Further, the communication points out that in the past, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted clearance in 2004 for the diversion of forestland in the Niyamgiri Hills to enable a corporate entity to mine bauxite for an alumina refinery located nearby, also on forestland. This decision was subsequently set right by the Supreme Court of India. It was only when the Supreme Court intervened and insisted in 2013 that the concerned Gram Sabhas needed to give their consent under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), that the matter was placed before the Gram Sabhas. At the time, all the 12 concerned Gram Sabhas categorically denied permission for the mining project, affirming their cultural and spiritual rights to the area.

Now, 13 years later, regrettably, less than 50 km away from Niyamgiri, in Sijimali in Rayagada district of Odisha, also in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, efforts have been made to again illegally acquire the forest lands by fraudulent means. In December 2025, MoEFCC accorded stage I forest diversion clearance, based on the 2023 gramsabha resolutions, which are claimed to be fraudulent, with a stipulation that the diversion was subject to FRA clearance, the letter states. The Stage 1 forest diversion clearance given was itself flawed as the prior mandatory site visit was not undertaken and due process was not followed. In December 2023, it was claimed that the concerned Gram Sabhas had passed ‘unanimous’ resolutions in favour of the mining activities to be taken up by Vedanta, the same group which had attempted to take up mining in the Niyamgiri hills.  Villagers of Sijimali have alleged that the resolutions were fraudulent, that a number of non-residents took part in the Gram Sabha meetings, that minors and deceased persons were shown to be present, that consent was obtained through fraud and manipulation. Media reports[1] also mention that the Gram Sabha meetings never took place and that the police brought in people from elsewhere and recorded photographs and videos. In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats filed a writ petition in the Odisha High Court to quash the 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions. The Court disposed of the matter in March 2025 directing the Centre to take note of the concerns.  Despite this order, and regardless of local protests, construction of a three km. long approach road was started, with the presence of armed police. This is the background of the clashes.

The CCG states that the collective is “distressed by the fact that despite knowing that the Forest Rights Act was applicable to the land on which the mining would be taken up, the State Government chose not to follow the precedent of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court and ensure fair proceedings by seeking presence of a judicial officer at the meetings of the Gram Sabha.”

“Apart from the above, the principles of the 1997 Samatha judgement of the Supreme Court have also been violated.  In the matter of ‘transfer’ of tribal land to a ‘non-tribal person’, the court had held that without due consultation and benefit sharing, government land or forest land or tribal land cannot be transferred to private entities. It is amazing that the government, despite having the duty of protecting common property resources, seems to be bent upon handing these resources over to subserve private interests.  Such actions are also a clear violation of Article 39 of the Constitution which mandates the State to secure social and economic justice.

“The manner in which the Sijimali protests have been dealt with indicates complete violation of the spirit of the Niyamgiri judgement of the Supreme Court. It shows scant regard for the Forest Rights Act.  It creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the resolutions of Gram Sabha, indicating that free, prior and informed consent of the Gram Sabha had not been obtained. It shows the State’s inability or refusal to learn from past incidents of tribal unrest which have, in several cases, led to the loss of tribal lives.”

The CCG has also pointed out that these days when we have a Mission Karmayogi to systematise capacity building at all levels, it should have been a fairly easy step to incorporate such a landmark Supreme Court Judgements in the training curriculum of the concerned officials, so that future investment proposals are handled with due diligence, without requiring people to go all the way to approach the Supreme Court again. Similarly, it should have been a routine item of administration in these days of Information Technology, that the individual and community rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are duly incorporated into revenue records and maps. All this brings us to the disturbing question of whether the new chapter referred to by Jaipal Singh Munda, of just and fair governance, is still a distant dream.”

On January 24, 1947, Jaipal Singh Munda, member of the Constituent Assembly, had stated, “The whole history of my (tribal) people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India… I take you all at your word that now we are going to start… a new chapter of independent India where there is equality of opportunity, where no one would be neglected.”

Invoking this now 79 years later, the letter urges India’s woman Adivasi President that “they are hopeful that you will be concerned about the injustice that is being done, and that you will get the government to comprehensively re-examine the authenticity of the December 2023 Gram Sabha resolutions.  Pending a detailed enquiry, the stage I forest diversion clearance should be suspended and the physical work of road construction to Sijimali mining area should be stopped. The cases of the tribal persons who have been booked under various criminal law sections need to be reviewed by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. All steps must be taken to see that the gains of the Forest Rights Act, both in terms of individual and community rights, are consolidated to secure better livelihoods for all tribals and other traditional forest dwellers.”

The signatories are:

[1]   Report in the Hindu. 3.1.2026 https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/sijimali-bauxite-mining-gram-sabha-fraud/article70463304.ece

The post Police action in Odisha’s Rayagada district condemned, Adivasi rights paramount: CCG appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Related:

Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court

Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death:Part-3 Witnesses to be Celebrated & Honoured appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made these observations while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Mohd. Faizan and others, who sought the quashing of an FIR lodged in Bahraich district.

The FIR in question accused the petitioners of enticing away the complainant’s 18-year-old daughter, alleging an intent to forcibly convert her religion and compel her into marriage. However, the case took a decisive turn when the Court was presented with the woman’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her testimony, she unequivocally stated that she had been in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for three years. She firmly denied any allegations of religious conversion, coercion, or sexual misconduct.

Significantly, the woman expressed a clear desire to live with the petitioner and voiced apprehension for her own safety and that of her family. She specifically urged that members of certain Hindu organisations should not harass or intimidate them following her statement.

The Court took serious note of the fact that despite this categorical rebuttal of the FIR’s claims, the Investigating Officer chose only to drop the rape charge (under the BNS), while continuing to pursue charges of kidnapping, assault, and violations under the 2021 anti-conversion law. Calling this a “peculiar turn,” LiveLaw reported, the bench observed that once the victim’s own account dismantled the foundation of the FIR, continuing the investigation appeared wholly unjustified.

In a pointed remark, the Court stated that, prima facie, the Investigating Officer seemed to be acting under external pressure or influence, though it refrained from elaborating further at this stage.

The bench also highlighted a broader pattern: an increasing number of such FIRs are being initiated not by the alleged victims, but by third parties. It noted that a similar concern had recently been flagged by the Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P., reinforcing the systemic nature of the issue.

Taking a stern stance, the High Court directed the complainant—who is the woman’s father—to appear in person at the next hearing and explain why action should not be initiated against him for filing what the Court described as a “patently false, fake, and frivolous” FIR.

In a further move signalling institutional accountability, the Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps being taken to address the filing of such baseless cases. The affidavit must be submitted by May 19, failing which the official has been directed to appear before the Court in person with all relevant records.

Pending further proceedings, the Court has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. It has also directed the State authorities to ensure adequate security for the petitioners, the woman at the centre of the case, and her family members within three days—acknowledging the credible threats and fears expressed before it.

Related:

Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law

35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms

Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025

Street Pressure, State Power, and the Criminalisation of Choice: How Hindutva groups are pushing Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law

Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs

The post Allahabad High Court flags surge in “false” conversion firs, seeks accountability from UP government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: People’s Watch

The post Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by a journalist, Geeta Seshu along with the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), inter alia seeking direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notice and posted the case for hearing with the earlier petitions, on March 23. Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

Interesting discussions took place at the time of the hearing as reported. While deliberations were on, the Bench remarked, “One is the state collecting data, and there is another matter before us. We hope that it will proceed and eventually we will decide on merits. Where our entire data of the citizens—not only of one nation, maybe a substantial part of the globe—is concerned. It is a global issue. A global issue going into the very big private entities. And that’s where the question of data sovereignty arises…Data is becoming the real, true wealth as of today.”

Indira Jaisingh then responded, “There are provisions in this Act, My Lord, which enable them to access data from other countries also. Therefore, data sovereignty issues also arise. My Lord, we are just hoping that this court will give us some guidance on all these issues.”

The Court said, “This is a very interesting point. And in any case, not only interesting, it’s an imminently required issue and one which deserves to be prioritised and determined.”

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, informed the Supreme Court that the new Data Protection Act is being challenged through multiple petitions, each focusing on different facets of the statute. A primary concern raised was the removal of the “public interest” exception, which previously existed under the RTI Act. Jaising argued that this deletion severely hampers investigative journalism, as reporters may no longer be able to access data concerning public servants or matters of public importance, even when such information is vital for transparency.

Jaisingh submitted, “Your Lordships have issued notice in three previous petitions challenging analogous provisions of this Act. However, the emphasis of each of the petitions is slightly different from the other. So I thought… the statute itself is new, because it talks of data protection for the first time in the country…I may briefly just tell you: one is the journalistic exception. Public interest has been deleted from the RTI Act and also from the Data Protection Act. So, therefore, a journalist cannot access data which is in the public interest. My Lord, we concede that we can’t have personal data. A journalist need not have personal data, but if it’s in the public interest—for example, if you’re writing about a public servant, etc.”

Chief Justice Kant said, “Ultimately, the interesting question that will have to be determined is: what is public data and what is personal data?”

Senior Advocate Jaisingh replied, “Yes, My Lord, that’s a critical question. The Act does not clarify that. Therefore, My Lord, it will require judicial interpretation. And there is no definition of what is information and what is personal.”

“One interesting point can be whether data with respect to a person, so long as he holds a public office, can be termed as personal data or can it be termed as private data…Madam, at the time of hearing, you will have to suggest different hypothetical situations. And then, probably, we will be able to have a better analysis,” Justice Kant remarked.

She submitted, “not only hypothetical, but we can take cases that have actually gone to court under the RTI Act, where either the information has been allowed or disallowed, because these will be analogous provisions. My Lord, in the RTI Act, there was an exception saying you can ask for information which is in the public interest. That has been deleted from the Data Protection Act. Actually, that’s what’s causing the trouble. Otherwise, there would be no other problem. Then, My Lord, the second is that the state has a right to call for any information. Of course, there are certain categories and sovereignty of the country, but they are overbroad. For example, they can call for information which is related to public order. Now, public order, as we all know, is a very broad category.”

The Court observed that the core of the matter lies in distinguishing between public and personal data. He questioned whether information regarding an individual holding public office could truly be classified as “private.” The Bench also stressed the need for a balanced approach, requesting that the petitioners suggest specific measures to protect individual privacy without compromising the right to information. Justice Kant noted that neither right should act as an impediment to the effective exercise of the other.

Justice Kant said, “But also, Madam, we will request you to also suggest the measures to protect the individuals also. In a given case, if there are sweeping provisions permitting to have the complete information and where the right to privacy and this conflict comes, then how to protect some individuals also?…So, what can be the measures which can be taken without affecting the right to have this information?”

Singh responded, “Now, especially now, My Lord, we have a right to privacy in this country. So that right also has to be protected. That balancing measure—yes, that is what you [mean]—between the right to privacy and the right to public information.”

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed, “None of the rights should compromise with the other, and none of the rights should become an impediment in the effectivity of the right.”

The discussion also touched upon the doctrine of proportionality and the “overbroad” nature of the Act’s provisions. Jaising highlighted concerns regarding state surveillance, noting that the government has exempted itself from several provisions of the Act. Additionally, she pointed out the removal of the right to compensation for individuals whose data is illegally accessed—a right that existed under the previous IT Act—noting that any penalties would now be directed to the Data Protection Board rather than the victim.

Senior Advocate Jaisingh further submitted, “The doctrine of proportionality, over breadth—all those issues will arise for consideration by the court. And My Lord, last but not the least, the state exempts itself from the provisions of this Act. So, therefore, we’ll have to see that they can collect any data about us. There is a certain fear of surveillance also, which emerges from the reading of the provisions of this Act. So we are hoping that this honourable court will give some direction, some enlightenment on these issues. These will be the four issues, My Lord: whether there is a danger of surveillance, whether the state can exempt itself, and whether journalists can write about it.”

She further said, “You will have to look at actually all the provisions of the Act. My Lord, one more issue: earlier under the IT Act, we had a right to get compensation if our data was illegally accessed. Now they’ve deleted that right to compensation if data is illegally accessed. And they’ve said the compensation, if any, will go to the state. It will go to the Board. It will go to the Data Protection [Board].”

The Court acknowledged the global significance of the issue, describing data as the “true wealth” of the modern era. Justice Kant noted that the case involves broader questions of data sovereignty, especially concerning large private entities and the cross-border access of citizen data. Recognizing the urgency and the “imminently required” nature of the judicial interpretation of these laws, the Court issued notice, returnable on March 23rd, to be heard alongside related petitions.

The Petitioners who have filed this petition, have, according to Verdictum, which prayed for the following reliefs, “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India…b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Rules 5, 6, 17, 18, 21 and 23, and the Second Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule and Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.”

Further, it was also prayed, “c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 17(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it empowers the Central Government to exempt any of its instrumentalities from the application of the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025…d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside the Second Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.”

The Plea also sought a direction for quashing and setting aside Section 44 (2) (a) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it extinguishes the right of affected persons to seek compensation or civil remedy for unlawful processing of personal data and/or data breach and for setting aside Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 insofar as it dilutes the right to information of the citizens of India.

“Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 19(3) and Section 24 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rules 17, 18 and 21 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, insofar as they relate to the constitution, appointment, service conditions and functioning of the Data Protection Board of India…Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to frame a constitutionally 103 compliant mechanism for appointment, tenure and service conditions of the Data Protection Board of India, ensuring its independence from executive control”, it further prayed.

The petition has also sought the setting aside Section 36 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rule 23 and the Serial No. 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 and sought directions to Union of India to incorporate and notify a specific and proportionate exemption under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 for processing of personal data for journalistic, editorial, investigative and public interest reporting purposes, including protection of journalistic sources. Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it fails to provide an exemption for processing of personal data for journalistic purposes.

The Court had previously issued notice in the plea seeking the validity of the DPDP Act, 2023, as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi approached the Supreme Court of India to challenge key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. Right to information activist Venkatesh Nayak has also challenged some provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023.

Related:

Serious flaws in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

In Garb of Data Protection Bill, Centre Attacking RTI, Allege Information Commissioners

A surveillance regime that violates both Privacy & Right to Life: Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2002

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill seeks to amend RTI Act to bar disclosure of personal information

The post Data is real, true wealth: SC issues notice in yet another plea challenging DPDP Act; highlights privacy concerns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan directed that two armed guards be deployed 24 hours a day to protect Haseen Khan, the owner of the house where prayers were being offered. The Court further issued a strong warning that any incident of violence affecting Khan or his property would be presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State unless proven otherwise.

The order came while hearing a petition filed by Bareilly resident Tarik Khan, who approached the High Court alleging police interference with prayers held at a private residence in Mohammadganj village. The matter is now listed for final orders on March 23, and the Court has directed the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly to appear in person.

Allegations of police interference in private prayer

According to the petition, as per Livelaw, a group of Muslim residents had been offering namaz on the rooftop of a private house with the permission of the property owner, Haseen Khan. The petitioner claimed that on January 16, police personnel allegedly intervened and stopped the prayers, despite the fact that they were being conducted within private premises.

Khan further alleged before the Court that he was picked up from his home by police officials while offering namaz, challenged, and compelled to place his thumb impression on blank documents without being informed of their contents. He also told the Court that certain individuals had threatened demolition of his property if he did not testify in a particular manner.

These allegations prompted the filing of a contempt petition against the state authorities, arguing that the actions of the administration were in violation of an earlier High Court ruling that had affirmed the right to conduct prayer meetings on private property without state permission.

Court’s key observations

During the hearing, the Bench posed a direct query to the State regarding whether permission had been sought for offering namaz inside a private residence, according to LiveLaw.

The Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the State, relied on the police challan and acknowledged that permission had indeed been sought from the persons present in the house, including the owner.

Taking note of the circumstances and the statement recorded from Haseen Khan in open court, the Bench issued strong protective directions.

The Court ordered:

“This Court directs that two armed guards 24/7 shall protect Haseen Khan till this Court decides otherwise. The said guards shall accompany him wherever he goes. Any incident of violence that afflicts Hassen Khan’s person or his property shall be prima facie understood to have at the instance of the State, which of course is open to rebuttal.”

It further observed that any act of violence directed against Khan or his property would be prima facie presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State, though the State would have the opportunity to rebut that presumption.

Personal appearance ordered for Bareilly officials

The Court has summoned Bareilly’s District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to appear before it on the next date of hearing.

In its order, the Bench warned that failure to appear could lead to coercive measures, including securing their presence through a non-bailable warrant.

The complete order may be read here.

Background: Earlier High Court ruling on private prayer

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of an earlier ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a separate case involving Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust.

In that January judgment, the Court held that no permission from the State is required to conduct religious prayers within private premises, since such activity falls within the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

However, the Court clarified that if religious activities spill onto public roads or public property, authorities may require intimation or permission under applicable law in order to maintain public order.

Ground reality in the village

Despite the High Court’s intervention, reports suggest that the situation on the ground remains tense.

According to reporting by The Times of India, residents of Mohammadganj village say that prayers inside private houses have not resumed, even after the contempt notice issued by the Court. Several villagers reportedly walk nearly two kilometres to offer namaz elsewhere, particularly during the month of Ramadan.

Local residents told the newspaper that although police harassment had reduced after the Court’s order, the presence of police personnel in the area continues and prayers within homes remain suspended due to fear of renewed tensions.

Some residents also alleged that individuals who were earlier detained for offering prayers had been required to report to the police station daily for several days, and that their names now remain in police records.

Origins of the dispute

The dispute reportedly began in December 2025, when construction materials were brought to a piece of land owned by Tarik Khan. Villagers suspected that the structure being built was intended to function as a mosque, triggering protests and police intervention.

Tarik Khan later filed an affidavit stating that the construction would not be used for religious purposes, but tensions persisted.

Subsequently, a group of Muslims began offering prayers inside a private house belonging to Haseen Khan, leading to the police action that has now become the subject of litigation.

Constitutional implications

The case raises broader questions about the scope of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly the distinction between private religious activity and public religious assembly.

By ordering armed protection for the house owner and warning that any violence may be presumed to be state-instigated, the High Court’s interim directions underscore the seriousness with which it is treating allegations of state interference in constitutionally protected religious practice.

The matter will be taken up again on March 23, when the Court is expected to hear the personal submissions of the Bareilly district administration and consider final orders in the case.

Related:

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

The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states

Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

The post Allahabad High Court orders 24/7 armed protection for Bareilly Muslim man allegedly prevented from offering namaz at home appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Hindustan Times, Manesar walked out of Sewar (Sevar) Central Jail in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, on the evening of March 8, 2026, after the Rajasthan High Court granted him regular bail earlier that week. He had spent approximately two-and-a-half years in judicial custody after being arrested in September 2023 in connection with the deaths of the two cousins whose charred bodies were discovered in Haryana’s Bhiwani district in February 2023.

His release was marked by a conspicuous public welcome. As provided by Indian Express, wearing a bulletproof vest and escorted by police, Manesar travelled by road from Bharatpur to his native village in Gurugram district, Haryana, where supporters greeted him with garlands, drum beats, and celebratory slogans. A large gathering of supporters—including individuals identified as cow vigilantes—had also assembled outside the jail during his release, prompting authorities to deploy additional police personnel to maintain law and order.

Background: The February 2023 killings

The case traces back to the night of February 14–15, 2023, when cousins Junaid (35) and Nasir (27), residents of the Pahadi area in Rajasthan’s Bharatpur region, went missing.

A day later, their charred bodies were discovered inside a burnt vehicle in Loharu in Bhiwani. The killings were widely suspected to be linked to vigilante groups who patrol highways in the region under the pretext of preventing illegal cattle transport.

According to police investigations, the victims were intercepted by cow vigilantes who suspected them of transporting cattle. However, investigators said that when the vigilantes allegedly found no cattle in the vehicle, the two men were assaulted and later killed.

Senior police officials later stated that interrogation of some accused indicated that Junaid died first after being assaulted in Ferozepur Jhirka. Nasir was allegedly strangled in Bhiwani before the attackers attempted to destroy evidence by dousing the vehicle and the bodies with petrol and setting them on fire, according to statements made by Bharatpur Range Inspector General Gaurav Srivastava during the investigation.

Forensic analysis later confirmed that the charred remains and blood stains recovered from the burnt SUV—later traced to a cowshed in Jind district—belonged to Junaid and Nasir.

Reports may be read here, here and here.

The criminal case and investigation

The criminal case was registered at the Gopalgarh Police Station based on a complaint filed by Khalid, a relative of the victims. The FIR named Manesar and several others as accused in the abduction and murder of the two men.

The case included charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to abduction, abduction with intent to cause grievous hurt, wrongful confinement, and related offences.

During the investigation, police announced a reward of ₹5,000 each for eight suspects and circulated their photographs publicly. Two suspects were subsequently arrested in May 2023 from Dehradun, as per Hindustan Times.

The case also became politically contentious in 2023. At the time, Manesar had gone absconding, triggering a public dispute between the then Congress-led Rajasthan government under Ashok Gehlot and the Haryana government led by Manohar Lal Khattar. Gehlot accused the Haryana Police of failing to cooperate in apprehending the accused, while Haryana authorities in turn registered a case against the Rajasthan Police over jurisdictional issues, as reported by The Indian Express.

Manesar was eventually detained by the Haryana Police in September 2023 in connection with communal violence in Nuh. He was subsequently handed over to Rajasthan Police, who arrested him in the Junaid–Nasir case.

The bail order

A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman of the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to Manesar on March 5, 2026.

The court noted several factors while allowing the second bail application. Most prominently, it observed that despite more than two years having passed since the accused’s arrest, not a single witness out of the 74 prosecution witnesses had been examined during the trial, according to The Indian Express.

The judge also took note of the fact that a co-accused, Anil Kumar, had already been granted bail earlier by the Supreme Court of India on January 28, 2026.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court concluded that the prolonged incarceration and slow progress of the trial justified granting bail.

Manesar was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each. The court imposed conditions requiring him to appear before the trial court whenever summoned and to mark his presence at the concerned police station once every three months until the trial concludes.

The order also warned that, given his criminal antecedents, he must not become involved in any other offence while on bail.

Defence and prosecution arguments

Manesar’s legal team, led by advocate Ashvin Garg and others, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case. They contended that he stood on “better footing” than co-accused Anil Kumar, whom they described as the principal accused, while Manesar was alleged only to be part of a conspiracy, reported The Indian Express.

The defence also pointed out that he had been in custody since October 7, 2023, and had already spent more than two years and four months in jail without trial progress. They further submitted that although three criminal cases had previously been registered against him, he had been acquitted in two and granted bail in the third.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vijay Singh and Senior Advocate Syed Shahid Hasan—appearing for the complainant—argued that the gravity of the alleged offences and the evidence collected during the investigation warranted continued detention.

Fear and despair among the victims’ families

The bail decision has deeply distressed the families of the two men killed in the incident.

Jameel Ahmed, a relative of Nasir, said the development had intensified their grief and created anxiety about the safety of witnesses.

“The families are disappointed and panicked with Monu Manesar’s bail. Our sorrow has increased. There is apprehension that they can do something untoward in the future and pressurise our witnesses. There is immense despair,” Ahmed told reporters of The Indian Express.

Family members of the victims have long maintained that Junaid and Nasir were kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered by members associated with the right-wing group Bajrang Dal—an allegation the organisation has denied.

A case that continues to test the justice system

Despite the bail order, the legal proceedings in the Junaid–Nasir case remain ongoing. However, the fact that none of the 74 prosecution witnesses have been examined even after more than two years has drawn attention to the chronic delays that often plague criminal trials in India—particularly in cases involving communal violence and vigilante attacks.

Related:

Monu Manesar, 20 others named in Bhiwani Double Murder: Rajasthan

The poster boy of cow vigilantism, Monu Manesar, is back

Monu Manesar not an accused in Junaid Nasir murder

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

2024: Cow vigilantism escalates in July and August with rumour-driven raids and violent assaults on Muslim while legal consequences for perpetrators missing?

Anatomy of Violence in the Hitherto peaceful Nuh

Indian minorities must be protected, GOI needs to take steps: IAMC report

The post Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Official figures spark political firestorm

During Question Hour, former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Bhupesh Baghel sought detailed information on custodial deaths over the preceding 13 months. He asked whether judicial inquiries — mandatory in custodial deaths and guided by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) protocols — had been completed in all cases, as reported by The Hindu.

Responding on behalf of the government, Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma, who also holds the Home portfolio, confirmed that 66 inmates, including convicted prisoners, had died in custody during the specified period. He stated that:

• 18 cases have completed magisterial inquiries, and
• 48 cases remain under investigation.

Sharma assured the House that investigations were being conducted as per procedure and that action would follow if negligence was established.

However, the confirmation of the figures did little to calm tensions.

Opposition alleges overcrowding and healthcare breakdown

Baghel launched a sharp critique of the state’s prison administration, arguing that the figures pointed to a systemic crisis rather than isolated incidents.

According to him, prisons in Chhattisgarh are functioning at approximately 150% of their sanctioned capacity, severely undermining access to medical care and essential services. He questioned how such a high mortality figure could be divorced from structural conditions inside jails.

“How has law and order deteriorated to this extent?” Baghel asked in the House. “How many deaths have occurred in the last year, and what are the reasons?”

He further alleged that serious crimes — including murder, robbery, and extortion — had risen by nearly 35%, contending that rising crime rates coupled with prison overcrowding signal a deeper governance breakdown.

Opposition members argued that overcrowding, stretched medical infrastructure, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms could be contributing to preventable custodial deaths. They demanded immediate structural reforms, urgent strengthening of prison healthcare systems, and independent oversight.

The death of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur

The debate intensified when Baghel raised the case of tribal leader Jeevan Thakur, who died on December 4, 2025, while in judicial custody — a case that has drawn protests across Bastar, as reported by The Hindu.

According to Deputy CM Sharma’s statement in the House:

• Thakur was initially lodged in a jail in Kanker district.
• He was later shifted to a prison in Raipur following a court order.
• After his health deteriorated, he was admitted first to the Raipur district hospital and subsequently to the state-run Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, where he died during treatment.

Sharma said the jail superintendent informed the District Judge as per procedure, following which a committee was constituted to conduct an inquiry.

However, Baghel alleged that Thakur — described as a tribal community leader — had been falsely implicated in a case. He further claimed that Thakur was diabetic and did not receive timely medication or proper medical care in custody. According to the Opposition, there were complaints that medical advice was ignored by prison authorities.

Baghel emphasised that tribal communities in Bastar had staged protests demanding accountability and insisted that a magisterial inquiry was insufficient. He demanded that the matter be investigated by a House committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Sharma declined to comment directly on the demand for a legislative panel but maintained that the ongoing judicial inquiry should be allowed to conclude before further action is considered.

Bedlam, slogans, and walkout

As the exchange grew sharper, Congress MLAs stood up, raised slogans against the government, and disrupted proceedings. The Speaker attempted to restore order, but the protest escalated into a walkout by Opposition members.

The confrontation underscored a broader and recurring national concern: the condition of prisons, compliance with NHRC guidelines in custodial deaths, and the adequacy of medical care for inmates — especially undertrial prisoners and members of vulnerable communities.

Larger questions raised

The controversy raises multiple structural questions:

• Are judicial and magisterial inquiries sufficient safeguards in custodial death cases? Do these institutional checks and balances against state abuse which are available statutorily actually happen?

Judicial and magisterial inquiries into custodial deaths are not optional safeguards — they are statutorily mandated. Under Section 176(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate must conduct an inquiry in cases of death, disappearance, or rape in custody, in addition to the regular police investigation. The provision was introduced to address the inherent conflict of interest in police investigating themselves. Its equivalent now exists under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, thereby continuing the mandatory judicial oversight framework. On paper, this creates a layered accountability mechanism: FIR registration, police investigation, post-mortem examination, and independent magisterial inquiry — a structure intended to function as a check against state abuse.

However, the real question is not whether safeguards exist, but whether they operate meaningfully. Magisterial inquiries are often delayed, limited in scope, and heavily reliant on official records; their reports are rarely made public, and prosecutions do not automatically follow. Without transparency, time-bound completion, and clear consequences for negligence or abuse, these inquiries risk becoming procedural formalities rather than substantive accountability tools. The statutory framework under Section 176 CrPC and Section 196 BNSS is therefore institutionally sound in theory, but its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation, independence, and follow-through — without which the promise of checks and balances remains fragile.

• Is overcrowding directly contributing to preventable fatalities?
• Does the state’s prison healthcare infrastructure meet constitutional standards under Article 21 jurisprudence?
• Should legislative oversight mechanisms supplement judicial inquiries in sensitive cases?

While the government has assured procedural compliance and ongoing reforms, the Opposition has framed the 66 deaths not as statistical coincidence but as evidence of systemic strain.

As reported by The Hindu, the matter remains politically charged, with demands for accountability continuing both inside and outside the Assembly.

The numbers — 66 deaths in 13 months — now stand not merely as a legislative disclosure, but as the focal point of a deeper debate about custodial responsibility, institutional capacity, and the state’s duty of care toward those in its custody.

Related:

Counting the Caged: What India’s prison data refuses to see

A System Under Strain: India’s police and prisons in crisis shows Indian Justice Report 2025

Under trial Prisoners: MHA directs States/UTs to implement section 479 of BNSS

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

The post 66 Deaths in 13 Months: Uproar in Chhattisgarh Assembly by opposition over prison conditions and custodial accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per a report in LiveLaw, the Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition on February 23, 2026, held that her continued stay in a detention centre — as opposed to a regular jail — was justified in view of the pending trial and the “present international scenario.” However, the Court directed the State prosecution to conclude the long-pending trial within six months.

The Petition: Bail granted, yet detained

The petitioner, identified in the order as Lima @ Riya Sheikh, a Bangladeshi national, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking multiple reliefs, including:

• Immediate release from what she termed “illegal and unconstitutional detention.”
• Expedited conclusion of the trial.
• Declaration that her continued detention despite bail violated Articles 14 and 21.
• Directions for coordination with the concerned Embassy and authorities for repatriation.
• Compensation and inquiry into alleged unlawful detention.

The case against her arises out of Crime No. 70 of 2020 registered in Indore. She faces charges under the Indian Penal Code — including Sections 346, 347, 323, 364-A, 506 and 34 — as well as under Sections 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act and provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The allegations include kidnapping for ransom, wrongful confinement, assault, criminal intimidation, and illegal stay in India with forged or invalid travel documents.

Crucially, she had already been granted bail in the criminal case. Yet, she continued to remain confined in a detention centre established within the District Jail premises in Indore.

State’s Stand: Detention under foreigners’ law

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that although bail had been granted, the petitioner could not be released into the general public domain because she is a foreign national whose trial remains pending.

The State relied on provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Order, 1948. It submitted that the competent authority — the District Magistrate, Indore — had passed an order permitting her temporary stay in the detention centre until the conclusion of the trial. A letter from the Assistant Police Commissioner, Heera Nagar Zone, Indore, was also produced before the Court.

The Court’s Reasoning: Presence required, safety considered

The Bench refused to grant relief directing her release. It observed:

“It is not in dispute that the trial is still pending and the presence of the petitioner may be required at any time during the trial and considering the present international scenario, it is for her safety to keep her in detention centre.” (Para 4)

The Court emphasised that she was in a detention centre and not in jail, implicitly drawing a distinction between penal incarceration and administrative detention under foreigner-regulation laws.

At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that the trial has remained pending for over six years. Taking note of the delay, the Court directed the State counsel to ensure that the prosecution expedites the trial within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, including by producing witnesses without further delay.

“However, so far for relief No.7(b) is concerned, considering the fact that the trial is pending for more than six years, we observe that the counsel for the State will direct the prosecution agency to expedite the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by producing the witnesses etc. However, if there is no progress in the trial within the aforesaid period, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in this regard for expediting the trial.” (Para 4)

If no substantial progress occurs within this period, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again.

A six-year trial and constitutional questions

The order brings into focus a recurring constitutional tension: whether a person — particularly a foreign national — can remain in custody through executive detention mechanisms despite being granted bail by a competent court.

The petitioner had argued that prolonged detention after bail amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While the Court did not expressly engage in an extended constitutional analysis, it effectively upheld the legality of detention under the Foreigners Act framework, prioritising trial presence and “safety” considerations linked to the international context.

The phrase “present international scenario,” though not elaborated upon in the order, appears to have played a persuasive role in the Court’s assessment of risk and prudence.

The final direction

Disposing of the habeas corpus petition, the High Court:

• Refused immediate release from the detention centre.
• Directed the prosecution to conclude the trial within six months.
• Granted liberty to the petitioner to re-approach the Court if the trial does not progress.
• Ordered that a copy of the decision be placed before the concerned trial court.

The matter thus stands at a constitutional crossroads: a foreign national on bail, confined not as a convict but under administrative authority, awaiting a trial that has already spanned six years — with judicial patience now formally limited to six more months.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

From Permanent Refuge to Perpetual Limbo: Why Sri Lankan Tamil refugees remain without citizenship even as electoral assurances reshape belonging in Bengal

From D-Voter Tagging to Citizenship Declaration: Anowara Khatun’s case before the foreigners’ tribunal

12 Bengali migrant workers murdered in 6 states, Maharashtra tops the crime list

The post Bail Granted, Freedom Denied: Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds detention of Bangladeshi woman citing “international scenario” appeared first on SabrangIndia.