, despite the challenges. He highlighted the importance of global coalitions like the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which have exposed corruption and illicit activities on a global scale.

“The media in India has had to fight for its independence and for its freedom. It is a fact though that much of the mainstream print and electronic media are either owned by large corporate houses or by political parties. Both print and electronic media operate on purely commercial lines dependent as they are on government advertisements, licences and permissions, corporate sponsorships, commercials. These very media houses also have their corresponding web versions. And as Joseph Pulitzer cautioned, once a publisher comes to regard the press as exclusively a commercial business, there is an end of its moral power. Self-censorship, paid news, advertorials, large self-promoting ads of governments on several front pages, vying for greater TRPs at the risk of fudging data, are all now passe. There is also the control through sponsorship of the independent press on the net by corporate philanthropies. The big challenge then is to keep the news free,” he said.

Despite the general decline in media independence, Muralidhar said that certain encouraging signs emerged occasionally, giving hope to the future of journalists.

“And occasionally, tucked away in the corners of the print and electronic media, there is space yet for the investigative and critically analytical pieces of fearless and independent reporters, some of whom are being honoured today. Their courage and conviction will undoubtedly inspire generations of reporters. They need not just our admiration, but importantly, our support. They are our hope for a free and independent press, an impartial and trusted media, in the India of the future.”

He also called on the judiciary to embrace criticism and uphold the principles of free speech, as articulated by Lord Denning: “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”

Related:

Whenever there is a strong executive, there has been a visibly weak judiciary: Justice Dr. S Muralidhar

Why is the Centre stalling Justice Muralidhar’s transfer to Madras HC?

The post For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The morning of the scheduled hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court today, March 21, an affidavit filed by the State of Assam, detailed the status of 270 individuals detained in its deportation centres. The affidavit provides an extensive breakdown of detainees’ identities, dates of detention, case statuses, and the progress of deportation procedures. It also highlights whether the necessary travel permits have been secured and if deportation has actually taken place.

Details provided in the affidavit

A substantial number of detainees remain in custody despite long periods of confinement, with, the earliest example of a detainee having been incarcerated since 2012. The document reveals that only ten individuals have been deported thus far, with some cases pending clearance from diplomatic channels, with the Ministry of External Affairs, India and Bangladesh High Commission. As crucial, as the affidavit admits, several are subject matter of legal appeals, with their challenges to the status of “foreigner” status unilaterally handed down by the state’s controversial Foreigner tribunals, still pending in Gauhati High Court. The question then arises whether they should have figured on any list at all!

Among these is the case of Ajabha Khatun, supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), who’s deportation has been stayed by the Gauhati High Court on March 3, following an intervention application filed by her in the Supreme Court (see details below) in the present case.

Therefore, according to the data provided, of the 63 detainees that the Union government had (insubstantially, without evaluating evidence or status) claimed to be in line for deportation, 5 have been granted conditional bail and have been released from the Matua Transit Camp on the basis of the orders passed by the Gauhati High Court. The affidavit also provides that a total of 11 detenues have been granted travel permits by the Assistant High Commissioner of Bangladesh, paving the way for their deportation from India to Bangladesh. However, only 10 out of these 11 detenues have been actually deported to Bangladesh. The deportation of the last detenue could not take place as the Authorities across the border were concerned for a discrepancy in stated Father’s name of said detenue. It is critical to highlight here that these 11 people who have been deported to Bangladesh are not from the original list of 63 persons that the union government had deemed to be from Bangladesh. 

Shockingly, of the 63 detainees, that the state had earlier claimed were ‘in line for deportation,’ the state has now stated in its affidavit that 33 of these have their petitions pending in the Constitutional Courts. Each of them has initiated legal proceedings against their declaration as illegal migrants by Foreigners Tribunals. As per the affidavit, 29 such proceedings are pending before the Gauhati High Court, and 4 remain pending before the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the affidavit details the steps taken for deportation, including:

1. Issuance of National Status Verification (NSV) requests: The NSV format has been sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for all 270 detainees for further diplomatic engagement with foreign governments, primarily Bangladesh.
2. Reminder letters and follow-ups: The state has sent multiple reminder letters, with the most recent batch dated February 2, 2025.
3. Travel permit requests: Only eleven have had their travel permits issued, out of which ten have been successfully deported.

Despite these efforts, the affidavit underscores that deportation remains a sluggish process, hindered by bureaucratic red tape and international cooperation hurdles. Additionally, it is pertinent to highlight that the detainee list reveals that a significant portion of those confined in Assam’s deportation centres are Bengali-speaking Muslims, a demographic that has long been at the centre of Assam’s citizenship debates. Several cases include elderly individuals, women, and even minors who have been detained alongside their family members

The case of Ajabha Khatun

It is crucial to point out that the affidavit records Ajabha Khatun (serial no. 18), whose case is being fought by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), as having her petition pending in the Gauhati High Court. Ajabha Khatun, detained in September 2024, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta in an ex parte order issued in 2019. On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation after noting the procedural irregularities in her case. Her name had been included among 63 individuals marked for deportation by the Union government, despite her pending legal challenge. The stay by the Gauhati High Court was granted following an Intervention Application (IA) was filed before the Supreme Court in the ongoing Rajubala Das case, and the top court directed her to seek interim relief from the High Court. A division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi issued a notice returnable on April 4, 2025, directing the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond. The court also requisitioned relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal to further decide the case.

Ajabha Khatun’s case exemplifies the systemic issues within Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal framework. Her citizenship status has been contested since 1997, when her name was arbitrarily removed from electoral rolls. The tribunal disregarded crucial evidence, including voter lists featuring her family members, and imposed an undue burden of proof on her. Beyond procedural lapses, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp raises serious human rights concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The order of the Gauhati High Court may be accessed here.

Challenges in the deportation process

The affidavit submitted by the State of Assam provides crucial insights into the realities of deportation centres in India. It highlights a system mired in bureaucratic inertia, legal complexities, and diplomatic constraints. While Assam continues to process deportations through formal channels, the sheer number of 270 detainees languishing in prolonged detention points to an urgent need for judicial and legislative scrutiny. The information provided underscores the necessity of addressing due process concerns, human rights violations, and the broader implications of Assam’s citizenship policies. The affidavit inadvertently exposes the inefficiencies within the deportation system. Several critical roadblocks include:

• Prolonged delays in nationality verification: Many detainees remain in limbo as diplomatic negotiations fail to yield timely responses.
• Legal entanglements: A significant number of detainees are engaged in lengthy legal battles, further slowing down the process.
• Limited diplomatic cooperation: The process relies on responses from foreign governments, particularly Bangladesh, which has not always been forthcoming in acknowledging deportation requests.

Related:

Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, seeks Tribunal records for review of FT’s order declaring her foreigner

Victory at Last: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long struggle

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

Hate speech allegations on the campaign trail: CJP Files complaints with State EC against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Jharkhand remarks

The post Assam govt to SC: 33/63 of those marked for ‘deportation’ are contesting ‘foreigner’ status in courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three-volume report of the Magisterial Inquiry that runs into 451 pages, was taken cognisance of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) which stated at its hearing on March 20 that it had clubbed multiple complaints concerning the incident to “avoid conflicting orders”. As reported in The Times of India and The Hindu, the MSHRC following the March 20 hearing has stated, “Perusal of the report of the magisterial inquiry shows that the Ld. judicial magistrate has concluded that Somnath Vyankat Suryawanshi was assaulted at police station.”

Apart from the stark case of death in custody related to Somnath Suryawanshi that is being heard by the MSHRC, allegations of police lawlessness included the brute handling of women and minors during combing operations following an incident of “desecration of the Preamble” on Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s statute on December 10. Combing operations began on December 11 itself and thereafter police took close to three dozen persons into custody. It was late on December 14 that Somnath was transferred to judicial custody. There were severe marks on his person and those of others detained. Thereafter, Suryavanshi developed chest pain and breathing difficulties, leading to his death on Dec 15 at a hospital. A panel of medical officers performed a post-mortem, with the provisional report stating the cause of death as “shock following multiple injuries”. The post-mortem findings and CCTV camera footage gathered during the investigation were instrumental in establishing police involvement in the assault.

The magisterial report may also contain remedial steps taken in the matter and the compensation, if any, quantified by the state in the matter, stated the MSHRC. The Commission then issued notices to the state government and police officials, seeking their response on the findings. Besides, MSHRC also stated, as reported in sections of the media, that the report of additional director general and Prabhani superintendent of police (CID) must contain the progress of inquiry into the accidental death case and consequent registration of the crime in the matter. The matter will be next heard on June 23.

On January 23, an independent fact-finding report had been released by citizens, backed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), uncovering a series of human rights violations and police atrocities in Parbhani, Maharashtra following the desecration of a Constitution replica on December 10, 2024. The incidents, marked by custodial violence, caste-based discrimination, and administrative failures, have shaken the conscience of the nation. The report, compiled by a team of legal experts, activists, and journalists, painted a sombre picture of systemic injustice against Dalit communities. The report is titledUnfettered Police Brutalities: PARBHANI –Fact-Finding Report on Allegations of Brute, Unlawful & Anti-Constitutional Conduct by Parbhani Police (December 10-15, 2024). “The report documents harrowing accounts of police combing operations in Dalit-majority areas like Bhim Nagar, Priyadarshini Nagar, and Sarang Nagar. Residents reported police breaking into homes, assaulting men and women, including minors and elderly individuals, and using caste-based slurs. Women recounted instances of extreme violence, including injuries on their private parts, and detainees were allegedly tortured in custody with blows to their feet and palms to conceal visible injuries. The brute violence and unchecked brutalities displayed by police during the beatings of women and the young in their homes during the combing operations and after that in custody have violated all laws and statutes including directions by the Supreme Court on police conduct towards those in custody.”

Now, in the latest developments, the MSHRC has issued notice to officers concerned, based on the magistrate’s findings. The MSHRC chairperson Justice A M Badar and its member Sanjay Kumar issued the directive after relying on and citing Parbhani judicial magistrate’s investigation report, seeking responses from chief secretary and senior officers over the issue, indicating that the magistrate “had indicted police officials in the custodial death of Somnath Venkat Suryawanshi.” According to the magistrate, Parbhani police officials named in his report are responsible for the custodial death of Suryawanshi, it added.

Suryavanshi’s brother, accompanied by his mother, appeared before the Commission and said they want to appoint their preferred advocate to pursue their complaint before the MSHRC. Earlier, the Suryavanshi family had declined a compensation of Rs 10 lakh offered by state govt. They had expressed disappointment over the token act of a mere suspension of the police personnel involved in the matter and had demanded that all 12 criminal complaints sought to be filed by the victim Dalit community including two by Vijayatai Suryawanshi, Somnath’s mother be registered as FIRs. They have also demanded that a case of culpable homicide be registered against the officers.

Related:

Fact-Finding report on Parbhani violence raises serious questions

Unfettered police brutalities in Parbhani

The post Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case stems from a telephonic conversation that took place on February 25, 2025, during which Koratkar allegedly made both contentious and intimidating remarks to Indrajit Sawant, a historian. The incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

On Tuesday, February 25, soon after the reported telephonic threats, historian Sawant shared on social media a six-minute, 30 second audio recording of a phone conversation between (a man named) Koratkar and himself. With this recording he posted, “A man named Prashant Koratkar, who calls himself a Parashurami Brahmin, is making threats in the name of the honourable chief minister. I have received such threats before but I am sharing this recording to show how hatred and disrespect for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj persists among some people. I want the Maratha and Bahujan communities to realise this. Koratkar from Nagpur—neither he nor anyone else can scare a true follower of Shivaji Maharaj. Jai Shivray!”

Concerned about the nature of the threats made against him, Sawant recorded the conversation and shared it on social media before filing a police complaint. Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Zade of Juna Rajwada police station confirmed that an investigation had been launched, with police teams prepared to travel to Nagpur if necessary to track down Koratkar. Koratkar in the recorded conversation has, while lashing out at Sawant for his views, threatened him with the “present return of Brahmin rule in Maharashtra.”

Sawant has been vocal in his criticism of the film Chhaava, arguing that it distorts history by portraying Maharani Soyarabai as a villain while ignoring the role of Annaji Datto. Citing historical sources such as the writings of François Martin, the former French governor of Pondicherry, Sawant has contributed to the ongoing debate by revealing how it was Brahmin clerks had betrayed Sambhaji Maharaj to the Mughals. He also demanded the removal of incorrect historical information from Wikipedia to prevent misinformation.

Unable to stomach this rendering of historical facts, Koratkar reportedly threatened Sawant in the aforesaid phone conversation. His perceived proximity with politically powerful figures in Maharashtra today has led to the debate around his continued non-arrest and protection.

Protests erupted from last month itself following the transcript of the audio going viral. On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. Protesters also went to the Kolahpur police station to ensure action against him.

On March 1, the Kolhapur court had initially granted Koratkar interim protection from arrest, on the condition that he appear before the police and surrender the mobile phone and SIM card used during the call. However, responding to pressure and outrage over Koratkar’s remarks, the Maharashtra government challenged this interim relief before the Bombay High Court, which subsequently directed the Kolhapur sessions court to prioritise the hearing and decide on the bail application after considering all parties’ arguments.

During the final hearing, Koratkar’s legal counsel argued that he had been cooperating with the authorities and, therefore, should be granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution, however, strongly opposed the plea. Public Prosecutor Vivek Shukla asserted that the accused had tampered with key evidence—the mobile phone from which the alleged call was made—by erasing its data. He further argued that Koratkar had failed to comply with the conditions set by the court while granting interim relief, thereby forfeiting his right to seek further protection. Shukla also questioned why the journalist was seeking anticipatory bail instead of surrendering, stating that freedom should not be misused to evade legal scrutiny.

Asim Sarode, representing the complainant, further alleged that Koratkar had misled the court by falsely claiming his mobile phone had been hacked. He pointed out that instead of appearing before the police as directed, the accused had sent his mobile phone through his wife, raising concerns about his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Sarode urged the court to invoke Section 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the destruction of evidence, to ensure accountability for the alleged tampering.

Despite the court’s rejection of his bail plea, Koratkar remains un-arrested, intensifying public protests led by the Sakal Maratha community.

Bombay High Court intervenes, directs Kolhapur Court to hear all parties

On March 11, the Bombay High Court had reviewed the Maharashtra government’s plea challenging the Kolhapur sessions court’s interim protection order. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil directed the lower court to ensure that all parties, including the state government, were heard before making a final decision on Koratkar’s bail application.

During the proceedings, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state, argued that the Kolhapur sessions court had passed its earlier order granting interim relief without giving the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. He highlighted that Koratkar had failed to surrender his phone as per the court’s directions, instead sending it through his wife. Upon examination, it was found that all data had been erased, raising suspicions of evidence tampering. Venegaonkar maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover any deleted data that could be critical to the investigation.

The prosecution further pointed out that the sessions court had made certain observations about Koratkar’s social media accounts being hacked and donations being collected in his name before the case was registered. The state government contended that these findings were made without proper scrutiny and without hearing all parties, which was a violation of due process.

Koratkar’s defence, on the other hand, challenged the maintainability of the state’s plea, arguing that the interim relief order was legally sound. Meanwhile, the complainant’s lawyer, Asim Sarode, also raised objections, stating that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the sessions court granted Koratkar protection from arrest.

After hearing the arguments, the Bombay High Court clarified that it would not interfere with the merits of the case but expected the Kolhapur sessions court to decide the matter independently and in accordance with the law. The high court disposed of the state’s plea, reiterating that its observations should not influence the final decision of the lower court.

Mass protests and political pressure for arrest

On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. A delegation, including community leaders Prakash Khandagale, Amol Mane, Swapnil Kale, Alok Rasal, and Deepak Ingle, met Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Rashmitha Rao, who assured them that Koratkar would be arrested within 24 hours. However, when no action was taken by the next day, another protest erupted outside Beltarodi police station, with demonstrators urging authorities to file an FIR against Koratkar in Nagpur in addition to the existing case in Kolhapur.

Amid mounting pressure, former royal and community leader Raje Mudhoji Bhosale led a delegation to the Nagpur police commissioner’s office, demanding that Koratkar be charged under sedition laws. Protesters also accused Koratkar of attempting to create caste tensions by referencing the caste of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. The Citizen Action Committee warned that if Koratkar was not arrested, they would file complaints against him at multiple police stations.

With tensions running high for over 72 hours, the Sakal Maratha community has called for an urgent meeting to determine further action if authorities fail to act swiftly.

Political reactions and demand for swift action

The delay in Koratkar’s arrest has drawn criticism from political figures. On March 4, Kolhapur MP and descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, Shahu Shahaji Maharaj, questioned why the police had not yet acted against Koratkar. Speaking during an official visit to Nagpur, Shahu Maharaj stated that he would take up the matter with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during his upcoming visit to Kolhapur.

Former Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh also criticised the inaction, suggesting that Koratkar was being shielded by influential figures. “His whereabouts are unknown, but how is that possible when police personnel were stationed outside his house? How did he disappear despite a security presence?” Deshmukh asked.

Amravati MP Balwant Wankhade echoed these concerns, stressing that individuals who insult revered historical figures should face strict consequences. “Those who make offensive statements against figures deeply respected by the people must not be spared. The government must take prompt action,” he asserted.

With pressure mounting from political leaders, civil society, and protest groups, the demand for Koratkar’s arrest has intensified. The coming days are expected to see further action from both the authorities and the protesting groups as tensions continue to escalate.

Maharashtra government’s silence, Koratkar’s political ties, and the systematic distortion of history

The Maharashtra government’s two-faced response – on the one hand appealing protection granted to him from arrest but on the other its reluctance or failure to arrest Prashant Koratkar– despite the overwhelming evidence against him and the widespread public demand for accountability, has exposed the double standards in law enforcement. Even as protests intensify across the state, top echelons of the government have chosen to remain silent, raising serious questions about whether political patronage is shielding Koratkar from arrest. The speculation is not baseless—recent visuals showing Koratkar in close proximity to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and senior police officials — have only reinforced allegations that the ruling establishment is protecting him. This selective application of the law is in stark contrast to how dissenters and activists are swiftly arrested, often on flimsy charges, while those with political connections continue to evade legal scrutiny.

These visuals have been taken from Dr. Prashant Koratkar – Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.448369837294425

The larger controversy surrounding Koratkar is not just about one individual’s remarks but is emblematic of a broader ideological project to distort Maharashtra’s history. The ongoing “Brahmanisation” of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is a deliberate attempt to whitewash the historical record and erase their true legacy. Sambhaji Maharaj, long regarded as a fearless warrior who resisted Mughal rule, is now being forcefully rebranded within a narrow caste framework to suit present-day political narratives, with attempts to paint him as a Brahmin leader rather than a Bahujan leader. At the same time, the erasure of historical nuances surrounding figures like Aurangzeb is being used as a tool to fuel communal tensions and stoke resentment.

The recent outbreak of violence in Nagpur over the portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji and Aurangzeb underscores the dangerous consequences of this systematic distortion. The deliberate rewriting of history is not an academic exercise—it has real-world implications, as it foments hatred, deepens social divides, and often leads to violence. The Maharashtra government’s failure to act against Koratkar while allowing these tensions to escalate suggests that it is complicit in this divisive agenda. (A detailed report regarding the outbreak of violence may be read here.)

As the demand for Koratkar’s arrest grows louder, the government’s inaction is becoming increasingly indefensible. If he continues to evade arrest, this will only confirm what many already allege—that the law in Maharashtra does not apply equally to all, but is instead wielded as a weapon against the powerless while offering protection to those who enjoy political favour. The coming days will be a test of whether the government prioritises justice or remains beholden to its ideological allies at the cost of social harmony.

Background of the case

On February 26, 2025, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Prashant Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station for allegedly threatening historian Indrajit Sawant and making statements that could incite communal tensions. According to the police, the incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar as mentioned above. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

Following the backlash of widespread protests, Koratkar denied any involvement, insisting that he had no connection with Sawant and that the voice in the audio clip was not his. He criticised Sawant for publicly naming him without verification, stating that he had since received multiple threats. Koratkar announced plans to file a defamation complaint and approach the cyber cell for redress.

A case had been registered against Koratkar under sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 151(4), and 352 of the BNS, and investigations are ongoing.

In response, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to police officials, Koratkar’s comments were aimed at provoking caste-based tensions. Sub-inspector Santosh Gawade is leading the investigation, and technical evidence is being gathered with assistance from the cyber cell.

Koratkar has denied all allegations, claiming that the voice in the viral audio clip is not his. He accused Sawant of defaming him without verification and asserted that he had been receiving threats since the controversy erupted. Koratkar had further announced plans to file a counter-complaint with the police and the cyber cell.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent order of the Delhi High Court directing YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to remove his video critical of Isha Foundation and its founder, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, raises significant questions about the balance between free speech and the right to reputation. The court’s decision, passed as an ex-parte ad-interim order without providing Singh an opportunity to present his case, highlights the increasing use of defamation laws to curtail criticism and investigative reporting.

The court directed Google LLC (YouTube), X Corp, and Meta to remove the video from their platforms. Singh was further restrained from sharing or publishing the video in any form, and the court went a step further by barring the general public from re-uploading it. This sweeping injunction raises concerns about the breadth of judicial power in restricting digital content before a full trial.

The order states “Defendant No.4, his associates, servants, agents, affiliates, assignees, substitutes, representatives, employees and/or persons claiming through him [are restrained] from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, disseminating, etc., the defamatory videos.”

The court justified its decision by stating that Singh’s video was based on “unverified material” and that its title was “clickbait to attract public attention.” It also noted that the video directly impacted the reputation of the Isha Foundation and its founder, stating that allegations of improper practices at the ashram harmed their public standing. However, Singh’s response highlights a procedural issue: he was only served with a copy of the defamation suit after the order had already been passed, denying him the chance to contest the allegations before the injunction was issued.

Justice Prasad also observed that Singh had made social media posts to promote the video before uploading it. The Court pointed out the need to balance free speech with the right to reputation. The order stated that “It is well settled that reputation is an integral part of the dignity of each individual and there is a need to balance between freedom of speech and freedom of expression vis-a-vis the right to reputation which has been considered as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The video does have a direct impact on the reputation of the founder of the Plaintiff/Trust.”

The order may be viewed here.

Ex-parte orders and the right to be heard

Singh, in his response to the court order, pointed out that he was served a copy of the defamation suit only after the order had already been passed.

A statement on behalf Meera said, “…Hon’ble High Court has passed the ex parte (without giving an opportunity of hearing) ad-interim order directing that the said video be taken down. The order has been complied with. It is categorically stated that Shyam Meera Singh has been served with the copy of the suit, only after the said order was passed.”

“The said ex parte ad- interim order prima facie appears to be arbitrary and not in consonance with law. Therefore, Shyam Meera Singh is exploring all the legal remedies available before him,” it further said.

I came to know through the media that yesterday, the Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order to take down my video. I was not served with any notice nor provided with any information about this hearing. Further, I was not given an opportunity to present my side in the court. I…

— Shyam Meera Singh (@ShyamMeeraSingh) March 13, 2025

Statement on behalf of @ShyamMeeraSingh pic.twitter.com/9xtQtQrGza

— Mayank Yadav (@imayankyadav) March 12, 2025

This raises a crucial issue: the principle of audi alteram partem, which guarantees the right to be heard before an adverse order is issued. While courts can grant ex parte relief in exceptional cases where immediate harm is evident, it is difficult to see how this case justified such urgency. The Isha Foundation’s claim that the video was uploaded two days before Maha Shivratri to create a public controversy does not, in itself, establish the kind of imminent harm that would warrant bypassing Singh’s right to respond.

Defamation cases, particularly those involving public figures or organisations of significant influence, require careful judicial scrutiny. Courts have historically recognised that public figures are subject to higher levels of criticism and scrutiny. In this case, the Isha Foundation is a well-known institution with considerable public influence, making it all the more important for the judiciary to ensure that Singh’s right to critique its activities is not unduly curtailed.

Balancing reputation and free speech

The court’s rationale—that the video’s contents “directly impinge upon the reputation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of the general public”—raises broader concerns about how defamation laws are applied. Reputation is undoubtedly a significant right, but it must be weighed against the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, especially when the subject matter concerns public interest.

In India, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to reputation, while important, cannot be used to shield public figures from criticism. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Court upheld criminal defamation but also emphasised that the right to reputation should not be invoked to silence fair criticism. The present case, however, suggests a broad interpretation of defamation that could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and critical journalism.

Implications for digital journalism and public discourse

This is not the first instance of judicial intervention affecting Singh’s content. In January 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered him to remove a video about Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, citing prima facie defamation. In that case, however, the court allowed Singh to upload a new video with a disclaimer stating that its contents were sourced from a trial court judgment and a book. The difference in approach between the two cases underscores the need for clear judicial guidelines on how courts handle online defamation claims.

The broader concern is the potential chilling effect on digital journalism. If courts continue to grant takedown orders before assessing the validity of defamation claims, independent journalists and content creators may become hesitant to investigate or report on powerful figures and institutions. Such orders, even if later reversed, can discourage critical reporting due to the financial and legal burdens involved.

Related:

The murder of Raghvendra Bajpai: A chilling reminder of the dangers faced by journalists in India

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

Indian Newspaper Day: Journalists’ Groups Demand Independent Media Commission

Baster Journalist killing: UNESCO condemned the killing of Mukesh Chandrakar

The post Delhi High Court’s takedown order against Shyam Meera Singh’s video on Isha Foundation raises free speech concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Magistrate issued a clear direction on October 7, 2016, ordering the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. However, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki, ignored the order for four months. Due to this inaction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking a mandamus directing the police to comply with the judicial order.

Issues

1. Can the police ignore a judicial order passed under Section 156 (3) CrPC for registering an FIR and conducting an investigation?
2. What are the consequences of non-compliance by police officers with a court’s directive regarding FIR registration?
3. Is the petitioner entitled to compensation for the delay and harassment faced due to police inaction?

Observations

The High Court took a stern view of the police’s refusal to comply with a clear judicial direction. It noted that:

• The registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offense is disclosed, as per Section 154(1) CrPC. The police have no discretion to ignore such information.

“…It is thus unequivocally clear that registration of FIR is mandatory and also that it is to be recorded in the FIR book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by the superior police officers as well as by the competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent…” (Para 23)

• The Magistrate had already applied judicial mind under Section 156(3) CrPC before ordering the registration of an FIR. The police had no authority to question or delay the implementation of this order.

“In the considered opinion of the court. the police has no discretion not to register F.I.R. in a case in which direction has been issued by a Magistrate under Section 156(3). Cr.P.C. in such cases, as held in the above noted judgment, the Magistrate has already applied his mind in regard to prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, before issuing a direction under Section 156(3). Cr.P.C. it therefore follows that once a direction is issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(31. Cr.P.C. to register a case and investigate, law mandates that substance of the information is entered in the prescribed form and start investigation. The police in such cases has no discretion to delay registration of the case so as to verify facts, or even to consider whether cognizable offence has been committed.” (Para 19)

• Ignoring a judicial order for several months undermines the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.

“The court would be failing in its duty by merely disposing of this petition as infructuous, the crime having been registered. A large number of cases of this nature are coming up before this court wherein even though a judicial order is passed directing registration of case and investigation, yet the orders are ignored by the Station House Officers of the concerned Police Station in total disregard to the administration of justice and their statutory duties.” Para 10

• The delay in registering the FIR weakened the case, as evidence is often lost or destroyed over time, especially in cases of sexual assault.

“Needless to say that on account of delay in registering the crime and consequent investigation, the evidence is not only lost or diluted, the victim of offence is also harassed and tormented. After offence of rape is committed, the victim in any case is physically and mentally shattered. To make the matter worse, the crime was not registered, whereas it is the statutory duty of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station to register a cognizable case. Even after passing of order by the Magistrate, the Station Officer ignored the order for no reason.”   (Para 18)

Outcome and Significance

• The court imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000, to be recovered from the responsible police officers, as a deterrent against such misconduct.

“Vide order dated 7.2.2017, above extracted, we asked for a cause as to why exemplary costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- be not imposed for non-compliance of order dated 7.10.2016. No satisfactory or other explanation has come forth from the Station Officer. Rather Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has made it evident through his affidavit that Station Officer was at fault in ignoring the order passed by the Magistrate.” (Para 19)

• The High Court reiterated that compliance with judicial orders is not optional and that law enforcement officers must act with diligence. (Para 20)
• The Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure compliance with court orders in future cases. (Para 21)

This judgment is significant in upholding judicial authority over law enforcement and reinforcing the principle that police officers cannot arbitrarily refuse to register FIRs when directed by a court. It also underscores the right of victims to seek legal remedies when law enforcement agencies fail in their duty.

The judgment in the case Sangita Devi v. State of U.P & Ors. 2017 (5) ALJ 705, Allahabad High Court may be read here:

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

Law on Arrest and Detention: Know your rights!

Fundamental Rights Upheld: Court rules delay in communicating grounds of arrest violates due process

The post Judicial orders must be followed, rules Allahabad High court appeared first on SabrangIndia.