At the time of these killings in 1999, Dara Singh was an active member of the Bajrang Dal (BD) and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), had campaigned for the Bharatiya Janata Party in the 1998 elections, and regularly attended Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) camps and rallies. He was also a central figure in the vigilante band of Bajrang Dal’s cow-protection campaign, which in his hands took the form of ambushing trucks driven by Muslim cattle traders, intercepting the vehicles, freeing the cattle, and setting the trucks ablaze.

In this detailed background piece to the whole controversy, Citizens for Justice and Peace, had, on July 22, 2026, elaborated the sequence of events. The article may be read here. It was advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain who filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking Singh’s remission of sentence and release, in which he had argued that Dara Singh met the state government’s criteria for granting remission (i.e. 25 years). Claiming that the burning alive of Graham Staines and his two minor sons was on account of “youthful rage” (Singh was 37 years old at the time of his arrest), the Odisha State Sentence Review Board had also recommended his release from jail on ground of “good behaviour.” Thereafter, on July 14, 2026, a bench comprising of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi of the Supreme Court through its order had asked the Odisha Government to take a decision on the premature release of Singh by August 19. The decision was only relayed yesterday, however.

Interesting developments, as reported by The Hindu, led to this turnaround by the authorities in Odisha. The newspaper reported that, “The Kendujhar district authority on August 28, 2026, have reported that on August 15, 2026, a congregation comprising approximately 200-250 persons associated with Dara Sena assembled in front of the District Jail, Kendujhar in connection with the proposed release of the convict, during which provocative slogans were reportedly raised,” says the proceeding copy of SSRB’s August 31, 2026, meeting.

The piece by CJP traced the three cases that Dara Singh was involved in before the killing of Staines and his two sons (January 1999). Dara Singh was also convicted for beating and burning to death Shaikh Rahaman, a Muslim garment trader. In the same year, he led the mob that hunted down and killed Arul Das, a Catholic priest, with an arrow as the priest fled a church his attackers had set alight.  Singh had been also implicated in the killing of Shaikh Imam, a Muslim cattle-truck driver’s assistant, who was beaten to death in September 1998 after his truck was looted and set on fire. Singh was acquitted in that case in 2006 for want of sufficient evidence.

Given the widespread national and international outcry, the 1999 murders hled to a CBI’s investigation after which, 14 adults including Singh, were put to trial, along with one minor who was tried in Juvenile Court. In September 2003, the Sessions Judge convicted all the accused for life imprisonment but sentenced Dara Singh to death. On appeal in 2005, the Orissa High Court commuted Dara Singh’s death sentence to life imprisonment. Thereafter, in its judgment on January 21, 2011, the Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision. The judgment notes that,

“In the case on hand, though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity. All these aspects have been correctly appreciated by the High Court and modified the sentence of death into life imprisonment with which we concur.” (Para 43). The Court upheld the commuted the death sentence to life only because it did not meet the ‘rarest of rare’ threshold for capital punishment.

Related:

Dara Singh, convicted in string of 1999 communal killings, likely set for release by August 15

Odisha: Graham Staines’ Brutal Murder; Mystery Hangs Over Dara Singh’s Release

The post After some dithering, Odisha government rejects premature release of Graham Staines murder convict Dara Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A documentary about Khalid scheduled to be screened at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) on September 14, was suddenly postponed. The Law & Society Committee, which had organised the event, said it had taken the decision because of “logistical and security considerations” and insisted that it was not backing down because of pressure. The documentary, Prisoner No. 626710 is Present, directed by Lalit Vachani, was to be shown to mark Political Prisoners’ Day and six years since Khalid’s arrest.

However, developments around the screening tell a different story. The postponement came after opposition from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), which had demanded that the screening be cancelled and subsequently claimed credit for its postponement. The News Minute reported that the organisation affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had formally complained to the NLSIU administration about the screening. The Quint likewise reported that the organisers maintained that their decision was not a response to external pressure. Significantly, the NLSIU episode was not an isolated incident.

Just weeks earlier, Jawaharlal Nehru University had formally cancelled the booking of an auditorium for a discussion around Khalid’s book, Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power. While the university cited the organisers’ alleged “non-disclosure of the full facts” of the programme, this was contested by the organisers and as reported in The New Indian Express and Sabrangindia, the programme went ahead with retired professors addressing the gathering just outsider the School of Social Sciences-II building. A report on this may be read here.[1]

There is an unmistakable irony to these episodes.

While universities debate whether his work can be discussed, the much larger question remains unresolved: how long can a person remain imprisoned before the criminal justice system is required to put its case to trial?

Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Six years later, the trial has still not begun. That fact is no longer a footnote to the case. It is the case. Two thousand, one hundred and ninety days as an under-trial prisoner.

Six years, and still waiting for a trial

Khalid has now spent six years in custody as an under trial. The prosecution case against him is “extensive” yet key allegations have not been buffeted by adequate evidence. The Delhi Police filed a charge sheet running into 11 volumes and more than 17,000 pages in September 2020. The larger conspiracy case involves many accused and, according to an August 2026 open letter signed by more than 100 public figures, the prosecution has listed around 900 witnesses. Yet the trial has not begun.

This creates a constitutional problem that cannot simply be answered by pointing to the seriousness of the allegations. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty and has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a speedy trial. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court specifically recognised that prolonged incarceration can, in appropriate circumstances, justify bail even where stringent statutory restrictions apply.

The tension between that constitutional principle and the UAPA’s stringent bail regime now sits at the centre of Khalid’s case. Six years of imprisonment without trial means that the punishment of incarceration is being experienced before guilt has been adjudicated. That distinction matters.

Khalid has not been convicted of the allegations against him. The charges remain allegations. His guilt or innocence is ultimately for a trial court to determine after evidence is tested. But the trial has not begun.

The arrest came after years of being a public dissenter

Khalid’s current incarceration cannot be understood without the political and legal history that preceded it. A former JNU student leader and research scholar, Khalid emerged as a prominent public voice on questions of communalism, citizenship, minority rights and state power.

His name first became nationally prominent during the 2016 JNU controversy. In February that year, he was arrested in connection with an event held at JNU protesting the execution of Parliament attack convicts Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat. He and others were accused under provisions including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The case itself became emblematic of the criminalisation of political expression on university campuses. Then, SabrangIndia had interviewed Umar Khalid, and the two-part conversation can be viewed here and here.

In January 2019, the Delhi Police filed a charge sheet against Khalid and former JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar in the sedition case. Then came the political upheaval surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA 2019) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Khalid was among those who participated in and addressed protests against the CAA-NRC framework in 2019 and 2020.

On February 17, 2020, Umar Khalid spoke about peaceful protest and invoked Gandhian methods. A portion of his remarks was subsequently circulated widely on social media after BJP IT-cell head Amit Malviya posted an edited interpretation of his comments. Worse, just ahead of the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Kapil Mishra of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had stated on Twitter, “Delhi mein chote chote Pakistan bane (Delhi will become mini-Pakistan)” and “Shaheen Bagh mein Pak ki entry (Shaheen Bagh will serve as entry for Pakistan) as reported by The New Indian Express and The Hindu.” Mishra was even subsequently booked under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act), for promoting enmity between classes to gain an advantage during the elections and thereafter in June June 2024, Mishra was summoned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. At the time in 2020, the Delhi High Court made the Delhi Police watch four videos in court establishing hate speeches that had been made by politicians but not acted on by the police. Kapil Mishra was one of the four videos. Justice Murlidhar who came down on the police sharply for inaction was summarily transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Despite the fact that the case dwindled to naught later, there have been sharp critiques on how justice has been selectively delivered. Not just Mishra but Anurag Thakur, were recorded delivering provocative and incendiary hate speeches at election rallies in February 2020. The courts, including the Supreme Court of India were eventually lenient with them (2026) as compared to the young Muslim student leadership at the helm of the anti-CAA/NRC protests. At an election rally, Anurag Thakur, an elected official of the BJP, was heard leading a chant of “Desh ke gaddaron ko…”, to which the crowd responded, “Goli maaron saalon ko.” The slogan went viral and drew widespread criticism. Just weeks later, Delhi witnessed large-scale communal violence that claimed 53 lives, with allegations raised that such speeches contributed to the charged atmosphere. Yet it was Umar and 17 others who bore the brunt of the blame for the violence.[2]

Days later, North-East Delhi descended into brute and targeted communal violence. Fifty-three people were killed and hundreds were injured. Ignoring the deliberate provocations by elected officials of the ruling BJP, the Delhi Police chose to target on the previous, vibrant and widespread anti-CAA/NRC protest leadership, developed a theory of a “larger conspiracy”, alleging that the anti-CAA protest movement had been used to plan and orchestrate the violence. Khalid became one of the principal accused in that case. Incidentally, while the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was in power at the time and returned to power after the state elections, the Delhi police are controlled directly by the central/union ministry for home affairs.

September 2020: The beginning of six years behind bars

Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, under the UAPA. The prosecution alleged that he played a central role in the conspiracy behind the riots. The case was not merely an ordinary prosecution arising from individual acts of violence. The police’s case was that Khalid, and others were part of a broader conspiracy connected to the anti-CAA protests and that the protests themselves were used as part of a plan culminating in the violence.

The prosecution has repeatedly described Khalid as one of the alleged “masterminds” of the conspiracy. Khalid has consistently denied the allegations. What followed was a prolonged battle over bail and liberty.

2021: The first long bail battle

In April 2021, a Delhi trial court granted Khalid bail in a separate IPC case relating to the Delhi riots, observing that the material against him was sketchy and that he could not be incarcerated indefinitely on such material. That did not result in his release. His UAPA case continued.

By September 2021, his lawyers were back before the court seeking bail in the larger conspiracy case. The arguments went to the heart of the prosecution’s theory. Khalid’s lawyers argued that participation in protests, membership of WhatsApp groups and advocacy of a chakka jam could not, by themselves, constitute a terrorist conspiracy.

The defence also argued that the prosecution was attempting to paint a large number of individuals with the same brush and that the charge sheet presented a narrative rather than evidence establishing Khalid’s criminal role. The prosecution disputed this and argued that the protests had been systematically organised and synchronised. The bail hearings continued for months. In March 2022, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail application. The court found a prima facie case against him under the UAPA. Khalid remained behind bars.

2023–24: The Supreme Court route and repeated adjournments

Khalid approached the Supreme Court. Notice was issued in May 2023. What followed was another prolonged sequence of hearings and adjournments. The matter was repeatedly listed before different benches. There were adjournments because of the unavailability of counsel, constitutional bench proceedings, changes in bench composition and the recusal of a judge.

On August 9, 2023, the matter came before Justices A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra. Justice Bopanna indicated that the matter would come before another bench after Justice Mishra’s recusal. On September 12, the Supreme Court admitted the bail plea but indicated that the documentary material would have to be examined in detail. The hearings continued into October and November. In January 2024, the matter was again repeatedly adjourned. There were 44 deferrals of the matter before the apex court.

Finally, on February 14, 2024, Khalid withdrew the Supreme Court petition, with his counsel telling the court that he would pursue the matter before the trial court on account of a “change in circumstances”. That change did not result in liberty.

2024: Back to the trial court

In July 2024, Khalid moved the Karkardooma court for bail. The proceedings again became protracted. On May 28, 2024, the Karkardooma court rejected his bail plea. The prosecution argued, among other things, that Khalid had amplified what it described as a “false narrative” through social media. The defence rejected the allegations and continued to challenge the evidentiary basis of the prosecution case. The central problem, however, remained unchanged. Khalid was still in prison. And there was still no trial.

2025: Another rejection, another year in custody

On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected Khalid’s bail plea. The court accepted the prosecution’s contention that the Delhi riots were the result of a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” rather than a spontaneous eruption of violence. The court also held that delay in trial, by itself, could not justify bail given the gravity of the allegations.

Khalid challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the years continued to accumulate. In December 2025, a Delhi court granted him interim bail for 14 days so that he could attend his sister’s wedding. It was a brief departure from a pattern otherwise defined by continued incarceration. He returned to prison.

January 5, 2026: the Supreme Court’s crucial order

The most consequential development came on January 5, 2026. The Supreme Court, in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. But it denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The distinction drawn by the court became critical (and most contested).

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria said that the prosecution material prima facie disclosed what it described as a “central and formative role” for Khalid and Imam, involving planning, mobilisation and strategic direction beyond “episodic and localised acts”. The court held that the threshold under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA was attracted. It also said that the accused could renew their bail applications after the examination of the protected witnesses or after one year from the judgment, whichever was earlier. At the same time, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

April 2026: Review rejected

Khalid sought review of the January judgment. On April 20, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, finding no sufficient ground to review its January 5 judgment. The door to immediate reconsideration appeared closed.

May 2026: A Supreme Court bench questions the January approach

On May 18, 2026, a separate Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. The bench emphasised the constitutional significance of liberty and the principle that bail is ordinarily the rule and imprisonment the exception. More significantly, the bench expressed reservations about the January Gulfisha Fatima judgment’s treatment of the Supreme Court’s earlier three-judge decision in K.A. Najeeb.

The judges held that judicial discipline required the two-judge bench deciding Gulfisha to follow the binding precedent laid down by the three-judge bench in Najeeb. The issue was subsequently referred to a larger bench after another Supreme Court bench identified a “perceived conflict” in the approaches taken by different benches. That development was seized upon by Khalid and Imam in their renewed bail proceedings.

And then came the latest bail battle

Khalid and Imam approached the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of their third bail applications. The Delhi Police has now argued that they should not even be heard at this stage. In its response before the High Court, the police described the fresh bail proceedings as “illegal”, “misconceived” and an attempt to “mislead” the court.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 order, the police says, gave Khalid and Imam liberty to renew their bail applications only after one of two events occurred: the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from the judgment. According to the prosecution, neither event had occurred when the fresh pleas were filed.

Therefore, the police say, the applications are premature. Scroll.in, reporting on August 27, quoted the prosecution’s position that the May judgment in Andrabi, arising from another case, could not override the specific directions issued in Gulfisha. The police have also relied on the Supreme Court’s May 22 order in Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), which acknowledged the divergence between the Gulfisha and Andrabi approaches and referred the issue to a larger bench.

The State’s position is that until the larger bench settles the question, the January judgment continues to bind the High Court.

When does pre-trial detention become punishment?

The prosecution’s argument is this: the allegations are grave, Section 43D(5) applies, the Supreme Court has already assessed the material and Khalid’s alleged role is different from that of the accused who were granted bail. But there is another side to the equation. Khalid has spent six years in prison without trial. The prosecution has reportedly listed around 900 witnesses and there is no sign of the trial beginning any time soon.

The case involves thousands of pages of evidence and many accused. The more complicated the prosecution case becomes, the longer it can take to bring it to trial. But that cannot mean that the complexity of the prosecution’s own case becomes a reason for indefinite pre-trial incarceration. This is precisely why K.A. Najeeb matters. The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench in that case recognised that statutory restrictions on bail cannot be interpreted in a manner that makes constitutional rights meaningless. Where incarceration becomes excessively prolonged and there is no reasonable prospect of the trial being completed within a meaningful timeframe, Article 21 can acquire decisive significance. Detailed pieces may be read here, here and here.

A six-year incarceration has become a public question

On August 15, more than 100 writers, academics, activists, filmmakers, journalists and public figures wrote to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urging intervention in the continued incarceration of Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. As reported by The Wire, the signatories invoked K.A. Najeeb and argued that nearly six years of detention without the commencement of trial demands constitutional scrutiny. Their intervention reflects a broader anxiety about what prolonged pre-trial incarceration does to the meaning of liberty itself.

Six years is a long time to spend behind bars without a verdict. Umar Khalid has not been convicted of the charges against him, yet six years of pre-trial incarceration have already become a defining fact of his case. His bail battles continue, the prosecution and defence remain locked in arguments over the scope of the UAPA, and the larger question of how long a person can remain imprisoned while awaiting trial remains unresolved.

The courts will ultimately decide the charges against Khalid. But six years of incarceration without that determination cannot be reduced to another date in a long procedural timeline. It is a measure of the extraordinary cost of prolonged pre-trial detention. For Khalid, the wait for trial is no longer simply a stage in the criminal process. It has itself become the story.

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

A profile on Umar Khalid may be viewed here.

[1] Professor Avinash Kumar, who had submitted the requisition for the auditorium, was particularly categorical. “The stated reason for the cancellation of the booking of the SSS auditorium is false,” he said, according to Hindustan Times report. Kumar maintained that the Dean had been fully informed that the event was going to discuss Khalid’s book and that the requisition had been prepared in the format suggested by the Dean himself.

His question was simple: if the university did not know what the event was about, why was the auditorium booking approved in the first place?

[2] In 2020, prior to the Delhi riots, Parvesh Verma was a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha, representing the West Delhi constituency. He belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

During the February 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Kapil Mishra was a BJP candidate from the Karawal Nagar constituency (which he lost). He did not hold a formal government or party organizational position during the February 2020 riots. In early 2020, prior to the Delhi riots in February, Anurag Thakur held the designation of Union Minister of State (MoS) for Finance and Corporate Affairs in the Government of India. Simultaneously, he was a serving Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha representing the Hamirpur constituency of Himachal Pradesh.

Related:

The Conspiracy of Silence: HC denies bail to Delhi riots accused

How free are all Indians to exercise their right to peacefully protest under Article 19?

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

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

Order denying bail to Dr. Umar Khalid, a mockery of judicial system?

Dastardly attempt to assassinate Umar Khalid

Witch hunt against Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar continues

The post Six Years Behind Bars, Still No Trial: Umar Khalid’s long wait for justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev quashed the NSA detention order passed against Chaudhary, holding that her continued incarceration under the Act violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the grounds of detention were unsupported by material, repetitive and speculative, and that the District Magistrate had passed the order without proper application of mind.

The judgment is significant not merely, because it sets aside an NSA detention order. The Court closely reconstructed the chronology relied upon by the State, examined the WhatsApp conversations and videos forming the evidentiary basis of the detention, scrutinised the circumstances of Chaudhary’s arrest, and then questioned the District Magistrate’s failure to independently assess whether the extraordinary power of preventive detention was warranted at all.

Its conclusion was unequivocal: the State had failed to establish the evidentiary foundation necessary to deprive Chaudhary of her liberty under the NSA.

The Court also went considerably further. Holding that the State had exercised its authority in a “casual and cavalier” manner, it awarded Chaudhary ₹5 lakh compensation and directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and other officers found responsible, “right down to the SHO” who had prepared the initial report supporting the detention.

The chronology that undermined the State’s case

The case arose out of labour agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026. Thousands of workers had taken to the streets over low wages, the absence of salary increases for several years and working conditions involving shifts of up to twelve hours. The State alleged that the protests subsequently descended into vandalism and arson, and portrayed Chaudhary as an “agent provocateur” responsible for provoking the violence.

Chaudhary, a history graduate who had completed her M.A. in History and was pursuing her first year of law at Delhi University, had no previous criminal antecedents—a fact expressly admitted by the State. The fundamental difficulty with the State’s case was chronological.

The State’s own position was that Chaudhary was taken into custody on April 12. At the same time, it was undisputed that the violence began only on April 13. The State nevertheless sought to attribute the subsequent violence to Chaudhary by alleging that she and her associates had entered into a conspiracy before her arrest and that the violence was the eventual consequence of that conspiracy. The Court examined that proposition against the actual material placed before it. It did not find the necessary link.

The High Court repeatedly asked the State to identify the specific WhatsApp message or video in which Chaudhary had incited people to engage in rioting, arson or destruction of public or private property. The State was unable to identify even a single such communication. That finding goes to the core of the detention order. The State was not merely required to establish that violence had occurred. It had to demonstrate why Chaudhary’s detention under the NSA was necessary to prevent its recurrence or continuation. The material, according to the Court, did not establish that connection.

“This Court repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State to point out from the WhatsApp chats and the video recordings as to which one of them incited people or disclosed a conspiracy inciting people to indulge in acts of rioting, arson and destruction of public and private property? The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show a single message from the WhatsApp chats between the Petitioner and her associates or any video clip which would reveal any incitement from the Petitioner, either evidently or by necessary implication, which would disclose that it was the involvement of the Petitioner and the conspiracy hatched by her that resulted in the violence which erupted from 13.04.2026, much after the Petitioner was taken into custody by the State on 11.04.2026 (as held by this Court). Even otherwise, the undisputed case of the State is also that the violence erupted after the Petitioner was taken to custody by the police.” (Para 20)

A call for mobilisation was not an incitement to violence

One of the principal pieces of material relied upon by the State was a WhatsApp exchange in which Chaudhary allegedly called upon people to gather in support of workers and to oppose what she described as unlawful police action. The Court’s treatment of this communication is constitutionally significant. Even if the communication were accepted in its entirety, the Bench held that it did not constitute an exhortation to violence. At most, it called upon people to assemble in solidarity with labourers and to oppose excessive or unlawful exercise of police authority.

The Court also examined the videos relied upon by the State. The footage showed a large gathering of men and women, including persons in rural attire, with one individual apparently addressing the gathering. The Court found nothing in the footage indicating that the crowd was armed or engaged in violence. Instead, the material appeared to show people exercising their right to speak and agitate for higher wages and humane working hours.

“The video images relied upon by the State show a large number of people having gathered, which include men and women in traditional rural clothing, all standing near a lamp posts and one video image of a person who seems to be addressing the public. None of these videos disclose that the crowd is agitated or armed with lathi, stones or any such articles, which may be used in an act of violence, but appear to be exercising their constitutional right and freedom of speech and agitating their demands for higher pay and humane working hours.” (Para 21)

The judgment thus refuses an important form of executive overreach: the retrospective attribution of violence to an entire protest movement, or to an individual associated with it, without evidence establishing individual culpability or incitement.

Preventive detention cannot become a substitute for ordinary criminal law

The Court’s clearest legal proposition is that the NSA is an exceptional power. Preventive detention, it held, “is an exception”. It cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law merely to ensure that a person remains incarcerated because she might otherwise obtain bail in a criminal case.

The State had correctly pointed out that preventive detention does not necessarily require a person to have been convicted, or even to have been involved in several criminal cases. The statutory power can operate on the basis of a genuine apprehension concerning public order or national security. But that does not mean that the detaining authority’s satisfaction is beyond evidentiary scrutiny. The High Court expressly rejected the proposition that “subjective satisfaction” permits detention based upon bare allegations. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must emerge from relevant material capable of supporting the inference drawn.

In the present case, the Court found the grounds of detention to be “repetitive, speculative and … only opinion based”, without material capable of sustaining those opinions.

The Court therefore laid down a simple but important constitutional proposition: an extraordinary power that directly results in the deprivation of liberty under Article 21 cannot be exercised on “surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions”. The material must cross the threshold from allegation to evidence; otherwise, the detention becomes arbitrary.

“Any detention under the NSA is an exception. It is not a substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case, is still detained in custody under a concocted reasoning by the State. The elaborate grounds of detention of the District Magistrate are repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based without referring to a shred of evidence / material in support of sustaining those opinions. The grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion. Allegations which raise a subjective opinion in the mind of the District Magistrate must be supported with reference to material for the formation of such opinion, else the same would be arbitrary. It must be understood that the exercise of such a discretion which directly violates a person’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised lightly on the basis of surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions. It is the exercise of an extraordinary authority which results in the summary incarceration of a citizen merely on the opinion of the detaining authority which must be such that where a constitution court examining the grounds of detention is also satisfied that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate, crosses the threshold of mere surmises and conjectures and was justly based upon the material on record and not detaining the detenue under the stringent provisions of the NSA would in all probability than not, result in the public order being disturbed or would result in an act by the detenue which is deleterious to national security. The absence of such material would render the grounds of detention and the order of detention unjustified, deserving to be set aside.” (Para 22)

The arrest record raised a more serious procedural concern

The judgment becomes particularly significant when it turns from the substantive allegations to the legality of the arrest process itself. Chaudhary’s case was that she had been taken into custody at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 11 from Botanical Garden Metro Station. The State maintained that her arrest took place only on April 12. The Court tested these competing versions against the WhatsApp material produced by the State itself.

Messages sent to Chaudhary by an associate beginning at 5:56 p.m. on April 11 went unanswered. Several further messages and a missed call also received no response. The Court contrasted this with an earlier exchange that afternoon in which Chaudhary had been actively communicating with the same associate.

The material, the Court held, rendered Chaudhary’s claim that she was already in State custody from the evening of April 11 probable and undermined the State’s contention that she remained free until her formal arrest on April 12. But it was the Section 130 BNSS notice that caused the Court greater concern.

The State relied upon the notice to establish that Chaudhary had been proceeded against for failing to furnish a bond for good behaviour. Yet the notice contained General Diary Entry No. 37—the very entry on the basis of which the State claimed she had been arrested. The Court noted that the GD entry had been generated at 10:20 a.m. on April 12. The notice, however, did not mention the time at which it was issued.

Justice Achal Sachdev pointed out that if the notice had genuinely preceded the arrest, the GD number could not logically have appeared on it in the manner in which it did. Justice Sreedharan agreed, holding that the notice appeared to have been prepared after the arrest, describing the procedure as “ex post facto” and “nothing more than a sham”. The State was unable to answer what the Court described as “visible fabrication in the record”. This finding is particularly consequential in a preventive-detention case.

“My learned brother on the bench Justice Achal Sachdev, pointed out that the General Diary Entry No. 37 was generated at 10.20 am on 12.04.2026 and the mention of the G.D number in the notice under Section 130 goes to reveal that the notice was prepared after the arrest of the petitioner for, had the same been prepared before the arrest of the Petitioner, the G.D. number would not have been mentioned on the notice u/s. 130 BNSS. Mentioning the G.D. number in the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham. I agree with the view of brother Justice Achal Sachdev that the notice u/s. 130 of the BNSS was prepared after the arrest of the Petitioner and that is the reason why the time of issuance is not mentioned in the notice and its omission is deliberate. Answer was sought from the Ld. Counsel for the state with regard to visible fabrication in the record for which no answer is forthcoming from the Ld. Counsel for the State.” (Para 17)

The Court’s scrutiny therefore went beyond whether the NSA order contained adequate reasons. It questioned the integrity of the very process through which the State sought to justify its exercise of coercive power.

The District Magistrate was required to exercise independent judgment

The Court’s criticism of the District Magistrate, Medha Roopam, is equally significant. The detention grounds ran into several pages. But the Court made clear that the length of a detention order cannot establish that the authority has applied its mind. The District Magistrate was required to examine the police dossier “threadbare”, particularly when the police report consisted largely of allegations unsupported by credible material.

The circumstances demanded greater scrutiny: Chaudhary was a young student activist, had no previous criminal record, was agitating in support of labourers, and the material before the authority did not demonstrate that she had incited violence. Instead, the Court found that the circumstances suggested that the District Magistrate had sought to “set an example” out of Chaudhary and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of labourers.

The finding is devastating for the legality of the detention order because the District Magistrate’s statutory role is not to mechanically endorse the police version. Preventive detention requires an independent satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority. Where the underlying police material is itself weak, contradictory or unsupported, the District Magistrate has an even greater obligation to interrogate it before authorising incarceration under an exceptional statute. The Court concluded that this obligation had not been discharged.

“In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision. In a case where the police report against the Petitioner were only allegations without there being any credible material against her, the District Magistrate was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations and even thereafter, assess whether the oppressive provisions of the NSA were warranted against the Petitioner and how the general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers and where the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence, reveals that the District Magistrate desired to set an example out of the Petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of the labourers. The District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner.” (Para 31)

The Court draws a constitutional line around protest

The judgment also makes an important statement about the constitutional status of public protest. The High Court held that freedom of speech and expression extends beyond speech in the abstract. It includes the right to come onto the streets, gather peacefully and agitate for one’s rights. The State cannot prevent public gatherings merely because it assumes that they may result in a breach of peace.

The Court warned that such an approach would amount to “throwing the baby out of the bath water” and could ultimately result in the cessation of collective expression in public spaces. Importantly, the Court did not ignore the State’s obligation to maintain public order. It expressly recognised that peaceful demonstrations may be infiltrated by persons interested in creating violence and that the violent acts of such persons may subsequently be attributed unjustly to an entire gathering. But its answer was not to suppress the gathering itself.

The State, the Court said, possesses a strong police force and must train it to manage large gatherings while preserving accountability through measures such as videography. The principle is therefore not that every protest is constitutionally immune from regulation. It is that the State must distinguish between peaceful dissent and actual threats to public order rather than treating the possibility of disorder as proof of disorder.

“In this case, this Court has seen from the material on record that at the petitioner has called for citizens in support of the labourers and to agitate for their rights. There is no material to reflect that such agitation will have to be violent or challenging the authority of the State. The freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets and agitating a cause, and gathering peacefully without arms or without threat to the public order. However, the State must also realize that a peaceful agitation where people collect without arms or ammunitions, can still be scuttled by mischievous elements, who may be sent by parties, who are interested in ensuring that such an agitation is broken and also where such elements may indulge in acts of violence, which thereafter gets attributed to the entire group which is patently unjust. Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bath water. If such a view is taken by the State and approved of by the Courts, it would lead to a cessation of the collective expression of opinion in public spaces. The Constitution protects such a right and the same cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the State. The State must also realize that it has a strong and powerful police force, which must be trained in ensuring public order in such large gatherings and also resort to videography of the gathering and the manner in which it is conducted, so that accountability may be affixed, in the event of an outbreak of violence.” (Para 23)

“The loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive”

The Court’s observations on the bureaucracy take the judgment beyond the immediate facts of Chaudhary’s detention. In considering compensation, the Bench turned to the constitutional responsibilities attached to the powers exercised by the IAS and IPS.

It reminded public officials that the immense powers conferred upon them exist alongside an equally serious responsibility to protect the constitutional rights, dignity and welfare of citizens. Most significantly, the Court observed that their loyalty is to the Constitution and not to the political executive, and that they are servants of the people in a democracy. The Court then issued an extraordinary warning.

When bureaucrats and police officers disregard their constitutional oath and exercise power in a manner that violates civil liberties, citizens may begin to regard them as an “oppressive vestige of the British Empire”. Such conduct, the Court warned, can generate distrust, anger and civil unrest. It concluded with the striking observation that unless such conduct is checked, “it shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia.”

“It goes without saying that those in the bureaucracy and the police, when they act in a manner which is harmonious with their oath of allegiance, the thankful citizens of this State shall elevate them, and very rightly so, to a position which would be envied by the Gods themselves. However, every time they ignore that solemn oath and act contrary to it, the people of the State of Uttar Pradesh would view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire arousing angst and hatred towards them creating an environment of civil unrest and this Court, while correcting their excesses and/or illegalities, especially those that impinge upon the civil liberties of the citizens without adequate cause or due process (inhering in the procedure established by law), may pass harsh orders to compensate the citizen so wronged, besides recording their despotic conduct. Else, it shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia.” (Para 30)

Personal financial consequences for the officers

The Court’s response to the State’s conduct was not confined to declaratory relief. Chaudhary had sought ₹50 lakh in compensation. The State argued that quashing the NSA order would not result in any substantial release from custody because Chaudhary remained in judicial custody in the underlying criminal cases, where her bail applications had been rejected. The Court accepted that the period of NSA detention had merged with her judicial custody and therefore declined to award the full amount claimed.

It nevertheless found that the State’s “casual and cavalier exercise of authority” had violated her constitutional rights and awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation. More significantly, the Court did not direct the compensation to be borne merely by the public exchequer. It ordered recovery from the salary of the District Magistrate and all other officers who were responsible, “right down to the SHO” who had prepared the initial report supporting the NSA detention.

The Court further directed that its displeasure against the District Magistrate and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records. This is perhaps the judgment’s strongest institutional message.

“Undoubtedly, even if the order in this particular case is quashed, the petitioner would still remain in jail as an under trial till she secures bail in all the criminal cases registered against her. As the period of detention merges with the period of judicial custody, the amount as prayed for by the petitioner, need not be considered in its entirety. However, on account of the casual and cavalier exercise of authority by the State through the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, which has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner, this Court considers it sufficient to grant ₹5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner. This Court also directs that the said amount must be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, who has passed this order of detention without application of mind and from all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO of the Police Station, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA. The displeasure of this Court against the conduct of the District Magistrate concerned and all such other officers of the police who were involved in preparing the dossier against the petition, be noted in their service records.” (Para 33)

The Court has effectively rejected the proposition that an unconstitutional exercise of State power should have no personal consequences for those who exercise it. Where individual officials are found responsible for an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, accountability may follow the chain of decision-making down to the officer who initiated the process.

The judgment is ultimately about the limits of preventive State power

The Allahabad High Court’s decision is not a declaration that Chaudhary is innocent of the criminal allegations against her. The Court expressly recorded that the chargesheet in the underlying case had been filed, cognizance had been taken and her bail application had been rejected. She would consequently remain in judicial custody even after the NSA detention was quashed, unless released in the other criminal cases.

The High Court was not deciding whether Chaudhary committed the offences alleged against her. It was deciding whether the executive had lawfully established the extraordinary conditions necessary to deprive her of liberty under the NSA. On that question, the Court found the State’s case fundamentally deficient.

Preventive detention may be exceptional by design. But precisely because it authorises incarceration without the safeguards of an ordinary criminal trial, the material supporting its exercise must meet a correspondingly serious standard of scrutiny. The Allahabad High Court’s judgment insists on that standard. And in doing so, it makes a broader point about the rule of law: Article 21 is not merely a protection against unlawful imprisonment after the event. It is a constitutional command that every exercise of coercive State power affecting liberty must remain tethered to law, evidence, reason and institutional responsibility.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Vande Mataram and the 2026 Amendment: From voluntary honour to penal coercion

Declared ‘Foreigner’, denied a hearing, pushed across the border: Gauhati HC pulls up Assam

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

Six Days On, Still No FIR: What happened to Shaheen and Nafisa Khan at Saket Police Station?

The post ‘Subjective Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Built On Conjecture: Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

And where is the CCTV footage that could help establish what happened inside the station? Two journalists allege they were assaulted at Delhi’s Saket Police Station.

They allege the assault intensified after police learnt they were Muslim. Teesta Setalvad speaks with Shaheen Khan and Nafeesa Khan about journalism, their experience as Muslim women, their rights as citizens, and the unanswered questions around CCTV footage and police accountability.

The post They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Press Club of India, along with the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists, issued a joint statement on September 3 condemning the alleged assault and seeking action against police personnel posted at Saket Police Station, including the Station House Officer (SHO).

The Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists,
Press Association, and Kerala Union of Working Journalist strongly condemn and
call for punitive action against Delhi Police officials posted at the Saket Police Station,
including the Station House… pic.twitter.com/aC7P19Hbkw

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) September 3, 2026

Subsequently, the NWMI and the Editors Guild of India also issued separate statements expressing solidarity with the two journalists and calling for an investigation into the allegations. The NWMI demanded that the police personnel allegedly involved be suspended pending inquiry, while the Editors Guild sought an immediate independent and unbiased probe and strict action if the allegations were substantiated.

The Network of Women in Media, India unequivocally condemns the brutal assault on Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, both journalists with 4pm News, and demands strict action against the police personnel involved. pic.twitter.com/Tju6M6egom

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) September 5, 2026

What the journalists alleged

Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, associated with digital news platform 4PM News Network, were covering the inauguration of a new wing at Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital in Saket on September 3. The event was attended by Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.

According to the journalists and statements subsequently issued by press organisations, the two were stopped by police personnel near the venue when they sought to ask questions as part of their journalistic coverage.

The journalists alleged that they were manhandled and taken to Saket Police Station. They further alleged that they were subsequently taken to a room inside the police station and assaulted by police personnel, including women officers.

According to the NWMI statement, the journalists had sought to ask questions during the event, including queries concerning an alleged cycle scam. NWMI stated that the journalists were allegedly handled roughly near the venue and later beaten at Saket Police Station. It further referred to the journalists’ allegation that the assault intensified after police personnel became aware that both women were Muslim and that religion-specific abuses were allegedly used.

We demand that the police personnel involved in the assault be suspended pending inquiry.

Such attacks on journalists are unconstitutional and against freedom of the press, which is an essential part of freedom of expression.https://t.co/LMuXFhq2nQ

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) September 5, 2026

On September 5, the Editors Guild of India similarly stated that the journalists had alleged that they were manhandled and taken away in a police vehicle after attempting to pose a question to Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta. According to the Guild’s statement, the two alleged that they were beaten by women police officials at Saket Police Station and subjected to abuse targeting their religion.

Statement on Assault on Women Journalists by Delhi Police pic.twitter.com/cecTcQKjKU

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) September 5, 2026

Videos circulated by the journalists and their organisation showed injury marks and bruises on their bodies. The allegations led to statements of condemnation and demands for action from several journalists’ organisations.

Delhi Police denies allegations

Delhi Police has, however, rejected the allegations of assault and religious targeting.

According to the police version, the two journalists were briefly detained after allegedly obstructing or violating a designated VVIP route near the event venue. Police officials have described the allegations of assault and religious targeting as “factually incorrect”, “misleading” and baseless.

Reports quoting South Delhi police officials stated that the journalists were asked to move from the designated VVIP security route and were taken to the police station following an altercation. The police have maintained that no physical assault took place.

The Editors Guild of India, while referring to the police version, stated that Delhi Police had maintained that the journalists were removed because of an allegedly improperly parked scooter and obstruction of access. The Guild nevertheless sought an independent and unbiased examination of the allegations.

Thus, the circumstances surrounding the incident remain disputed, with the journalists alleging assault and religious targeting during their detention and Delhi Police denying the allegations.

Press Club and journalists’ organisations seek action

In its joint statement, the Press Club of India, along with the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists, called for punitive action against police personnel allegedly involved in the incident.

The organisations urged Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar to ensure a free and fair investigation into the allegations and called upon the Press Council of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter and conduct an independent inquiry.

The statement was issued by Press Club of India President Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty and Secretary General Afzal Imam and was supported by the four journalists’ organisations.

NWMI demands suspension pending inquiry

In its statement issued on September 5, the Network of Women in Media, India unequivocally condemned the alleged assault on Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan and expressed solidarity with the two journalists.

NWMI urged the Delhi Police Commissioner to investigate the conduct of the police officers allegedly involved and demanded that the personnel accused of assault be suspended pending inquiry. The organisation stated that attacks on journalists were inconsistent with freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Editors Guild seeks independent and unbiased probe

The Editors Guild of India also strongly condemned the detention and alleged assault of Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan by Delhi Police personnel attached to Saket Police Station.

The Guild referred to the journalists’ allegations that they were manhandled near the event venue, taken to the police station and assaulted by women police officials. It also noted the allegations concerning religion-specific abuse.

Referring to the injury marks shown by the journalists in videos, the Editors Guild called for an immediate independent and unbiased investigation into the allegations.

The Guild demanded strict action against police personnel if the allegations against them were substantiated. The statement was issued by Editors Guild of India President Sanjay Kapoor and General Secretary Raghavan Srinivasan.

Demand for CCTV footage and legal action

Following the incident, the journalists and representatives of 4PM News Network sought the preservation and release of CCTV footage from Saket Police Station.

The journalists have maintained that CCTV footage could establish what transpired inside the police station. Reports stated that Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, along with their editor Sanjay Sharma, were considering approaching the Delhi High Court seeking preservation and production of the relevant CCTV footage.

According to reports, Sharma said that the police personnel found responsible should face action and that the CCTV footage should be made available for examination.

Background

The incident took place during the inauguration of a new wing at Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital in Saket. Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan have said they were present in the area for journalistic coverage of the event and had sought to question the Delhi Chief Minister.

Their allegations of detention and assault emerged through videos and social media posts on September 3, following which the Press Club of India and several other journalists’ organisations issued statements demanding accountability.

The Network of Women in Media, India issued its statement on September 5, followed by the Editors Guild of India’s demand for an independent and unbiased inquiry. The statements by the organisations have collectively called for an examination of the allegations, accountability for police personnel if wrongdoing is established and protection of journalists carrying out their professional duties.

Delhi Police has maintained that the journalists were detained because of an alleged obstruction of the designated VVIP route and has denied allegations of physical assault and religious targeting. 

The differing accounts have made an independent inquiry, including examination of available CCTV footage and other evidence, central to the demands raised by the journalists and press bodies.

Related

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case

Six-year-old detained during Patna teacher aspirants’ protest, parents allege police assault

The post Press bodies condemn alleged assault on women journalists at Saket Police Station, seek inquiry and action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an important first, the court has directed the Assam government to pay Begum interim compensation of ₹2 lakh. More significantly, however, the judgment raises disturbing questions about the manner in which the Foreigners Tribunal, police and State authorities operated in her case—and whether the machinery of citizenship determination was used to prevent judicial scrutiny rather than facilitate it.

As per the Scroll report, the Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund found that the conduct of the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal displayed an apparent “malice in law”. The court went further, holding that the State machinery had acted “in tandem” to prevent Begum from exercising her right to approach the High Court against the tribunal’s order.

The case therefore goes beyond an individual error by a tribunal. It exposes what can happen when the determination of citizenship, detention and expulsion operate in close succession, leaving the person concerned with little or no practical opportunity to seek judicial protection.

A case that should never have reached deportation

Begum’s ordeal began decades before her eventual expulsion. As reported by Scroll, she was marked as a ‘D’ or doubtful voter in 1997, following a revision of electoral rolls in Assam. According to Scroll, around three lakh voters were disenfranchised during that process, with many subsequently referred by the border police to Foreigners Tribunals. Begum’s citizenship case then moved through the familiar and often exhausting cycle of tribunal proceedings and judicial challenges.

In 2017, the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal ruled against her. She challenged that decision before the Gauhati High Court, which ordered a retrial. She returned to the tribunal, where she was again declared a foreigner. Begum challenged the decision once more in 2019. This time, the High Court found that the tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence she had produced and directed it to reconsider the matter.

That direction should have meant another opportunity for the tribunal to examine the evidence and reach a fresh decision in accordance with law. Instead, the proceedings took a deeply troubling turn.

Arrested when she appeared to defend her case

On May 30, Begum appeared before the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal pursuant to the High Court’s directions. According to the account reported by Scroll, rather than receiving a substantive reconsideration of her case, she was declared a foreigner and arrested within minutes of appearing before the tribunal. Her lawyers alleged that she was not even supplied a copy of the order—an omission that had obvious consequences because without knowing the contents of the order, challenging it became practically impossible. The High Court subsequently scrutinised the sequence of events surrounding her arrest.

Begum’s family said she appeared before the tribunal at around 12.30 pm and was arrested roughly half an hour later. As Scroll reported, the tribunal judge disputed this account. The Nagaon Superintendent of Police also told the court that the border police had arrested her near the tribunal premises at around 2 pm. But the High Court was not persuaded by the competing explanations.

The court reasoned that if Begum had actually been informed, even orally, that she had been declared a foreigner, there would have been little reason for her to remain around the tribunal premises during the period in which the police were able to take her into custody. That observation goes to the heart of the case.

The question was not simply whether Begum had been declared a foreigner. It was whether the process had been deliberately structured in such a way that she could be removed before she could challenge that declaration.

The right to appeal cannot be defeated by detention

The High Court’s most serious finding concerns precisely this issue. According to the court, the tribunal judge had “deliberately and wilfully delayed” issuing the order in a manner that enabled Begum to be arrested, moved to the Matia detention centre and subsequently expelled from India. The court concluded that the State machinery had thereby prevented her from exhausting her legal remedies and from approaching the High Court through a writ petition.

This is crucial. A tribunal’s declaration that a person is a foreigner does not, by itself, erase the constitutional right to challenge the decision. A legal system cannot meaningfully provide a remedy if the person concerned be removed from the country before she can access that remedy. The problem becomes particularly stark in citizenship cases, where the consequences of an adverse order can include detention, separation from family and eventual expulsion. The right to judicial review cannot become merely theoretical.

The tribunal’s conduct under scrutiny

The court did not confine its criticism to the consequences of the tribunal’s order. It questioned the circumstances in which the order itself came into existence. The High Court directed Assam’s Home and Political Department to investigate the date and time on which the tribunal member had prepared the opinion, Scroll reported. If necessary, the authorities were even directed to seize the tribunal member’s computer to establish when the order had been prepared.

The High Court also criticised the tribunal judge, Bipul Kumar Nath, saying that he appeared to have developed a personal grudge because the matter had earlier been remanded to him for fresh consideration. The issue, therefore, was not simply procedural irregularity. The court was examining whether the process had been manipulated to produce a particular outcome—and to ensure that outcome could not be challenged in time.

Expulsion before legal remedies were exhausted

The court also pointed to the safeguards governing expulsion. As reported by Scroll, the High Court found that Begum was denied an opportunity to challenge the May 30 order, which it described as a direct violation of the applicable standard operating procedure under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. The procedure requires legal remedies available to a person to be exhausted before expulsion. That safeguard is not a technicality.

Expulsion is an irreversible act with potentially devastating consequences. Once a person is pushed across an international border, access to Indian courts, lawyers, documents and family becomes infinitely more difficult. In Begum’s case, that is precisely what appears to have happened. Her family discovered that she had been expelled only after approaching the Gauhati High Court with a habeas corpus petition. The court subsequently involved the Ministry of External Affairs and indicated that efforts should be made to locate Begum in Bangladesh and bring her back to India.

Article 21 does not stop at citizenship

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the High Court’s invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that the protection of life and personal liberty extends not only to Indian citizens but also to non-citizens. In other words, even a person whom the State treats as a foreign national does not become a person without constitutional protection. This principle is particularly significant in Assam, where citizenship status has become deeply intertwined with detention, deportation and political debates about migration.

The constitutional question cannot simply be reduced to whether a person has successfully established citizenship. Even where the State claims that an individual is a foreign national, the State must still act according to law. It cannot imprison a person without due process, suppress an available remedy, conceal an order from the person affected, or remove her from the country before she has had a genuine opportunity to challenge the decision.

₹2 lakh is compensation—but the judgment is about much more

The ₹2 lakh compensation ordered by the High Court should not obscure the larger significance of the case as the Gauhati High Court has also attempted to ensure that what happened to Begum is not repeated. It directed the Superintendent of Police in every district of Assam to ensure that a person declared a foreign national is informed of the tribunal’s judgment before being taken into custody. It further directed that an adult member of the person’s family should be informed before the detainee is moved outside the jurisdiction of the district police.

These directions are significant because they recognise a basic principle of procedural fairness: a person must know what has been decided against them before the State takes away their liberty.

Family notification is equally important. In citizenship and detention cases, the disappearance of a family member can leave relatives with no information about where the person has been taken or whether they remain in the country.

The High Court has effectively drawn a line: a declaration of foreigner status does not authorise the State to bypass due process. The State cannot convert a tribunal order into an immediate mechanism of disappearance. It cannot use detention to defeat the right of appeal. And it cannot treat the absence of citizenship status as the absence of constitutional rights.

Related:

From Statelessness to Citizenship: CJP helps Adori Bibi reclaim her Indian identity

Nationality Before Deportation: The Rajubala Das case

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

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

The post Declared ‘Foreigner’, denied a hearing, pushed across the border: Gauhati HC pulls up Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The journalists, Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, said they had gone to cover the inauguration of Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital when police personnel stopped them. Shaheen alleged that she attempted to ask Gupta a question but was prevented from doing so and was taken to Saket police station along with her colleague.

Two women freelance journalists have alleged that Delhi police slapped and beat them up because they wanted to ask questions at an event featuring Union home minister Amit Shah and Delhi chief minister Rekha Gupta and that the assault was exacerbated because they are both Muslim pic.twitter.com/zWJ8RTC1eh

— The Telegraph (@ttindia) September 4, 2026

What followed, according to the journalists, was not merely detention but physical assault. In a video released by 4PM News Network, Shaheen alleged that she and Nafisa were beaten and subjected to mental harassment at the police station. She displayed injury marks on Nafisa’s body and alleged that the assault became more severe after police personnel asked their names and learnt that they were Muslims.

“Delhi Police Assaulted Us, But the Assault Intensified After They Asked Our Religion and Learned Our Muslim Names,” Says 4PM Journalist Nafisa Khan. pic.twitter.com/AETfmoWVXA

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) September 3, 2026

Newslaundry also reported the journalists’ allegation that Shaheen was caught by police while attempting to question the Chief Minister and taken to the police station. The most serious allegation made by Shaheen is that the assault intensified after police personnel heard the surname “Khan”. That claim cannot simply be treated as an extension of the dispute over the parked scooter.

Shaheen Khan alleges that Nafisa’s health deteriorated following the alleged police brutality. She claims she heard police personnel say, “If she’s dying, let her die,” while Nafisa was in distress, and alleges that police personnel did not come forward to provide her medical… pic.twitter.com/WLo2g6CQqu

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) September 3, 2026

Journalists’ organisations demand action

At the time of the publication, no case had reportedly been registered in connection with the allegations. Police said senior officers were in touch with the two journalists. The absence of an FIR is significant given the nature of the allegations being made: two Muslim women say they were physically assaulted after being taken to a police station, and one of them has alleged that religious identity influenced the severity of the assault.

#delhipolice पर महिला पत्रकारों को बुरी तरह पीटने का आरोप है. आरोप महिला पुलिसकर्मी पर है.

पुलिस प्रशासन चुप क्यों है? प्रशासन को बताना चाहिए कि कल दोपहर 11 बजे साकेत थाने में क्या हुआ? अगर कुछ नहीं हुआ तो कह दें पुलिस ने कमरा बंद कर महिला पत्रकारों को नहीं पीटा. लेकिन सब चुप… pic.twitter.com/BA3L4RZXrj

— Rajat Pandey (@RajatpandeyJF) September 4, 2026

The allegations have drawn a strong response from the press community. The Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists issued a joint statement condemning what they described as the “brutal assault” of the two journalists. They demanded punitive action against the police officials allegedly responsible and called upon Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar to ensure a free and fair investigation.

The Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists have condemned the alleged assault of freelance journalists Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan by Delhi Police personnel posted at Saket Police… pic.twitter.com/CnPFjM9V3A

— United News of India (@uniindianews) September 3, 2026

Political leaders have also criticised the alleged assault. AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj condemned the incident, while Congress leader Pawan Khera described the alleged assault as “utterly reprehensible” and questioned whether Delhi was becoming a “police state”. Both highlighted the allegation that the treatment of the journalists intensified after their Muslim identity became known.

What are these horrifying visuals coming out of a Delhi police station?

Women journalists being beaten and thrashed for asking questions about the Delhi CM.

And when the police allegedly discovered that one of these journalists was Muslim, the assault intensified.

Is this a… https://t.co/jHH7E6metC

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) September 3, 2026

The way two women reporters of @4pmnews_network were beaten by police is very shameful.

I feel all other news reporters & journalists should takeup the matter.

BJP Govt always tests things in Delhi’s Laboratory and then it’s scaled up in every state.

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) September 4, 2026

AAP leader Somnath Bharti separately urged Lieutenant Governor Taranjit Singh Sandhu to intervene and ensure action against officials found responsible.

This is not done, Shaheen, in addition of being a journalist, is a resident of my assembly constituency and I am aghast at this development. I request Honble @LtGovDelhi to intervene and fix accountability of the involved officers. A FIR must be lodged and responsible officers be… https://t.co/UBIze5FdrK

— Somnath Bharti सोमनाथ भारती (@attorneybharti) September 3, 2026

The FIR had to be fought for at the police station

The response to the alleged assault did not end with the journalists leaving the Saket Police Station. Instead, the early hours of September 4 saw activists and political workers remain outside the same police station demanding that Delhi Police formally register Shaheen and Nafisa’s complaint against the officers they accused of assaulting them.

All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora was among those who joined a sit-in at the Saket Police Station at around 1 am. According to Siasat, activists alleged that the police were initially refusing even to receive the women’s complaint. Bora publicly demanded that an FIR be registered against the police personnel involved.

With Shaheen and Nafisa who faced brutal assault at the hands of Delhi Police today.. we will ensure the FIR is filed against the communal and violent police personnel involved.

This is nothing but a communal targeting of two Muslim Women Journalists simply for reporting the… pic.twitter.com/xCpBqGCwzY

— Neha (@neha_aisa) September 3, 2026

The pressure intensified when Congress workers from the party’s Minority Department reached the police station in large numbers and raised slogans against the Delhi Police. The complaint was eventually registered around 3 am, according to 4PM News Network, after Shaheen insisted that an FIR be filed against the accused officers and that they be immediately suspended.

Saket Police Station: FIR Delay Sparks Protest by Journalists & Lawyers#SaketPoliceStation #DelhiPolice #FIRDelay #JournalistsProtest #LawyersProtest #ViralVideo pic.twitter.com/ADpKnKYnpt

— Savera Times Haryana (@Savera_Haryana) September 4, 2026

Delhi: Female Journalist Confronts Police Over FIR Registration at Saket Station#delhi #saketpolicestation #delhipolice #femalejournalist #firregistration #viralvideo pic.twitter.com/XbEgHFVJUD

— The Savera Times (@thesavera_timep) September 4, 2026

VVIP security cannot become a shield against accountability

Delhi Police has denied the allegations in their entirety. DCP (South) Anant Mittal described the journalists’ claims as “factually incorrect and misleading”. According to the police, the two women had parked their scooter near the hospital in a way that obstructed the designated VVIP movement route during the visit of the Home Minister and Chief Minister.

The police said the journalists were repeatedly instructed to remove the vehicle and clear the route but allegedly refused to comply. They were subsequently taken to the local police station “for further enquiry”. The police specifically denied that the women were assaulted for asking questions to the Chief Minister, calling that allegation “false, misleading and baseless”. That explanation, however, does not by itself dispose of the allegations of physical assault.

Related:

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case

Six-year-old detained during Patna teacher aspirants’ protest, parents allege police assault

Water Cannons Instead of Answers: Bihar’s recruitment crisis and the state’s crackdown on protest

The post Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order goes beyond the FIRs specifically placed before the Court by the Delhi Police and the States of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra. The Court extended the protection to similar FIRs registered anywhere else in the country, including in States and Union Territories that were not parties to the applications. The Court simultaneously barred the registration of any fresh FIR in relation to the protest incidents of July 20-25, subject to one specific exception concerning 2,873 individuals whom the Delhi Police claimed had serious criminal antecedents.

The decision came after the Union government and the four States moved applications seeking the quashing of the FIRs. As reported by LiveLaw, the applications were filed against the backdrop of an assurance allegedly given by the Central government to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leadership on July 25 that cases against protesters would be withdrawn and no fresh FIRs would be registered in connection with the agitation.

The Supreme Court has now converted that assurance into judicial directions, while expressly making its exercise of Article 142 dependent upon both sides honouring the understanding placed before it.

FIRs quashed and proceedings terminated

The order records that thousands of young students participated in protests held between July 20 and July 25 in Delhi, in the applicant-States and in other parts of the country. Following those protests, criminal cases were registered at several police stations. The five applications before the Court were moved by Delhi Police, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra. They sought the exercise of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 to quash the FIRs arising from the protests.

The Delhi Police application concerned 13 FIRs. Bihar placed 69 FIRs before the Court, while West Bengal sought relief in respect of eight FIRs and Assam in respect of five. Maharashtra placed 34 FIRs before the Court. The Court reproduced the details of these FIRs in its order.

Importantly, the Court did not restrict relief to these identified cases. After the Solicitor General submitted that additional FIRs could have been registered in other States and Union Territories concerning the same incidents, the Court directed that those cases too would not be pursued or investigated. The operative portion of the order states that any other FIR relating to the same incidents of protests between July 20 and July 25, including FIRs in States and Union Territories that were not applicants before the Court, “shall not be pursued or investigated” and shall be treated as closed for all intents and purposes.

The Court further directed that no State or Union Territory shall register any fresh FIR relating to those protest incidents. This makes the order significantly wider than the applications originally placed before the Court. The States that approached the Court sought relief concerning specified FIRs; the Court extended the protection to similarly situated cases across the country.

Court invokes Article 142 to protect students’ future

The central justification recorded by the Bench is the future of the young protesters. The Court noted the submission that the Central government and the applicant-States had consciously decided not to pursue the FIRs “as a gesture of goodwill” and to ensure that the cases did not cause prejudice to young students who had participated in the protests. The order also records an important qualification: “mere participation in the protests is not taken as an offence under the penal laws.”

It was against this background that the Court considered the matter fit for the exercise of its powers under Article 142. The Bench stated that, considering the commitments made before it and “most importantly” the future prospects of young protesters who had bona fide participated in peaceful protests to raise their demands, it was appropriate to invoke Article 142 to “do complete justice”.

The Court consequently quashed the FIRs specifically listed before it, along with all proceedings arising from them. The language of the order is significant because the Court did not merely record the government’s decision not to pursue the cases. It itself terminated the identified FIRs and extended the operative protection to other cases arising from the same protest incidents.

The 2,873-person exception

The order, however, does not provide an unconditional blanket protection to every person who may have been present at the protests. The Delhi Police had specifically sought permission to register a fresh FIR against 2,873 individuals whom it claimed had serious criminal antecedents, based on the National Crime Records Bureau database.

According to the application, these individuals were prima facie reported to have been present at the protest site. The police sought to investigate allegations relating specifically to bodily harm and destruction of public property. The Court permitted the Central government/Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR concerning these 2,873 individuals.

The permission is nevertheless confined to the allegations identified in the application. The order records that the proposed FIR is to concern offences relating to bodily harm or destruction of public property. It also expressly preserves the right of affected persons to pursue lawful remedies.

This distinction is important. The Court has not authorised a reopening of the entire protest-related criminal process against these individuals. It has permitted a fresh FIR within the limited framework sought by Delhi Police and without prejudice to the rights of those affected. The Court also linked this exception to its earlier observations of August 3, 2026, when it had clarified that protection could not be extended to persons with criminal antecedents involving “grave and heinous offences”.

Nationwide protection, despite only five jurisdictions approaching the Court

One of the most consequential features of the order is its pan-India operation. The applications before the Court came from Delhi Police, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra. Yet the Solicitor General told the Court that there could be FIRs concerning the same protest incidents in other States and Union Territories.

Rather than requiring each affected protester or State to separately approach the Court, the Bench directed that such FIRs would not be pursued or investigated. The Court also barred States and Union Territories from registering fresh FIRs concerning the incidents between July 20 and July 25.

The direction therefore closes the possibility of the same protest incidents continuing to generate criminal proceedings elsewhere. The order also records a commitment by the Delhi Police and the applicant-States that, if another FIR concerning the same incidents comes to their notice, they would not oppose the affected party seeking similar relief from the Supreme Court.

NEET-UG suicide compensation: Union given 90 days

The criminal proceedings were not the only issue addressed by the Court. The Solicitor General informed the Bench that the Central government would formulate a pan-India policy or arrangement for compensation to the families of students who died by suicide in connection with the NEET-UG 2026 examination.

The Court recorded that the students concerned were situated in different parts of the country and consequently directed the Centre, in consultation with the State governments and Union Territories, to formulate the policy within 90 days. Once formulated, compensation is to be paid to the affected families without delay. The order further states that the policy or arrangement may subsequently be adopted by State governments and Union Territories as a regular mechanism for compensatory measures.

This direction gives judicial force to the assurance placed before the Court by the Solicitor General. As reported by LiveLaw, the Centre had sought three months to work out the modalities for compensation. The Court has consequently fixed a 90-day period for the formulation of the nationwide policy.

September 5 CJP march withdrawn in Court

The proceedings also resulted in the withdrawal of the protest march that the CJP had announced for September 5. The proposed march had been announced after the organisation alleged that the government’s assurances concerning the withdrawal of criminal cases had not been implemented.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the proposed demonstration in Delhi was to be held in connection with the demands arising from the NEET examination controversy, including the withdrawal of cases against protesters and compensation for families of students who died by suicide.

During the hearing, CJP co-convener Saurav Das made a statement before the Bench that the organisation was withdrawing the September 5 call in view of the assurances given by the government and the order being passed by the Court. The Supreme Court recorded that statement.

The order then made it clear that the commitments made by all sides would have to be honoured. The Court directed both sides to abide by the statements and commitments made before it and expressly linked the exercise of Article 142 to compliance with the understanding reached between the parties. CJI Surya Kant, according to the proceedings reported by LiveLaw, observed that if both sides acted in good faith, the issues could be resolved one by one.

Article 142 and the Court’s carefully confined intervention

The Court’s use of Article 142 is central to the order. The applications specifically sought the exercise of the Supreme Court’s extraordinary constitutional power to secure the quashing of FIRs that the executive itself had decided it no longer wished to pursue. The order makes clear, however, that the Court is not laying down a general rule for the quashing of protest-related FIRs.

In paragraph 15, the Bench expressly states that its directions are being issued because of the “peculiar facts and circumstances of the case” and “shall not be taken as a binding precedent.”

The Court has therefore crafted relief that is extensive in its immediate reach but expressly limited in its precedential value. The order brings closure to the particular set of protests and the criminal proceedings arising from them, while avoiding a declaration that similar FIRs in future protest cases must necessarily be quashed. The order also makes the settlement between the parties an important component of the Article 142 exercise. The Court records that its extraordinary powers are subject to the condition that both sides abide by the terms of the mutual understanding placed before it.

A judicial closure of the criminal fallout of the July protests

The order ultimately produces a comprehensive closure of the criminal proceedings arising from the specified July protests. The FIRs specifically placed before the Court have been quashed. Other FIRs concerning the same incidents, even where they were not formally brought before the Bench, are not to be pursued or investigated. States and Union Territories have been prohibited from registering fresh FIRs concerning those incidents. The only express exception is the liberty granted to Delhi Police concerning the 2,873 individuals identified in its application. The Court has simultaneously directed the Centre to formulate a nationwide compensation mechanism within 90 days for families of students who died by suicide in connection with NEET-UG 2026.

The order is thus structured around two forms of closure: criminal proceedings arising from the protests are brought to an end, while the government’s commitment concerning compensation to affected families is placed on a defined judicial timeline.

At the same time, the Bench has carefully confined the constitutional significance of its intervention. It has not declared the quashing of protest FIRs to be a general rule. Instead, it has treated the matter as an exceptional exercise of Article 142 arising from the particular circumstances before it, the commitments made by the parties, and the Court’s concern that the criminal cases should not prejudice the future prospects of young protesters who had participated in the agitation.

The order closes with the Court placing on record its appreciation of the Union government, the applicant-States, counsel and the CJP leadership for their “constructive and cooperative approach”, noting that this had kept the interests and future of the young students at the forefront. The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that this resolution rests on the peculiar circumstances of this case and the commitments made before it. It is precisely for that reason that the Bench has directed that the order not be treated as a binding precedent.

The complete order may be read below:

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

Detailed reports on brute force used by police on the protestors may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

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

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

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

Water Cannons Instead of Answers: Bihar’s recruitment crisis and the state’s crackdown on protest

Amnesty Investigation finds unlawful and deadly force against CJP-led protesters in Delhi and Siwan

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain

July 2026: A dissent that was brutally put down, a crackdown after the protest ended

The post NEET Protests: Supreme Court ends criminal proceedings against students across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev allowed Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition and held that the detention was founded on what the Court described as a “concocted story” by the State. The Court directed that she be released immediately if her custody was not required in any other case. The Court also directed the Noida authorities to pay her ₹5 lakh in compensation. The detailed order is awaited.

However, Bar & Bench has reported that Chaudhary is likely to remain in custody for the time being because she has not yet secured bail in the other criminal cases registered in connection with the Noida workers’ agitation. The judgment comes after the Bench subjected the State’s version of Chaudhary’s arrest and alleged involvement in the violence to close scrutiny, particularly the chronology of her arrest and the notices issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Court questions sequence of arrest and BNSS notices

During the hearing, the State told the Court that Chaudhary had been arrested at 10:56 a.m. on April 12, 2026 and that a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS had been issued to her. The State’s case was that Chaudhary had instigated protesters to engage in stone-pelting and arson. The Bench, however, questioned whether the procedure prescribed under the BNSS had actually been followed.

Justice Sreedharan specifically asked whether Chaudhary had first been served a notice under Section 126. The State acknowledged that no such notice had been issued and that the notice under Section 130 had instead been served. The Court then examined the chronology of the documents and the General Diary (GD) entry. Justice Sreedharan questioned how a notice could have been prepared after Chaudhary had already been arrested.

As reported by LiveLaw, the Court observed in court: “Ab ismei GD entry dekhiye, usko arrest karliya fir notice banaya.”

The Bench further pointed to the apparent inconsistency between the arrest record and the notice, observing that the record indicated that Chaudhary had already been arrested before the notice was prepared. The Court’s questioning went to the heart of the legality of the detention: whether the State had followed the statutory sequence required before taking the drastic step of arrest and subsequently placing Chaudhary under preventive detention.

‘Whatever violence has happened is after her arrest’

The Court also closely examined the State’s claim that Chaudhary had played a role in instigating the violence during the workers’ protest. The State relied on the events surrounding the workers’ mobilisation and alleged that Chaudhary had encouraged protesters to resort to violence, including stone-pelting and arson. But the Bench drew attention to the chronology of events.

According to the State’s own account, people had gathered for the protest on April 11. Justice Sreedharan pointed out that the significant violence relied upon by the prosecution occurred only later.

“Yani 11 ko koi violence nahi tha. Whatever violence has happened is after her arrest,” the Court observed, according to LiveLaw.

The observation was significant because the State’s case depended on establishing Chaudhary’s connection to the violence. If she had already been arrested before the violence that formed the basis of the allegations, the Court was evidently questioning how the State could attribute subsequent acts of violence to her.

Where is the video evidence?

The Bench had already expressed concern about the evidentiary basis of the State’s allegations during the previous hearing. On September 1, the Court had specifically asked the Uttar Pradesh government to produce video footage showing Chaudhary allegedly instigating protesters to throw stones or set vehicles on fire. The State sought additional time to obtain and produce the footage. The Court refused.

Justice Sreedharan noted that Chaudhary had already spent approximately five months in custody and said, “I won’t give time. She has been in jail for 5 months.”

The Bench had also warned that if the record ultimately showed an arbitrary exercise of power, costs could be imposed on the officials concerned. The issue resurfaced during the final hearing when the State relied upon witness statements that allegedly named Chaudhary. The Bench, however, sought something more specific: where was the material showing that she had actually instigated the violence?

The Court also questioned the State’s reliance on the chargesheet, asking where the witnesses had specifically implicated her and where the videographic evidence demonstrated the alleged acts of instigation.

From workers’ protest to NSA detention

Chaudhary’s detention stems from the Noida workers’ protests of April 2026, which began over demands for higher wages and improved working conditions and later escalated into violence, arson and clashes with the police. The protests began peacefully but turned violent on April 13. Police subsequently arrested a large number of workers and activists and registered multiple criminal cases.

Chaudhary, a Delhi University history graduate and activist, was among those arrested. The Uttar Pradesh government subsequently invoked the NSA against her and journalist and activist Satyam Verma on May 13. The police alleged that the two had played a significant role in the violence and disruption associated with the workers’ agitation.

At the time, Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh claimed that the police had “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against Chaudhary, Verma and others arrested in connection with the protests. The police’s version was that the violence was not spontaneous but part of a wider organised effort.

Detailed report may be read here and here.

Related:

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

No ‘Pakistan conspiracy’ in Noida labour unrest: Fact-finding report

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

The post Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhati, president of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BR Ambedkar faction), has alleged that he was beaten with shoes, fists, kicks, belts and wooden sticks, while Jatav, the organisation’s Meerut district president, allegedly suffered similar treatment. Bhati was left with a heavily swollen eye and other visible injuries, as reported by The Wire.

A meeting with the SSP that allegedly turned into an assault

According to Bhati’s account, he and Jatav went to meet then-SSP Avinash Pandey on August 19. They were seeking relief in a case arising from protests held on July 8 over the murder of Lalita Gautam, a young Dalit woman from Meerut. Bhati has maintained that he was not present at the protest and wanted his name removed from the FIR connected with the demonstration. He said the two men had been trying to meet the SSP for several days and were eventually asked to come to his office.

Bhati alleged that the conversation quickly became hostile, with Pandey abusing him and questioning his credentials as a political and farmer leader. He said that when he objected to the alleged abuse, police personnel dragged him into another room. There, he alleged, the SSP assaulted him. Bhati has described being kicked, punched and beaten with shoes and a belt. He specifically alleged that Pandey kicked him around the eye several times after he fell to the floor.

The Indian Express, which spoke to Bhati, reported his allegation that he was assaulted for an extended period before he and Jatav were taken to the SOG office. Bhati also alleged that wooden planks and sticks were used against them and that the soles of their feet, backs and waist were beaten.

His visible injuries have become a central element of the controversy. Photographs showed substantial swelling around his eye, while videos released by Bhati showed him describing the alleged assault.

“मेरठ SSP के दफ्तर में किसी बात पर वाद विवाद हुआ। बात खराब हो गई, हिंसा का प्रयोग हुआ। सहारनपुर रेंज DIG से इस पूरे केस की जांच कराई जा रही है”

मेरठ में किसान नेता दिग्विजय भाटी की बर्बरता से पिटाई पर ADG भानु भास्कर ने कहा !! https://t.co/SCjEgECz3g pic.twitter.com/xeiUsdPHXc

— Sachin Gupta (@Sachingupta) August 21, 2026

Meerut police claims Samajwadi Party leader Digvijay Singh Bhati sustained the torture injuries after he fell from his scooty while returning from police office. https://t.co/7otICjnVLZ pic.twitter.com/e0TecnoXtc

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

SSP kicked me in the eye multiple times, says Samajwadi party leader tortured in custody

Samajwadi party leader Digvijay Bhati claims he was brutally assaulted by Meerut SSP Avinash Pandey over Bhati’s involvement in a protest over murder of a Dalit girl. Later, he was taken to… pic.twitter.com/75JspJ8P09

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

Spoke to Digvijay Bhati, who according to UP’s Meerut police, fell from a scooty while returning from police office. pic.twitter.com/tHyUhpEkmQ

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) August 21, 2026

From the SSP office to the SOG office

Bhati has alleged that the incident did not end inside the SSP’s office. According to his account, the two men were subsequently taken by SOG personnel to another location. There, he alleged, their hands and legs were tied and they were beaten repeatedly with sticks and belts. He has described being punched around the head and temple and suffering repeated assaults. He further alleged that the men were denied ordinary dignity during the episode, including being given water in the cap of a bottle.

Perhaps the most disturbing allegation concerns their alleged humiliation after the physical assault. Bhati has alleged that police personnel played the Hindi film song “Choli Ke Peeche Kya Hai” and forced the two men to dance despite their physical condition. India Today reported the allegation that the two were forced to dance to the song, while The Indian Express also reported Bhati’s account of being humiliated after allegedly being beaten at the SOG office.

Jatav, meanwhile, has alleged that he was threatened with an encounter. Bhati has also claimed that the police threatened them with further consequences if they spoke about what had allegedly happened.

The police initially offered a dramatically different version

Meerut police initially rejected the allegations as “false and baseless”. According to the police version reported by The Wire, Bhati and Jatav had visited the police office in connection with an earlier FIR. The police claimed that the two subsequently fell from their scooter while returning home, sustaining the injuries visible in photographs. The police further said that the two men themselves submitted a written application concerning the incident, which was entered in the general diary at Civil Lines police station.

The controversy intensified when Avinash Pandey was transferred from his position as Meerut SSP on August 20 and attached to the DGP headquarters in Lucknow. Pandey was among nine IPS officers transferred in the reshuffle. Unlike officers who were given new district postings, he was attached to the state headquarters. Times of India reported that the transfer came amid the allegations of illegal detention and custodial torture.

The following day, Additional Director General of Police, Meerut Zone, Bhanu Bhaskar announced an inquiry. Saharanpur Range DIG Abhishek Singh was tasked with investigating the allegations and submitting a report. The police leadership initially described the incident more cautiously, saying that a dispute had arisen at the SSP’s office on August 19, after which violence allegedly took place. The case was therefore no longer simply an allegation made by two activists. It had become an official police inquiry.

Eight policemen sent to the lines; inspector suspended

The administration subsequently took further action. After taking charge, new Meerut SSP BBGTS Murthy ordered eight police personnel to be sent to the police lines, including Civil Lines SHO Akhilesh Gaur, two sub-inspectors and five constables. On August 23, Gaur was suspended. Times of India reported that the suspension was ordered on grounds including alleged negligence, apathy and arbitrary conduct in the discharge of his duties.

By August 25, reports indicated that Gaur had been suspended while the other personnel remained subject to administrative action, with the inquiry continuing. The investigating team has also begun examining the physical locations and documentary evidence. Navbharat Times reported that DIG Abhishek Singh inspected the relevant locations and examined CCTV footage and duty records, while questioning personnel connected with the allegations.

This controversy did not begin on August 19

The allegations against the police must also be viewed against the backdrop of what happened in Meerut in July. The entire chain of events goes back to the killing of Lalita Gautam, a 20-year-old Dalit student whose body was recovered in May after she went missing. Her death generated anger among Dalit groups and local residents, who questioned the police investigation and demanded that additional people allegedly connected with the crime be arrested.

On July 8, protesters gathered in Meerut demanding justice. The protest subsequently escalated, with police using force to disperse the demonstrators. Times of India reported that nearly 100 members of the Dalit community had gathered and that the confrontation escalated after protesters blocked roads and demanded that senior officials personally hear their grievances. A video from the confrontation also showed then-SSP Avinash Pandey repeatedly slapping a protester inside a police vehicle.

VIDEO: Meerut SSP Enters Police Van, Slaps Protest Detainee

Meerut SSP Avinash Pandey was seen entering a police custody vehicle and slapping a detainee during action taken after the Dalit community protest.

According to police, the detainee has been identified as Ravi Gautam,… pic.twitter.com/FLHa02gYSk

— Atulkrishan (@iAtulKrishan1) July 8, 2026

The police subsequently registered cases against protesters. According to Times of India, 13 people were named and around 50 others were booked on serious charges, including attempt to murder and allegations concerning women police personnel. Seven people were arrested and sent to judicial custody.

Those proceedings subsequently changed. On July 21, Times of India reported that serious non-bailable charges against the protesters had been dropped, following developments surrounding the case and intervention by the courts.

The July crackdown had also attracted the attention of the National Human Rights Commission. The NHRC sought an action-taken report from the Uttar Pradesh DGP and Home Secretary after a complaint alleged that Meerut police had used excessive force against protesters and caused serious injuries, reported The Hindu. Times of India reported that the Commission sought a detailed report within 15 days.

The ‘history-sheeter’ argument cannot answer allegations of torture

One of the most revealing aspects of the police response has been its emphasis on Bhati and Jatav’s criminal cases. Police have said that Bhati has several cases registered against him and that Jatav also has multiple cases. Bhati has disputed the circumstances and nature of several of these cases, saying many relate to protests and allegations arising from political activity. But even assuming every case cited by the police is genuine and pending, that does not resolve the central allegation. A criminal record, or a history sheet, does not authorise custodial violence.

Related:

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

The State Wants the Delete Button: India’s new architecture of digital censorship

When Suspicion Becomes Deportation: The case of Sahida Fakir and the dangerous criminalisation of Bengali identity

Supreme Court: UP Gangsters Act ‘stillborn’ for prescribing punishment without creating an offence

‘Wherever You Go, We are watching’: Second threat letter to Kashmiri Pandits

The post Inside the SSP’s Office: Allegations of beatings, torture & police impunity against farmer leaders in Meerut, UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.