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.

However, the local police swiftly refuted these claims, stating that there was no evidence to support the allegation of a targeted communal attack.

Police investigation and police presence

The incident that sparked these tensions began when a video surfaced on social media, showing minor boys from the Muslim community engaged in stone-pelting near the Kotwa area. The video, which was later identified as CCTV footage from one of the local houses, was shared widely, leading to a social media uproar. Hindu Families in Kotwa, in particular, claimed that the boys were indulging in “brick-batting” with the intent to create unrest and provoke violence against Hindu properties. However, the police dismissed these claims, focusing on the fact that the boys had targeted street bulbs and lights and not residential properties.

Following the release of the video, the Lohta police registered a case and began a probe into the incident. The police focused on determining whether the boys had deliberately targeted anything other than the streetlights. As part of the investigation, police reviewed the CCTV footage from the area and initiated further inquiries. The authorities have emphasised that they are maintaining a vigilant presence in the locality to prevent any escalation of tensions.

Allegation of Hindu families in fear: claims of targeting and forced migration

Amid the ongoing investigation, around 15 Hindu families residing in Kotwa Village have claimed to media persons that they are living in constant fear and after the killing of Bhaiyalal. a Hindu youth from the area, whose body was found in a partially burnt condition earlier last month in February, 2025.

According to this reportage, these claims of insecurity had led to CCTV cameras being installed in some homes. Additionally, a local elder alleged that a specific area near a temple had been deliberately turned into a garbage dumping ground.

Police investigation: the motive behind the stone-pelting incident

As the investigation progressed, the police began to piece together the events leading up to the stone-pelting incident. ACP Rohaniya Sanjiv Kumar Sharma confirmed that the CCTV footage showed the Muslim minors throwing stones at streetlights, with no indication of targeting houses or attempting to incite violence. The footage also revealed that the minors were attempting to steal the bulbs after breaking the streetlights, which pointed to the possibility of a theft rather than a planned communal disturbance. All further necessary legal action will be taken,  Times of India reported

Stone-pelting incident confirmed, theft attempt by minors: Police

Following the release of the CCTV footage, Neetu Katyayan, the ADCP of Varanasi Gomti Zone, clarified the police’s stance on the matter. She confirmed that the boys shown in the footage were indeed minors and that the motive behind their actions was theft—specifically, the intention to steal the streetlight bulbs.

The footage clearly showed the boys taking the bulbs after breaking the streetlights. The police have been investigating the incident in detail and emphasized that there was no evidence to support claims of any communal targeting or violence, reported Punjab Kesari

9 arrested in Kotwa stone pelting incident

The Lohta police arrested nine teenagers in connection with the stone-pelting incident at Abhilash Singh’s house in Kotwa village. The arrested individuals, aged between 12 and 15 years, were captured on CCTV footage during the act. According to Lohta SHO Praveen Kumar, the police swiftly identified and apprehended all the suspects. After their arrest, the teenagers were presented before the court and subsequently sent to the juvenile correction home in Ramnagar, as reported

Murder of Bhaiyalal Patel fuels communal unrest in Kotwa Village

The tension in Kotwa Village can also be traced back to the murder of Bhaiyalal Patel, a Hindu youth, which occurred earlier in February. On February 14, 2025, the Lohata police made significant progress in the investigation of Patel’s murder, arresting four individuals—Ashraf Ali, Abdul Kadir, Sultan, and Shakeel—who were accused of killing Patel and burning his body. According to the police, the accused had consumed alcohol with Patel on the night of February 10, near the Mazar of Barkat Shah Banarasi. When Patel refused to give them money for more alcohol, they allegedly attacked him, pushed him from a wall, and ultimately caused his death. To conceal the crime, the accused then attempted to burn Patel’s body before dumping it in a mustard field, Times of India reported

Hindu families demand permanent PAC presence in village

Over the past few days, on demands made by affected residents, the Uttar Pradesh government decided to deploy the PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary) in Kotwa village in response to growing communal tensions allegation.

The media coverage so far has primarily focused on the perspective of the Hindu families, with no statements from the families of the arrested minors and other villagers. One villager pointed out that no peace meetings had been held by the administration in the past two years.

Additional CP leads march in Kotwa village ahead of Ramzan and Holi

Besides these allegations, ahead of Ramzan and Holi festivals, Additional CP Dr. S. Chansya conducted a route march through Kotwa village on Saturday evening i.e. March 8, accompanied by a significant police presence. Former Rohania MLA Surendra Narayan Singh, along with BJP officials, also visited the village to engage with the local community. He reportedly appealed to the residents to celebrate the festivals peacefully and in harmony. During the march, several key officials, including DCP Varuna Gene Chandrakant Meena, ACP Rohania Sanjeev Sharma, and Additional CP Dr. M. Channappa, were present, along with station in-charges from Manduadih, Rohania, and Lohta, as well as PAC jawans.

A peace meeting was held later at IMA, Lahurabir, where Dr. S. Channappa addressed the villagers, urging them to cooperate with the police for a peaceful festival. He emphasized that if any issues arose, the police should be contacted immediately and advised not to believe in rumors. DCP Kashi Zone Gaurav Bansal, ACPs Dhananjay Mitra, Pragya Pathak, and Gaurav Kumar, along with the head priest, also attended the meeting to reinforce the message of maintaining peace and unity throughout the festivities, as reported

Related:

Gyan Vapi Masjid: Where can we go when our elders are buried here ask anguished Muslims from Varanasi

‘No Entry’ for non-Hindus at Varanasi Ghats?

Puja in Gyanvapi: Mosque Committee announces bandh, Shahr Mufti Batin Nomani appeals for peace

The post Kotwa Varanasi: A viral video of Muslim minors pelting stones on street lights leads to heightened security, police deny communal motive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The interim order of the Madras HC in the case ‘Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India’ have brought attention to the critical importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case involves Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Vikatan), a prominent Tamil weekly publication, whose entire website was blocked pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The central government cited a cartoon published on the site—depicting the Indian Prime Minister and the then-President of the United States—as a threat to India’s sovereignty and foreign relations.

Freedom of speech and its nexus with the press freedom

Freedom of speech is integral to any democratic setup, often described as the very cornerstone that supports all other liberties. In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution explicitly protects every citizen’s right to free speech and expression—an umbrella under which press freedom thrives. The press itself is commonly recognized as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” reflecting its mission to remain independent of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

In the United States, the landmark “Pentagon Papers” decision (New York Times v. Sullivan) underscored that the press must do more than merely transmit information between government officials and the public: it should operate as a neutral institution, shining a light on governmental functions and exposing any shortcomings. Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the freedom of the press by name, the Supreme Court has long affirmed in cases like Sakal Papers v. Union of India that freedom of speech and expression is a broad genus, of which press freedom is a vital species. Open discourse, critiques, and reporting on the functioning of government serve the public interest—so whenever laws or administrative measures threaten to muzzle the press, courts bear the responsibility to strike them down and uphold the Constitution.

The blocking of Vikatan’s website

1. Government’s action
   On 25.02.2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order blocking the entire website of Vikatan. Officials argued that a caricature published by the magazine undermined India’s friendly relations with a foreign state, thus justifying the action under Section 69A of the IT Act and the “reasonable restrictions” outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Vikatan’s response
   Vikatan challenged the blanket ban as excessive. They maintained that political satire and commentary lie at the heart of a free press. Shutting down an entire website over a single image, they argued, was disproportionate and infringed upon both their editorial independence and the readers’ right to information.

The Madras high court’s interim order

On 06.03.2025, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy granted partial relief:

• Limited removal of content: The Court held that blocking the entire domain was unnecessary. It directed the publishers to temporarily remove only the specific cartoon in question.
• Unblocking the site: Once the offending material was taken down, the Union of India was to promptly restore access to the rest of the website.
• Further hearing: The Court set a date two weeks later for the central government to file its counter-affidavit, at which time it would scrutinize whether the caricature truly warranted any continued restriction.

This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality, a concept clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Courts have insisted that restrictions on speech must be the least intrusive possible—removing only the offending material, rather than imposing an overbroad restriction affecting legitimate content or expression.

The order in the case Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India (WP 7944 of 2025) Delivered by Madras HC Bharatha Chakravarthy J on March 6, 2025 may be read here:

By granting Vikatan temporary relief and restricting the blocking order to only the particular caricature, the Madras High Court has made an important statement about press freedom in the digital era. This nuanced approach promotes a healthy environment for political satire and commentary, without dismissing national security or foreign-policy concerns. As India continues to rely on digital platforms for information and debate, the balance struck in cases like Vikatan serves as a reminder that freedom of speech particularly the freedom of the press remains the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy.

Related:

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

The post Madras HC unblocks Vikatan site appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Background of the incident

On February 22, a pickup truck transporting two dairy cattle from Rajasthan to Lucknow lost its way in Palwal, Haryana. The vehicle was intercepted by a group of cow vigilantes riding motorcycles, who suspected the occupants of cow smuggling. The vigilantes brutally assaulted the driver, Balkishan, and his helper, Sandeep, using lathis, swords, and hammers, causing multiple fractures and stab injuries. After the assault, they threw the duo into a canal in Gurugram’s Sohna, assuming both were dead. However, Balkishan managed to swim to safety and lodged a police complaint, leading to the arrest of five suspects.

Investigation and arrests

The police identified 11 accused in the case, with five arrested so far. The accused include Pankaj, Nikhil, and Devraj from Palwal, and Pawan and Naresh from Gurugram and Nuh, respectively. During interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime and admitted to killing Sandeep. The body of Sandeep was recovered from the canal on March 2, eight days after the incident. The police investigation revealed that the victims were legally transporting dairy cattle, but the vigilantes acted on mere suspicion.

Accused associated with “Gau Rakha Dal” Haryana

According to the police, the accused, who were associated with a cow protection group (Gau Raksha Dal, Haryana), attacked the both using lathis, swords, and hammers, resulting in multiple fractures and stab injuries. A week-long search operation led to the discovery of Sandeep’s body, a resident of Ganganagar in Rajasthan.

Palwal’s Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime, Manoj Verma stated that the victims were transporting two dairy cattle in a pickup truck from Rajasthan to Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh. On the night of February 22, they became lost and encountered the accused, who were riding motorcycles.

He said that “Truck driver Balkishan swam to safety but helper Sandeep’s body was fished out from the canal on Sunday,” as per a report in the Hindustan Times.

Victim’s dead boy recovered from canal

Thereafter, the members of the alleged cow protection group allegedly kidnapped the two on suspicion of cow smuggling, assaulted them and threw them into a canal in Gurugram’s Sohna. After being brutally assaulted by the gang, one of them died. The accused threw the two into a canal, assuming both were dead, but driver Balkishan managed to swim to safety and lodged a police complaint, as per a report in the The Hindu.

However, following Balkishan’s complaint, police announced a reward of 5,000 rupees to anyone who knows about the whereabouts of the accused.

The growing horror of self-vigilantism: cow vigilantes on the rise in Haryana

Lynching of migrant worker in Charkhi Dadri

The rise of self-styled cow vigilantes in Haryana has sparked a disturbing wave of violence, with incidents of lynching and extortion becoming more frequent. On August 27, 2024, a 26-year-old Sabir Malik, a migrant worker from West Bengal, was brutally lynched by a group of cow vigilantes over the suspicion that he had consumed beef. The attack occurred at a village bus stand in Charkhi Dadri, where Sabir was dragged away by the accused after being lured with a false promise of scrap to dispose of. Another migrant, Aseeruddin from Assam, was also attacked and hospitalised.

Increased tensions and rising fear

Sabir, a scrap dealer, was left dead near a canal in Bhandwa village, while Aseeruddin was dumped elsewhere. The brutal act was committed by individuals also linked to the ‘Gau Raksha Dal,’ a self-declared cow protection group. Following the murder, eight suspects were arrested, but the violence left a community shattered. Sabir’s tragic death leaves behind a grieving wife and a two-year-old daughter, raising questions about the growing dangers faced by migrant workers in Haryana.

19-yr-old shot dead by cow vigilantes after 30-km car chase in Haryana

Similarly, on August 24, 2024, a Class 12th student, identified as Aryan Mishra was shot dead in Haryana’s Faridabad after being suspicious of a cattle smuggler. The Victim, Aryan Mishra was chased for around 30 kilometres by a five-member group of “Gau Raksha Dal” before being killed him. All of the accused were subsequently arrested by the Faridabad Police.

Aryan was killed because cow vigilante assumed he was Muslim

It was reported that Aryan Mishra was killed by the group because they believed Aryan was a Muslim, his mother has expressed sorrow and confusion. Aryan’s mother Uma Mishra while reacting on the question of the reason behind Aryan’s killing, she said “The accused mistook him as a Muslim and killed him. Why? Aren’t Muslims human?

Aryan’s mother further questioned that “Why do you need to kill Muslims?”

However, the recent surge in cow vigilante violence in Haryana, exemplified by the brutal killing of truck conductor Sandeep and other incidents, raises serious concerns over the unchecked power of self-declared “gau rakshaks” (cow protectors). The involvement of these vigilantes with groups like Gau Raksha Dal has led to widespread fear, especially among migrant workers, minorities, and those perceived as outsiders. Disturbingly, many of the accused in these cases are suspected to have close links with local law enforcement, which raises questions about the accountability and effectiveness of the authorities.

As seen in the Palwal case, vigilantes freely engage in violent acts based on mere suspicion, often without facing immediate consequences. The fact that some accused individuals are linked to law enforcement and cow protection groups highlights the complicity and leniency that may exist within these institutions.

Related:

Haryana Horror: Migrant worker lynched and teenager fatally shot amid rising violence

Mob Lynching in 2020: Misleading Exception than a Norm

Remembering 15-Year-Old Junaid A Year After He Was Lynched

The post Haryana Police arrested five cow-vigilantes in alleged killing of truck conductor on suspicion of cow smuggling in Palwal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Though the family approached the police and demanded an investigation into the killing of the infant, the cops reportedly did not respond. It was only after the villagers staged a protest at the residence of Alwar SP (rural), police registered an FIR against two head constables and one unnamed police official

A 6 am raid, police abusing family, kicking the infant, reveals the FIR

According to the FIR, the incident took place on the morning of March 2, 2025, in Ragunath Garh, Nouganwa, Alwar district, Rajasthan, when a police raid led to the tragic death of a one-month-old infant. According to the FIR filed by the infant’s father, Imran, a group of 12 to 15 police officers from the Nouganwa Police Station arrived at their home around 6 AM. The officers allegedly abused the family and searched their home and mobile phones.

In his complaint, Imran described the incident that, “On 02.03.2025, at about 6 AM, 12 to 15 police officers from Nouganwa Police Station entered my house, abusing us. They searched our house and mobile phones. My child was kicked by the police, and she died instantly. My parents started shouting and causing a scene, which made the police flee the area.”

FIR Registered at PS Nouganwa u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023

Imran also recognised two of the officers involved—head constable Girdhari and Jagveer—who were named in the FIR. He added, “I knew two of the police officers, Girdhari and Jagveer. I can recognize the others by their faces. There was no illegal case against me, and I tried explaining this to them, but they did no listen.”

Cop stepped on my infant daughter’s head and killed her: mother of infant

Razida Khan, the mother of the infant told the Times of India that, “When I was sleeping on the cot with my infant daughter, the policemen arrived all of a sudden and pulled me out and sent me out of the room. They also pulled my husband out. They stepped on my infant daughter’s head and killed her.”

“ This is murder, and I want justice,” she added, reported TOI.

No cases registered against infant’s father Imran neither is he named in any FIR

Such a raid, though now frequent is unjustified under any circumstances. Here, with no cases registered against Imran Khan, him not named in any FIR related to cybercrime cases makes it worse. Additional SP Tejpal Singh said that a police team had gone to a house in the Nouganwa police station area on Saturday to arrest an accused in a cyber fraud case, reported Hindustan Times.

Disciplinary action taken against five cops over infant’s death, no arrest yet

Outraged by the alleged negligence and the tragic death of the infant, villagers gathered outside the residence of the Alwar Superintendent of Police, staging a protest and demanding immediate action against the police officers involved in the raid.

In response to the mounting pressure, Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Tejpal Singh confirmed that an FIR had been filed against police officers connected to the incident. He assured the family of swift action against those responsible for the infant’s death.

However, a delegation led by former minister Nasru Khan also met with ASP Tejpal Singh to discuss the incident. As part of the disciplinary actions taken, two head constables—Jagveer and Girdhari—and three constables—Sunil, Sahid, and Rishi—were reassigned to the police lines on Sunday, March 2, pending further investigation into the matter.

ASP Tejpal Singh further clarified, “Two head constables and three constables have been sent to the police lines in connection with the case. Additionally, the location of the mobile phone allegedly used in the cybercrime was not found at the victim’s residence,” as reported by The Week.

The Additional SP said that the protest ended on Monday.

Alleged police extortion and cover-up: Raj LoP Tikaram Julie demands CBI probe

Leader of the Opposition, Tikaram Julie, has raised questions about the police administration in relation to this incident. Speaking to NDTV on Monday (March 3), he said, “In this incident, it’s not just the five constables who are guilty, action should also be taken against the officers. In the name of taking action against cyber criminals, the police are looting people. We have raised this issue before, and during the discussion on the Home Department in the Assembly, we will demand answers from the government. The police are running a nexus. They arrest 50, but release 48. The action is now being used by the police as a means of extortion.”

He stated that suspending five police officers will not bring the deceased child back. He further said, “This kind of dictatorship is not new; since the BJP came to power, there has been a race to show that their law-and-order system is very effective. In the name of cyber fraud, terror is being spread. I raised this issue during the Lok Sabha elections as well, highlighting that the police is engaging in illegal activities. The government is not being held accountable in this matter” reportedNDTV Rajasthan

He added, “Is it just the fault of these five individuals? Didn’t the SHO, CO, and ASP know where their officers were going? The police have set up an entire racket, and this should be fully investigated by the CBI to ensure the truth comes to light.”

He also wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that, “Crime is at its peak in Rajasthan, and the government has lost control over the law and order situation in the state. The tragic incident in which a one-and-a-half-month-old baby died during a police action in Raghunathgarh Colony, under the Nouganwa Police Station in Alwar district, has shaken me to the core. I raised this issue in the Assembly and also addressed it during a press conference in the Lok Sabha elections, highlighting that the police in Alwar are intimidating the public. The police are harassing common people in Alwar, which is unjust.

राजस्थान में अपराध चरम पर है, प्रदेश की कानून व्यवस्था पर सरकार का अंकुश नहीं है।

अलवर जिले के नौगांवा पुलिस थाना अंतर्गत रघुनाथगढ़ कॉलोनी में पुलिस की कार्रवाई के दौरान एक डेढ़ माह की बच्ची की मौत की घटना ने मन को झकझोर के रख दिया l यह बात मैने विधानसभा में भी उठाई है और लोकसभा… https://t.co/liBqZHFwp3

— Tika Ram Jully (@TikaRamJullyINC) March 2, 2025

“Under the BJP government, Rajasthan’s image is shifting from being a “crime-free” state to a “crime-ridden” state. During BJP rule, the state has fallen under the control of jungle raj and mafia raj. Criminals have become so emboldened that they are carrying out robberies, murders, thefts, and dacoities in broad daylight.” He added further on X

Former minister Nasru Khan also alleged that the police harass these families on a daily basis and extorts lakhs of rupees from them.

Brinda Karat met with infant’s mother, demands arrest of all police officers involved

A delegation from the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), led by Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat, visited Raghunathgarh village in the Naugaon police station area of Alwar on March 4 (Tuesday). The visit was in response to the tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant girl, Alishda, who allegedly died after being crushed under the boots of police officers during a raid, reported TOI

“A delegation from the CPI(M), including Brinda Karat (Polit Bureau member), Kishan Parikh (secretary, Rajasthan State Committee), Sumitra Chopra (State Secretariat member, Rajasthan State Committee), and Raisa (district secretary), visited the family of one-month-old Alishda, who was killed by police brutality on March 2, 2025,” the CPI(M) said in a statement.

Brinda Karat on the murder of one-month-old child Alishda by the Police at Raghunathgarh Village, Alwar. pic.twitter.com/Wziz47ineS

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) March 4, 2025

Moreover, Brinda Karat also demanded the immediate arrest of all police officers involved in the infant’s death, as reported by The Hindu

No women police officers present during the raid: a grave violation of protocol

The tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant in Alwar during a police raid has raised serious questions about law enforcement’s conduct in the state. Reports indicate that the raid, which took place in Tauliya Bas, Raghunathgarh, was conducted without any women police officers present—a direct violation of established protocols. When dealing with families and vulnerable children, the presence of women officers is essential.

The raid was reportedly carried out without prior information and Imran and his family even not named in the FIR and no criminal cases registered against them. This illegal and reckless conduct not only led to the death of the infant but also exposing serious flaws in police operations and accountability.

Blame on five officers or a deeper systemic issue of police insensitivity?

The tragic death of a one-and-a-half-month-old infant during a police raid in Alwar raises more than just questions about the five officers directly involved. The incident points to much deeper systemic issues within the police force and law enforcement practices. How can such a brutal event unfold with no proper oversight or accountability? The absence of women police officers during the raid, a direct violation of protocols, compounds the gravity of the situation. Furthermore, the raid itself, carried out without prior notice and in apparent disregard of Supreme Court guidelines, raises concerns about the legality of police actions.

What is even more troubling is the lack of immediate response from statutory bodies from among the state or national commissions such as the Women’s Commission and the Child Rights Protection Commission. The absence of suo-moto action by these bodies, highlights a significant gap in their responsibility and duty to protect vulnerable groups. Additionally, the failure to arrest the officers involved in this incident further perpetuates the cycle of impunity within law enforcement.

Is it truly just five officers at fault, or does this incident reflect a much larger issue within the police force’s culture, practices, and lack of accountability? Until these deeper systemic issues are addressed, tragedies like this will continue, with no meaningful justice for the victims.

Related:

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

India saw 84 internet shutdowns in 2024: Access Now Report

India third highest across the world to enforce internet shutdowns

The post Month-old Muslim infant allegedly crushed during police raid in Alwar: No arrests made; three cops booked on murder charges appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yesterday, a division bench of the Gauhati HC, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stayed her deporation taking note of the order passed by the SC on her IA in the Rajubala case. The court has also requisitioned records from the Foreigners Tribunal to examine her prayer for bail given the procedural validity of the FT declaration. In the writ petition before the HC filed last November, Ajabha Khatun’s has challenged her declaration as a foreigner by the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta. Khatun’s case is that the tribunal had issued an ex parte order on February 8, 2019, declaring her a post-1971 foreigner, effectively stripping her of Indian citizenship. The HC has issued notice returnable on April 4, 2025 and directed the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond.

Recognising the seriousness of her situation, the High Court granted temporary relief by staying her deportation, ordering that she shall not be removed from the country without an order of the high court. Her prayer for bail will be heard once the tribunal records are received.

The present order of the Ajabha Khatun’s case came after Supreme Court, through the ongoing matter of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India, where the apex court is examining the overcrowded conditions of detention camps in Assam. As part of the proceedings the issue of the deportation of those individuals declared foreigners in Assam arose. The Union government had made the (unsubstantiated) claim that 63 persons from the Matia Relief camp were in line for deportation. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been closely monitoring the case and when it’s team found that Ajabha Khatun, whose case was still pending in the Gauhati HC also figured as number “18” on this list of 63, CJP assisted her in filing the IA before the apex court. In the order on Ajabha’s case passed by the SC, the court stated that the petitioner should seek interim relief from the High Court in her case. On February 25, 2025, it was on the basis of this order that the deportation was stayed yesterday.

Details of the Gauhati High Court proceedings and immediate relief

Thereafter, on March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court took cognisance of her pending writ petition challenging the tribunal’s decision that had declared her foreigner. 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.

The court has also ordered the requisition of relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal that have been challenged by Ajabha Khatun with legal aid assistance from CJP.  Given that the writ petition has challenged the declaration of Ajabha Khatun as not Indian”, and prayed for her release on bail, the procedural or substantive lapses in the FT order will now be considered by the High Court. Counsel Mrinmoy Dutta appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioner is currently detained at Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. A crucial relief granted to the petitioner is the court’s order that she shall not be deported from the country without the court’s explicit permission, while her prayer for bail and release from the relief camp is pending hearing. Yesterday’s order ensures that she is not removed from India before the matter is fully adjudicated.

The order may be read here.

Supreme Court proceedings in the Raju Bala Das Case

Ajabha Khatun’s case is part of a broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. On February 25, 2025, Khatun, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), sought impleadment as a party petitioner in the Supreme Court case of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India.

During this hearing, senior advocate Aparna Bhat argued that since Khatun’s challenge to the tribunal’s order was still pending before the High Court, any deportation order against her would be legally untenable. Deportation without exhausting legal remedies would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, acknowledged that her case was still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. While the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief, it instructed her counsel to seek appropriate orders from the High Court.

In the ongoing Raju Bala Das case, the Assam government had been directed to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. During previous hearings, the state argued that 63 detainees, including Khatun, were foreigners and should be deported. However, when questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about their country of origin, the Assam government failed to provide concrete proof which is why they have been asked to file further affidavits.

Denial of fundamental rights and legal violations

Ajabha Khatun’s case demonstrates the systematic denial of fundamental rights in Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system. Her ordeal began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for the Barpeta Assembly Constituency raised doubts about her citizenship and referred her case to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Barpeta, under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, later subsumed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The tribunal ultimately declared her a foreigner in 2019, but she was only arrested in September 2024. CJP subsequently assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. Her case resurfaced when the state submitted an affidavit in the Raju Bala Das case, listing her as one of the 63 detainees marked for deportation.

Her citizenship has been in question for over two decades, during which her fundamental rights have been severely curtailed:

• Since 1997, she has been denied the right to vote, as her name was arbitrarily struck from electoral rolls without justification.
• The Foreigners Tribunal disregarded evidence such as voter rolls featuring her father, husband, and herself.
• The burden of proof was misapplied, and her father’s testimony confirming her identity was ignored.

Beyond procedural violations, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp amounts to a grave infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. She remains confined without a criminal charge, in deplorable conditions that the Supreme Court has previously criticised. Her right to equality under Article 14 is also at stake, as citizenship determination processes in Assam disproportionately target the state’s most marginalised sections.

Her detailed story may be read here.

Related:

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

A victory against injustice

After months of relentless efforts by CJP’s legal team, the Foreigners Tribunal finally ruled in Micharan Bibi’s favour, officially declaring her an Indian citizen. The tribunal recorded evidence on March 14, 2024 and February 15, 2024, during which Micharan Bibi and her witnesses testified. The final arguments were heard on November 5, 2024, and the tribunal delivered its order on December 10, 2024.

The moment she received the judgment, she was overwhelmed with emotion. “I am an Indian, yet they harassed me! For a year, I couldn’t sleep or eat properly, but you always stood by me,” she said tearfully, expressing gratitude to the CJP team for their unwavering support.

To commemorate this hard-fought victory, representatives from CJP’s Team Assam, including Assam State Incharge Nanda Ghosh and legal team members Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and Sohidul Hussain, visited Micharan’s home to personally hand over the official order copy. Their presence underscored the significance of this triumph—not just for Micharan, but for all those who continue to face similar challenges.

Who is Micharan Bibi?

Micharan Bibi was born around 1950 to Kasem Ali (also known as Kasem or Kasam Ali) and Daliman Bibi (also known as Daliman) in Salmara Gaon, a village that was originally part of Bijni Police Station but now falls under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon District, Assam (formerly part of undivided Goalpara). She spent her childhood and early years in the same village.

Her father passed away around 1980, followed by her mother’s death in 1981.

In 1971, Micharan Bibi married Abdul Khalek, son of Mahej Sheikh, from Salmara Gaon. After marriage, she moved in with her husband and his family in the same village, where she continued to reside under Manikpur Police Station, Bongaigaon District, Assam.

A nightmare unfolds

Micharan Bibi’s ordeal began when she received a shocking notice from the authorities in 2022, accusing her of being an illegal entrant, a foreigner. This notice came nearly 18 years after the case was registered in 2004, exposing a serious procedural lapse. The notice was also barred by limitation. The initial 2004 investigation was also found on examination to have inherent flaws as several such “preliminary investigations” and “inquiries” have been found to. Reports are often filed without any efforts from the Assam border police of thorough investigation or verification of facts, and the same applied in Micharan Bibi’s case too.

The notice instilled deep fear and anxiety in her, disrupting her daily life and leaving her sleepless and unable to eat properly.

The case against her was fraught with serious procedural lapses. It was Micharan’s claim that the investigating officer (I/O) responsible for verifying her citizenship submitted a fabricated inquiry report without conducting any proper investigation. The officer neither visited Micharan’s residence nor interviewed any witnesses. Instead, the report was based on false statements, making baseless allegations against her. Throughout the process, Micharan consistently denied the accusations, asserting her rightful Indian citizenship.

Team CJP Assam with Micharan Bibi outside her home

CJP’s legal intervention and the fight for justice

Recognising the injustice she faced, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) stepped in to provide Micharan with much-needed legal aid and support. CJP’s legal team of Assam meticulously built her defence, challenging the flawed I/O report and presenting irrefutable evidence proving her Indian citizenship.

One of the key arguments presented by CJP’s legal team was that Micharan’s name appeared on the electoral rolls—an undeniable indicator of Indian citizenship. Additionally, they provided substantial documentary proof, including records establishing her family’s long-standing presence in India. Her parents’ and grandparents’ names were found in both voter lists and land records, reinforcing her legitimate status as a citizen by birth and also of being a permanent resident of Assam.

Moreover, CJP’s lawyers pointed out a significant legal lapse: the case against Micharan was time-barred and limited by delay. Although it had been registered in 2004, she was only served the notice in 2022—an unacceptable delay under the law.

Enduring hardship: A road accident amidst the legal struggle

As if the legal battle was not distressing enough, Micharan suffered a severe setback when she was involved in a road accident while traveling to attend proceedings at the Foreigners Tribunal. The accident resulted in serious injuries to her legs and hands, leaving her bedridden for nearly two months. Her already fragile emotional state worsened as she endured immense physical pain while simultaneously battling the system to reclaim both her identity and dignity.

Details of the order of the Foreigners Tribunal

The Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon, Assam, delivered its order on December 10, 2024, declaring Micharan Bibi, wife of the late Abdul Khalek and daughter of the late Kasem Ali, to be an Indian citizen. This case arose from a reference made under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964, wherein the tribunal was required to determine whether Micharan Bibi was a foreigner who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The proceedings were based on the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, under which the burden of proving citizenship rests on the person accused of being a foreigner.

During the proceedings, Micharan Bibi presented fourteen crucial documents in support of her claim of being an Indian citizen. These included an extract from the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) listing her grandfather, father, mother, and aunt, as well as certified copies of voter lists from 1966, 1971, 1997, 2006, 2011, 2015, and 2022, documenting her family’s continuous residence in Assam and her own inclusion as a voter.

Additionally, she submitted her Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), a Panchayat Certificate from the Secretary of No. 4 Nowapara Gaon Panchayat confirming her long-standing residency, and a School Certificate dated March 22, 1994, issued by the Head Teacher of Barbakhara L.P. School, which verified her studies and confirmed her father’s identity as Kasem Ali.

The tribunal examined whether Micharan Bibi had successfully proven two key points: that she was the daughter of Kasem Ali and Daliman Bibi and that her parents were Indian citizens residing in Assam before March 25, 1971. The tribunal relied heavily on her School Certificate, which listed her as the daughter of Kasem Ali of Salmara village, a fact corroborated by the school’s admission register from 1956. Furthermore, voter lists from 1966 and 1971 containing her parents’ names solidified her claim of lineage. The 1951 NRC entry, along with the voter lists, established that her father and mother had been residents of Assam well before the cut-off date, making them Indian citizens. Since Micharan Bibi was their daughter, she too was deemed an Indian citizen by birth. The tribunal also noted that she had consistently participated in elections from 1971 onwards, even after the case had been registered against her, further reinforcing her status as a legitimate Indian citizen.

After considering all the evidence, the tribunal ruled that Micharan Bibi had successfully discharged the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It concluded that she was not a foreigner and had been wrongfully accused of being an illegal migrant.

This case underscores the systemic failures in Assam’s citizenship verification process, where individuals, particularly from marginalised communities, are often wrongly accused of being foreigners due to procedural errors and fabricated reports. The judgment not only restores Micharan Bibi’s legal identity and dignity but also highlights the critical role of legal intervention in preventing wrongful exclusions. Her case sets a significant precedent for others facing similar challenges under Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system.

The order can be viewed here.

The broader impact of CJP’s work

CJP’s relentless efforts in Assam have provided a lifeline to hundreds of individuals and families trapped in the quagmire of Assam’s citizenship crisis. With a dedicated network of community volunteers, district-level motivators, and legal professionals, CJP offers paralegal assistance, legal counselling, and full-fledged legal representation to those unfairly accused of being foreigners.

In Micharan Bibi’s case, CJP’s legal team left no stone unturned in their fight to establish the truth. Their dedication ensured that an elderly woman, unjustly branded as a foreigner, was finally able to reclaim her rightful place as an Indian citizen.

Her story stands as a powerful reminder of the ongoing battle for justice in Assam. It exemplifies the impact of committed advocacy in defending the rights of the marginalised and resisting systemic injustices. As Micharan poignantly stated, “I may not be able to give you anything in return, but the Almighty will bless all of you.”

CJP’s work continues, one case at a time, bringing hope to those left vulnerable by a deeply flawed system and reaffirming the fundamental right to citizenship and dignity for all.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Citizen, Not Foreigner: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged that Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

The court stated in its order that “The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the name of the        applicant figures at serial no.18 on the list submitted by the Government of Assam of the foreigners who are to be deported. She states that the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal declaring her as a foreign national by filing a writ petition before the High Court. If that be so, it is for the applicant to seek appropriate interim relief from the High Court in that behalf. Therefore, at this stage, we are not passing any order on this Application.”

In the original Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. This directive underscores the need for transparency in the process and ensures that the state accounts for each detainee’s status before proceeding with any deportation.

SG Tushar Mehta had, during the hearing, requested for some time to provide the Court with the decision of the executive in regards to the issue of deportation. The case is now scheduled for a further hearing on March 21, 2025, where the fate of many, including Ajabha Khatun, will be closely examined.

In the order, the Bench stated “Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the issue of deportation of the foreigners which arises in this Petition is being dealt with at the highest executive level and if time is granted, he will place on record the decision taken by the appropriate authority. We grant him time till 21st March, 2025.”

The order of February 25, 2025 may be read here.

Senior counsel Aparna Bhat argued the matter in the Supreme Court assisted by advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Sanjana Thomas. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta leads the CJP’s team in Assam and is arguing the matter in the Gauhati High Court.

Why was this impleadment essential?

The case of Ajabha Khatun exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process, where individuals are arbitrarily declared foreigners and detained without substantive proof. Khatun, a resident of Assam, has been held at the Matia Detention Camp despite a lack of evidence linking her to any foreign country. She is among the 63 detainees the Assam government claims are foreigners and must be deported—a claim that has been challenged for its lack of legal and evidentiary basis.

The state’s affidavit, submitted in court, asserts that 270 persons, including 63 from Bangladesh, are currently detained at Matia. In past hearings, including one on January 22, 2025, Assam has repeatedly argued that none of these detainees are Indian and that deportation is warranted. However, when directly questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about the country of origin of these detainees, the Assam government’s counsel erroneously insisted that all were declared foreigners—a claim that lacks evidence and legal credibility.

Khatun’s case is part of the broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The original petitioner, Rajubala Das, had sought directives preventing Assam authorities from detaining individuals without demonstrating a realistic possibility of deportation. Ajabha Khatun, detained in Matia Detention Camp, has filed both an Impleadment Application and an Application for Directions to challenge the order facilitating her deportation. She argues that she is an Indian citizen and that the Tribunal’s decision was marred by procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

Ajabha Khatun’s case, once again, highlights the systematic denial of fundamental rights to individuals declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). In her case, her denial of rights began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Barpeta Assembly Constituency doubted her citizenship and forwarded her case to SP Barpeta (Competent Authority) under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act, 1983/The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district passed its order declaring her non-Indian on February 8, 2019. She was arrested, however, only in September 2024 after which CJP has assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. It was only after the state filed an affidavit in the original Rajubala case, providing a list of 63 detainees on February 3, 2025, through which the government erroneously informed the Court were foreigners that the CJP team found Ajabha to figure on the list (serial number 18).

Since her citizenship had been doubted and the question of whether the said Ajabha Khatun was a citizen of India or not remained unanswered, her right to cast a vote has been put in abeyance. Notably, while her constitutional rights to vote were snatched away, the ERO inquiry report which does not record any reasons for the arbitrary action in striking her name of the electoral rolls raised more questions than it answers.

From the moment a notice was issued against her, in 2017, she was deprived of procedural fairness—a core component of natural justice. During the FT proceedings despite the proffering of witness testimony and crucial documentary evidence, a misplaced application of burden of proof was applied, her father’s evidence deposing that she was his daughter was disregarded and she was declared non-Indian.

Additionally, it is essential to highlight that an investigation report was submitted by Local Verification Officer Dipankar Baruah to the Election Registration Officer (ERO), 43 No. Barpeta LAC. This report, marked as Annexure-A, formed the basis for the reference made against the Opposing Party. However, points 15 and 16 of Annexure-A expose glaring inconsistencies:

• Point 15 explicitly asks whether the Opposing Party (Ajabha Khatun) migrated to Assam (Yes/No), yet the LVO fails to provide any response.
• Point 16 further inquires that, if the Opposing Party did migrate—about the place of origin (State or Country) and the time frame of migration (before January 1, 1966, between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, or after March 25, 1971). Both these critical fields are left entirely blank in the investigation report.

This omission makes it undeniably clear that the LVO had no basis in fact to substantiate the allegation of migration against the Opposing Party. If the investigating officer himself did not raise any doubts, on what basis did the ERO and Superintendent of Police (SP) initiate this reference?

With no substantive claim or evidence against the Opposing Party, the reference is arbitrary, baseless, and legally unsustainable. Ajabha’s challenge against the order of the Tribunal remains is now pending before the Gauhati High Court.

Beyond these substantive and procedural violations, Khatun’s detention at Matia Detention Camp amounts to an infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Arrested in September 2024, she has been confined for an indefinite period without a criminal charge, in conditions the Supreme Court itself has recognised as deplorable. Furthermore, her right to equality under Article 14 has been denied, as citizenship determination processes disproportionately target marginalised communities, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The denial of her right to reside and settle in India (Article 19) further compounds this injustice, as she faces the possibility of deportation despite having lived in Assam her entire life.

Besides, since 1997, her access to receive the benefit of government schemes has been limited, due to non-issuance of Aadhar cards. Since her unique identity card has not been issued by the government, basic welfare facilities, such as ration, has been out of bounds for her.

This case is further crucial because it exemplifies the larger crisis of wrongful citizenship determinations in Assam. If Khatun were to have been deported despite the absence of substantive evidence, it would have set a dangerous precedent where individuals, particularly the poor and marginalised, can be stripped of their citizenship arbitrarily. The state’s approach in this case—ignoring due process, misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court, and failing to establish any real connection between detainees and a foreign country—exposes the structural failures of the FT system. Ensuring that Khatun’s rights are upheld is not just about her case; it is about holding the state accountable for its unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of individuals declared foreigners.

More broadly, the case underscores why every person under the threat of deportation must be allowed to exhaust all legal remedies before any steps are undertaken. Deportation is an irreversible action with life-altering consequences, often resulting in statelessness, separation from families, and denial of basic human rights. Ensuring access to legal recourse safeguards against wrongful expulsions and upholds the rule of law. Given the well-documented flaws in the FT process, the judiciary must act as a check on executive overreach, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without rigorous scrutiny.

Key issues in the case

1. Arbitrary declaration as a foreigner: The applicant was declared a foreigner without substantive proof.
2. Violation of procedural fairness: The Foreigners Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.
3. Lack of material linking the applicant to another country: The State has failed to establish any connection between the applicant and a foreign country.
4. Impact of wrongful deportation: Deportation could lead to statelessness and irreversible human rights violations.

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

1. Impleadment as a necessary party: Given the direct impact of the Supreme Court’s deportation order, Ajabha Khatun must be impleaded to protect her fundamental rights as her case remains pending in the Gauhati High Court and her legal remedies have not been exhausted.
2. Application for Directions to stay the deportation order: The applicant seeks judicial intervention to halt her deportation, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Since there had been no grant to interim relief by the Gauhati High Court, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to ensure that no action is taken against her till she is heard and her proofs of citizenship are appreciated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): Discriminatory treatment in citizenship determination processes disproportionately affects marginalised communities.
2. Article 19 (Right to Reside and Settle in India): Deportation without due process violates her constitutional right to reside in India.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Arbitrary detention and wrongful deportation violate her right to live with dignity.

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

1. The Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration was based on procedural flaws and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal did not appreciate the voter rolls presented as evidence, containing her father’s name, her husband’s name as well as her own name.
2. The FT ignored her father’s testimony which flies in the face of the primary rules of Evidence under the Evidence Act.
3. The State’s assertion that her nationality is “known” –in one set of documents –while keeping that category “blank” in another —contradicts both the facts and the Tribunal’s failure to identify any foreign connection. While her name figured in the name of the 63 deemed worthy of deportation by the state, her legal remedies have yet to be exhausted and she only has a FT order against her.

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

1. The applicant’s challenge before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 6626/2024) is at the motion stage.
2. Proceeding with deportation while the case is sub judice violates principles of judicial fairness.

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

The Foreigners Tribunal 1^st Barpeta, Assam, in its order dated February 8, 2019, declared Ajabha Khatun a post-1971 foreigner based on alleged failure to prove Indian citizenship. However, it is the argument of the applicant that the order reveals severe procedural and evidentiary flaws:

• No independent investigation appears to have been conducted to verify her citizenship before the notice was served to her and her name struck off the electoral rolls
• Documentary evidence was disregarded without justification.
• The burden of proof was misapplied under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

It is essential to note that the following evidence had been submitted by Ajabha Khatun to prove her citizenship:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 showing her grandfather, father, and herself as registered voters.
• Gaonburah certificates confirming familial relationships.
• Affidavits and cross-examinations corroborating her Indian lineage.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal rejected this evidence based on hyper-technical objections, without addressing the substantive proof of her citizenship. Further issues with the decision of the FT are:

• The inquiry report forming the basis of the allegations was not served on the applicant.
• The report merely stated a “suspicion” of foreign nationality without any concrete evidence.
• The ERO’s report striking her off the electoral rolls has also been from the documents available been the result of a conclusion reached without any investigation or inquiry.
• The Tribunal’s approach was inconsistent with established judicial principles requiring prima facie material before declaring a person a foreigner.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal’s decision stands in direct violation of established precedents, as it fails to establish a prima facie case. In legal proceedings, the necessity of demonstrating an initial case with sufficient evidence is fundamental to ensuring due process. By neglecting this requirement, the Tribunal undermines the legitimacy of its decision-making process. Furthermore, the absence of substantive evidence renders the declaration legally untenable. Without concrete proof to support its conclusions, the decision lacks a firm legal foundation and is susceptible to challenge. Such a deficiency not only weakens the authority of the ruling but also raises concerns about its adherence to principles of justice and fairness. The IA provides the following judicial percent’s that were violated by the FT while declaring its order:

1. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer [(1995) 3 SCC 100] – Due process requires disclosure of reasons before removing a person from voter rolls.
2. State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 1) – Tribunals must ensure prima facie material exists before issuing notices.
3. Haidar Ali v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Gau 683) – Recognised the perfunctory and arbitrary manner of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings.
4. Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695) – Authorities must have substantive grounds for suspecting foreign nationality.

Conclusion and prayer

The case of Ajabha Khatun exemplifies the systemic failures in citizenship determination in Assam. If the Supreme Court proceeds to direct deportation of those “”declared to be foreigners”, without acknowledging that at least 20 of the 63 inmates have cases pending at various Constitutional Courts, and without considering Ajabha Khatun’s case, it will result in violation of constitutional and international human rights norms. The applicant, through her interventions, had requested the Supreme Court to:

1. Implead her as Party Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020.
2. Stay the deportation order until her case before the Gauhati High Court is resolved.
3. Scrutinise Foreigners Tribunal procedures to prevent arbitrary declarations of foreign nationality.

This case underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in citizenship determination to prevent wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Where is justice lost…what happened in these five years? Many innocents are still behind bars and many accused are still roaming free. One of them has even become an MLA and minister on a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket.

Five years ago, between February 23 and February 26, 2020, a conspiracy was hatched to light a communal fire in Delhi. The north-eastern part of the capital city was made the target of this attack.

About 53 people lost their lives in this communal violence. Hundreds were injured. There was huge loss of life and property in the violence that lasted for four days. Many houses and shops were burnt to ashes.

In common parlance, we call this a ‘riot’, but if the right words are used, it was an attack. A revenge against the Shaheen Bagh movement against the Citizenship Amendment Act or CAA. Statistics testify this.

Delhi Police figures say that among those killed, 40 were Muslims and 13 were Hindus.

Unfortunately, the government and the mainstream media largely reported one-sided stories and blamed the Muslim community for this violence. This is what is being propagated even today.

As per the Special Cell and Crime Branch of Delhi Police, there was a “deep conspiracy” behind the Delhi riots, the “foundation of which was laid” during the anti-CAA and NRC protests in 2019.

This conspiracy has been mentioned in case number 59/2020. Delhi Police considers former JNU student leader, Umar Khalid, as the “mastermind” of the Delhi violence.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad has argued that the violence was part of a conspiracy to create trouble during the visit of then US President Donald Trump to India.

The violence started in Jaffrabad in North East Delhi, where women were staging a sit-in protest against the CAA on the Seelampur-Jaffrabad-Maujpur Road.

At that time, the freshly minted BJP leader, Kapil Mishra (who had switched over from the Aam Aadmi Party), called upon Delhi Police to clear the streets, and threatening to do so himself with the help of his supporters. It is after this that the violence broke out.

Recall that despite all their efforts, BJP had badly lost in the Assembly elections held in February 2020.  Many analysts say that the stunning defeat had flustered BJP. (This year that defeat has been avenged. After 27 years, BJP has once again come to power in Delhi with full majority.)

The backdrop of the communal violence had already been created, but ultimately it is innocent people who became its victims.

In 2022, four former judges and a former Home Secretary had released a fact-finding report on the reality of the Delhi violence. The report had raised serious questions on the investigation by Delhi Police. Also, strong comments were made on the role of Union Home Ministry, Delhi government and the media.

The fact-finding report also found that speeches made by BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra had also played a role in instigating people, which led to the violence.

Social activist Harsh Mander had even filed a petition in Delhi’s Patiala Court saying that an FIR should be registered against Kapil Mishra. This petition is still pending in the court.

Notably, in July 2020, Delhi Police had told the Delhi High Court that no evidence had been found against Kapil Mishra and other BJP leaders’ speeches having instigated the violence.

The same Kapil Mishra has now become an MLA and minister by contesting the recent Delhi Assembly elections from Karawal Nagar on a BJP ticket. But there is no discussion in the media about his role in the 2020 communal violence.

According to various media reports, the police have registered a total of 758 FIRs related to the violence.

Some reports published in 2024 said a total of 2,619 people had been arrested, out of which 2,094 people are out on bail.

The court has so far found only 47 people guilty and has acquitted 183 people. Cases against 75 people have been dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Delhi Police has so far arrested at least 24 people, of which 10 have been released on bail in the case of Head Constable Ratan Lal, who was killed in the line of duty during the Delhi violence.

Also, the 11 accused arrested in the murder case of Ankit Sharma, who worked in the Intelligence Bureau, are still in jail. Sharma’s body was found in a drain in Chand Bagh on February 26, 2020.

Notably, the fact-finding report has put its finger on  another accused in the Delhi violence —  Delhi Police. Questions have been raised on the role of Delhi Police in allowing these riots to happen and for inaction and delay in stopping the violence. Besides, Delhi Police have also been accused on brutalities.

Hearing in a case related to the Delhi riots in September 2024, a court had acquitted 10 accused persons, raising questions on the ‘theory’ of Delhi Police. All the accused belonged to the Muslim community. They were accused of attacking a house and a shop in Gokulpuri police station area of ​​North East Delhi.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramchala of Delhi’s Karkardooma Court had said that “suspicions over the allegations against the accused are not beyond doubt.”

During these four-five years, there were many such occasions during the hearing in the court, when the court made harsh remarks on the Delhi Police and described the level of their investigation as poor.

In August, 2023, while hearing the arrest of three people in the case of rioting in FIR No. 71/20 case of Dayalpur Police Station, Karkaduma Court had commented that the incidents had not been properly and completely investigated. It noted that the charge sheet in the case had been filed with prejudice in a bid to hide the mistakes made in the beginning.

Because of this kind of investigation and attitude of the police, many youth are still languishing in jail.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Delhi riots accused Gulfisha Fatima, but asked the Delhi High Court to hear her bail petition soon. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gulfisha, had said that she had been in jail for four years, and her bail petition had been pending in the High Court for a long time.

Earlier, on October 25, 2024, the Supreme Court had given a similar order in the case of another riot accused, Sharjeel Imam.

However, in March 2022 itself, councillor Ishrat Jahan, an accused in the violence, got bail. She was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

The bail petition was filed in the court on behalf of former Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan, which said that the police did not have a single evidence against her.

Earlier, in June 2021, Delhi High Court had granted bail to Pinjra Tod activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Jamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were arrested under UAPA Sections on charges of rioting.

At that time the High Court had said that giving inciting speeches or blocking roads is not unusual when there is widespread opposition to the actions of the government and Parliament. Even if we assume that the alleged inflammatory speeches, ‘chakka jam’, inciting women to protest and other acts, even if these violate the limits of the right to peaceful protest given in the Constitution, the act cannot be termed as a terrorist act, its conspiracy or its preparation.

Alas, Umar Khalid did not get bail or such comments.

Delhi Police’s Special Cell and Crime Branch consider Khalid to be the ‘mastermind’ of the Delhi violence. He has been in jail since September 2020. He has been charged with terrorism, rioting and criminal conspiracy under UAPA. The trial in this case has not started yet.

Umar Khalid’s bail plea has been rejected twice by two different courts, and hearings on his case have been adjourned umpteen times.

Khalid’s bail plea remained pending in the Supreme Court from May 2023 to January 2024, but the debate on it could not be started even once. After this, he withdrew his bail application from the Supreme Court and went back to the trial court.

On February 20, 2025, Khalid’s bail plea was heard in the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, his lawyer told the HC that merely being a member of a WhatsApp group was not evidence of involvement in any crime.

His lawyer Trideep Pais told the court that Khalid had been in custody as an undertrial for a long time. He said that the delay in the trial was also a reason due to which Khalid should get bail. The senior advocate argued that on the basis of equality with the four accused in this case who have been granted bail, Khalid should also be granted bail.

The bench headed by Justice Naveen Chawla has now ordered the next hearing on Khalid’s bail plea on March 4.

So, if we look at how justice has progressed in these five years, it can be said that while one set of accused —  Umar Khalid or Gulfisha or Sharjeel Imam — has not got bail yet, And one of the accused (although Delhi Police does not consider him an accused) Kapil Mishra has become an MLA and the Law and Justice Minister in the Delhi government. Along with this, he has got charge of Development, Art and Culture Department, Language Department, Tourism Department, Labour Department and Employment Department.

The session of the new Delhi Assembly has started. It would be fitting if a report on the progress of investigation in Delhi riots is tabled so that the country knows what the police under Home Minister Amit Shah did for justice in these five years.

(Translated from the original article published on Newsclick’s Hindi website)

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post 5 Years of Delhi Riots: Some Punished, Some Rewarded! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed his journalistic work on displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged state excesses, which many believe led to his prosecution as an act of state repression against dissenting voices.

Singh was initially not named in the FIR but was later implicated based on alleged digital evidence obtained from co-accused individuals. His previous encounters with the authorities include a 2019 arrest under similar charges, where he was eventually released on default bail due to the failure of the police to file a chargesheet in time. His arrest came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, raising concerns over state surveillance and retaliation against critical journalism.

His case mirrors a broader crackdown on journalists, activists, and human rights defenders under UAPA. Notably, student leader Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi and Gulfishan Fatima remain behind bars as under trials and Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old tribal rights activist, died in jail while facing questionable UAPA charges. These instances reflect a growing trend of using stringent anti-terror laws to silence dissent.

The United Nations Human Rights Office has also expressed concern over the misuse of UAPA in India, urging the government to review its application and ensure that it is not being used to target dissenting voices. The UN specifically called for the dropping of charges against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, who were prosecuted under UAPA for their comments on Kashmir.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in politically sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying him bail. The Court stated that it was “not inclined to interfere” with the High Court’s decision, thereby upholding the denial of bail.

The order may be read here:

The apex court’s order did not provide detailed reasoning beyond affirming the High Court’s conclusions, which raises significant concerns about judicial oversight in such sensitive cases. This decision effectively keeps Singh incarcerated without trial, reflecting the stringent nature of UAPA bail provisions and their impact on civil liberties.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Application of UAPA’s stringent bail provisions:

• The High Court and Supreme Court relied on Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that bail cannot be granted if the court believes the allegations are “prima facie true.” The threshold for bail under UAPA is significantly higher than in regular criminal cases
• The courts have interpreted “prima facie true” broadly, often placing the burden of proof on the accused, rather than requiring the prosecution to demonstrate substantial evidence at the bail stage.

2. Lack of independent evidence against Singh:

The primary evidence against Singh appears to be electronic data allegedly recovered from an SSD card seized from a co-accused. His defence argues that:

• No direct incriminating evidence was found from Singh’s residence or personal devices.
• The alleged videos and photographs are inconclusive in proving any criminal intent or Maoist affiliation.
• Digital evidence can be easily manipulated, and its authenticity should be scrutinized before being treated as conclusive proof.

Violation of fundamental rights:

• Singh’s arrest and prolonged detention raise concerns under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders have highlighted Singh’s case as an example of state-led suppression of press freedom
• His prosecution under UAPA fits a pattern of using anti-terror laws to target activists, journalists, and dissidents.

A slew of judgements of the constitutional courts analysed by our team below illustrate how bail under this draconian counter-terror law has been addressed. Before this, in 2020, our team had analysed how various courts dealt with the issue of bail under the stringent UAPA. That legal resource may be read here.

Precedents

Observations of the Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021)

The Supreme Court in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) clarified the necessity of an independent judicial assessment in bail matters under the UAPA. The Court observed that:

1. Mere membership in a banned organisation does not amount to criminal activity: The Court ruled that the prosecution must establish a direct and substantial connection between the accused and the alleged unlawful activities. A person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of association.

On plain reading of Section 38, the offence punishable therein will be attracted if the accused associates himself or professes to associate himself with a terrorist organisation included in First Schedule with intention to further its activities. In such a case, he commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation covered by Section 38. The person committing an offence under Section 38 may be a member of a terrorist organization or he may not be a member. If the accused is a member of terrorist organisation which indulges in terrorist act covered by Section 15, stringent offence under Section 20 may be attracted. If the accused is associated with a terrorist organisation, the offence punishable under Section 38 relating to membership of a terrorist organisation is attracted only if he associates with terrorist organisation or professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The association must be with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. The activity has to be in connection with terrorist act as defined in Section 15. Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 38 provides that if a person charged with the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 proves that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation during the period in which the name of the organisation is included in the First Schedule, the offence relating to the membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) of Section 38 will not be attracted. The aforesaid clause (b) can be a defence of the accused. However, while considering the prayer for grant of bail, we are not concerned with the defence of the accused. (Para 13)

2. Independent judicial scrutiny is essential: Courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s claims under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA. The judiciary must conduct a thorough review of the material evidence before concluding that the allegations are “prima facie true.”

“..By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or otherwise..” (Para 21)

3. The Court emphasised that the offences under Sections 38 and 39 require mens rea (guilty intent). Mere association or possession of Maoist literature does not satisfy the requirement of intention unless there is active participation or acts showing furtherance of terrorist activities.

“Thus, the offence under sub-section (1) of Section 38 of associating or  professing to be associated with the terrorist organisation and the offence relating to supporting a terrorist organisation under Section 39 will not be attracted unless the acts specified in both the Sections are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. To that extent, the requirement of mens rea is involved. Thus, mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 unless the association is with intention to further its activities.” (Para 15)

4. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite the strict conditions in UAPA, especially when prolonged incarceration violates fundamental rights. The accused had already been in custody for over 570 days, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court restored the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused.

“As held in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the stringent restrictions imposed by sub-section(5) of Section 43D, do not negate the power of Constitutional Court to grant bail keeping in mind violation of Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the accused no. 1 is taking treatment for a psychological disorder. The accused no. 1 is a student of law. Moreover, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Even assuming that some of the witnesses may be dropped at the time of trial, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in a reasonable time as even charges have not been framed. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act and the punishment can extend to 10 years or only fine or with both. Hence, depending upon the evidence on record and after consideration of relevant factors, the accused can be let off even on fine. As regards the offence under Section 13 alleged against accused no. 2, the maximum punishment is of imprisonment of 5 years or with fine or with both. The accused no. 2 has been in custody for more than 570 days.” (Para 42)

The judgement in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021) may be read here:

Observations in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

1. The appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for four years. The trial court has not yet framed charges. The prosecution intends to examine at least 80 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial uncertain.

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: 

(i)  The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; 

(ii)  Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and 

(iii)  As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.” (Para 7)

2. The court emphasized that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.”  (Para 8)

3. The appellant remains an accused, not a convict.  The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence—that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty must not be ignored.

“We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.” (Para 20)

4. The court noted that jails are overcrowded, and undertrial prisoners suffer due to delayed trials. It referred to Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 311), highlighting that prolonged incarceration has severe social and psychological consequences. (Para 14)

5. The court referred to Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which mandates that trials must be conducted on a day-to-day basis.

“The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as “the 2008 Act”) mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the 2008.” (Para 15)

6. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the court held that statutory restrictions on bail (like UAPA’s Section 43-D (5)) cannot override constitutional rights. The court reiterated that when trials are excessively delayed, bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence. (Para 16)

7. The judgment noted that criminals are made, not born, and the criminal justice system should consider social and economic factors that may influence crime. The court emphasized that justice should be tempered with humanity, quoting the principle that “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.”

“Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.” (Para 18)

The judgement in Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022)

1. The appellant had been in custody as an undertrial for almost 8 years (since 08.05.2014). Only 6 out of 109 witnesses had been examined so far, indicating an unreasonably delayed trial. The trial court estimated that the case might take 2-3 more years for completion.
2. The Supreme Court had directed priority examination of three prosecution witnesses who had raised concerns about threats to their lives.

Among these witnesses: One (Devendra Patel) was declared hostile. The other two (Hemant and Pappuram) did not provide any deposition implicating the appellant. The State’s case was largely based on the appellant’s alleged communication (31 conversations) with a co-villager, who was accused of being a sleeper cell module head of the Indian Mujahideen.
“We are of the view that in the facts of this case, when the petitioner has already spent nearly 8 years in custody, the appropriate order to pass would be to first direct the examination of the three witnesses who have raised concerns about threat to their lives from the accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis.” (Para 8)

3. The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where bail was granted in cases of long incarceration. It noted that UAPA’s bail restrictions (Section 43D (5)) are comparatively less stringent than NDPS Act provisions, which demand a prima facie case of innocence before granting bail. (Para 12)

4. One co-accused, Adil Ansari, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2020. The State argued that the role of the appellant was different, but the court acknowledged this factor in deciding bail.

“No doubt, in the said case, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court was dealing with an order passed by the High Court granting bail, whereas, in this case, the converse is true, that is, the impugned order is one rejecting the application for bail. The fact remains that the appellant has been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for a period of nearly 8 years already. The appellant, it may be noted, is charged with offences, some of which are punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years and the sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that one of the co-accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said accused is different.” (Para 13)

5. The impugned High Court order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The judgment made it clear that these observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial.

The judgement in Jahir Haq v. State of Rajasthan (2022) may be read here:

Observations in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

1. The Court noted that 12 out of 14 accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The number of prosecution witnesses had been reduced from 114 to 100, and only 40 witnesses had been examined so far.

Bearing in mind the above circumstances and the nature of the alleged case, we are of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020. (Para 5)

This ruling highlights the importance of parity in bail matters, considering that a majority of the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged trial delay was a factor in the decision.

The judgement in Mukesh Salam v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024)

1. The charge sheet did not contain specific material proving that the appellant participated in, abetted, or incited unlawful activities or terrorist acts. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was a member of a terrorist gang or organization under the meaning of Section 2(m) of the UAPA.

“We may note here that, assuming that the appellant knew that co- accused Athar Parvez was associated with PFI, it is not listed as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Moreover, the charge sheet does not contain any material to show any connection of the appellant with PFI before letting out first floor premises to accused no.1.” (Para 6)

2. The Court found that the statement of a protected witness (Z) had been misrepresented in the charge sheet, raising concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

“Thus, paragraph 17.16 purports to reproduce the statement of protected witness Z. In terms of our earlier order, the translated version of the statement of protected witness Z, recorded before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has been produced in a sealed envelope. We find that the statement substantially differs from what is narrated in paragraph 17.16 of the charge sheet.” (Para 10)

3. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, emphasizing that even under stringent statutes like UAPA, bail should not be denied when statutory conditions are met.

“…when a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail..”  (Para 21)

4. The Court held that unjustly denying bail in deserving cases would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“…If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.” (Para 21)

The judgement in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Yedala v. State (2024)

The case was related to the murder of two politicians by members of the CPI (Maoist), a terrorist organization notified under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed a chargesheet against 79 accused. The appellants had been in custody for over four years and seven months without the framing of charges.

The court examined whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. After analysing the entire prosecution case, the court concluded that there was no strong material linking the accused to the crime. Since the prima facie case was weak, the statutory bar on bail under UAPA did not apply.

“…Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. Hence, the embargo on the grant of bail under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43D will not apply in this case. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to sub section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA. The trial shall be conducted uninfluenced by these observations.” (Para 21)  

The judgement in Yedala v. State (2024) may be read here:

Observations in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), an accused is not entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. However, upon scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it was found that the primary accusation against the appellant was that he paid levy/extortion money to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court held that payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding.

A close scrutiny of the material placed before the Court would clearly shows that the main accusation against the Appellant is that he paid levy / extortion amount to the terrorist organization. Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. It is clear from the supplementary charge-sheet and the other material on record that other accused who are members of the terrorist organization have been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in Amrapali and Magadh areas. The Appellant is carrying on transport business in the area of operation of the organization ((Para 11 (A))

2. The Court noted that the charge sheet alleged that other accused persons, who were members of the terrorist organization, had been systematically collecting extortion amounts from businessmen in the Amrapali and Magadh areas. The appellant was in the business of coal transportation in that region and had made payments under duress. It could not be said prima facie that the appellant conspired with the other members of TPC or raised funds to promote the organization.

“…It is alleged in the second supplementary charge- sheet that the Appellant paid money to the members of the TPC for smooth running of his business. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the Appellant conspired with the other members of the TPC and raised funds to promote the organization.” ((Para 11 (A))

3. The prosecution argued that the appellant had been in constant touch with members of the terrorist group. The Court noted that the appellant had stated in his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he was summoned to meet A-14 and other members in connection with the payments. The Court held that merely meeting the members of TPC, without further evidence of conspiracy, does not establish a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy.

“Another factor taken into account by the Special Court and the High Court relates to the allegation of the Appellant meeting the members of the terror organization. It has been held by the High Court that the Appellant has been in constant touch with the other accused. The Appellant has revealed in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that he was summoned to meet A-14 and the other members of the organization in connection with the payments made by him. Prima facie, we are not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization.”((Para 11 (B)))

4. The Court referred to National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, which set the parameters for granting bail under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA. The Court held that while prima facie satisfaction of allegations is sufficient to deny bail under UAPA, in this case, the material did not meet the threshold to establish a clear case against the appellant.

“After a detailed examination of the contentions of the parties and scrutiny of the material on record, we are not satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant relating to the offences alleged against him. We make it clear that these findings are restricted only for the purpose of grant of bail to the Appellant and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations during trial.” ((Para 12))

The judgement in Sushesh Kedia v. Union of India, 2021may be read here:

Singh’s case underscores the precarious state of press freedom and the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA matters. While national security concerns must be addressed, an overbroad application of UAPA risks eroding fundamental rights. The denial of bail in Singh’s case, despite the legal precedents favouring a more balanced approach, raises significant questions about the selective and inconsistent application of UAPA laws. The courts must ensure that stringent bail conditions do not serve as a mechanism for prolonged incarceration without trial, which contradicts the very principles of justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

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

Related: 

How difficult is it to obtain Bail under the UAPA?

Petitions challenging stringent provisions of UAPA to be heard by the SC

The post SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency appeared first on SabrangIndia.