This order came after a month-long crackdown by the state, during which over 136 madrasas were sealed for operating without proper affiliation and for failing to meet the standards set by the madrasa board. Furthermore, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami initiated an inquiry into the funding sources of these institutions.

The madrassa owners contested the state’s actions, asserting that their institution was a religious school run by a registered society. They argued that the sealing of their premises lacked legal authority and proper sanction. The court, in turn, questioned the state’s adherence to the required legal procedures when sealing the petitioner’s property.

Advocate General S.N. Babulkar, representing the state, defended the sealing, claiming the madrasa was operating in violation of regulations. However, the petitioners contended that even if the society had overstepped its objectives, the sealing of the property was unjustified without following due process, as reported by The Hindu

In its order dated April 1, the High Court pointed out that the property had been sealed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard. As an interim measure, the court ruled that the madrasa be unsealed until the next hearing, provided the petitioners agreed not to operate the madrasa or school without the necessary recognition from the State government, in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.

136 illegal Madrasas sealed in Uttarakhand in the last month

The Uttarakhand government has escalated its crackdown on unregistered madrasas, sealing a total of 136 such institutions across the state, with a particular focus on newly established seminaries near the Uttar Pradesh border. In a notable move on Monday, the district administration of Dehradun sealed a madrasa in Sahaspur after discovering it had illegally constructed an additional floor without prior approval.

Recent intelligence reports have flagged a surge in unregistered madrasas in towns along the Uttar Pradesh border, sparking the state’s intensified actions. Of the madrasas sealed, 64 were in Udham Singh Nagar, 44 in Dehradun, 26 in Haridwar, and 2 in Pauri Garhwal. Government records indicate that while Uttarakhand has approximately 500 illegal madrasas, there are only about 450 registered ones.

According to Times of India, many of these unregistered institutions are operating in towns such as Jaspur, Bajpur, Kichha, Kashipur, Rudrapur, Gadarpur, and areas within Haridwar district. As a result, these locations have been prioritised for action. Additionally, district administrations have been tasked with gathering information about the funding and donations received by both registered and unregistered madrasas. Registered institutions are now required to submit detailed documents, including bank account statements and financial records.

As per report, several of these madrasas are failing to meet the standards set by the Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Uttarakhand Madrasa Board. In response, the Dhami government has ramped up efforts, instructing district administrations to verify the legitimacy of madrasa operators, track student enrollment, and scrutinise funding sources.

This crackdown comes on the heels of statements from Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, who has vowed to continue taking strict action against illegal madrasas. Dhami stressed that those involved in unlawful activities will not be spared, signaling the government’s unwavering stance on the issue.

Uttarakhand CM Dhami orders probe into alleged funding

Notably, the state government estimates suggest that Uttarakhand is home to roughly 450 registered madrasas, alongside around 500 unregistered ones. In response to the recent sealing of 136 madrasas, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami has ordered a thorough investigation into the funding of these institutions. The crackdown, which began in March, specifically targets madrasas that are neither registered with the education department nor the Madrasa Board.

Reports of the Indian Express indicate that many of these unregistered madrasas operate under the Societies Registration Act. Khurshid Ahmed, the state secretary for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, has called the operation unlawful, arguing that the madrasa administrators were not given proper notices before their institutions were sealed. He also highlighted the timing of the drive, which coincided with Ramadan and the end of exams, leaving children displaced and questioning whether they would be able to adjust to the curricula of other schools once transferred, as reported

Mufti Shamoom Qasmi, the Chairperson of the Madrasa Board, reassured the public that students from the sealed madrasas would be moved to nearby schools and madrasas. He emphasised the importance of upholding the right to education, insisting that the administration must ensure no child’s education is disrupted. On the issue of curriculum alignment, Qasmi noted that the education department would work to address this, similar to how Uttar Pradesh has granted equivalence to the Munshi and Maulvi courses for classes 10 and 12, as reported the Indian Express

While a state-wide inspection of madrasas has been completed, the findings have not yet been made available to the public.

Recognised madrasas in Uttarakhand are governed by state boards for madrasa education, while unregistered madrasas typically follow curricula established by larger institutions like Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband.

Supreme Court agrees to examine petition from Jamiat against sealing of Madrasas

Meanwhile, on April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to review a plea filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind concerning the sealing of madrasas in Uttarakhand. The case was heard by a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi representing the Muslim body, as reported ETV Bharat

The bench acknowledged that there was no issue with the government seeking information on the quality of education, adherence to the Right to Education Act, or the funding of madrasas. However, it suggested that the petitioner could address its concerns with the jurisdictional High Court. Sibal, however, disagreed, referencing an order from October 21, 2024, by a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, which had stayed actions against government-funded madrasas that were not in compliance with the Right to Education Act.

After hearing the arguments, the bench decided to tag Jamiat’s plea with the main case filed in October last year for further consideration.

In October 2024, the Supreme Court had stayed a recommendation by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), which had called for the closure of unregistered madrasas. The Court also put on hold subsequent actions by both the central and state governments. Additionally, it stayed similar directives from the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments that mandated the transfer of students from unrecognised madrasas to government-run schools, as reported

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque
Demonising the Madrasa is insulting India’s freedom fighters

Madrasas: Islamic or Sectarian?

The post Uttarakhand HC orders unsealing of Madrassa, SC steps in to hear Jamiat’s petition against Dhami govt’s crackdown against Madrassa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protests at the main gate of #UniversityOfHyderabad… targetting @TelanganaCMO @revanth_anumula @RahulGandhi over decision of #TGIIC Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation to auction 400 acres of #KanchaGachibowli; the sloganeering, energy, visuals tell their own story pic.twitter.com/m74ykqhYjL

— Uma Sudhir (@umasudhir) April 1, 2025

Protesting students of #HCU have shared this video… they say this is of trucks moving in and out of the main gate , carrying the wood logs of trees that have been cut… Am told this was shot at 2 am … On @ndtv at 8 am, #exclusive footage of denuded #EastCampus @HydUniv pic.twitter.com/OxijZVdomB

— Uma Sudhir (@umasudhir) April 3, 2025

Videos shared by #HCU students with @ndtv, with time & location watermark, to show that JCBs continued to do work of clearing the #KancheGachibowli land parcel despite stay orders from #TelanganaHC to stop vegetation removing activity till court disposes petition to be heard tmrw pic.twitter.com/ZTBmnFIQQM

— Uma Sudhir (@umasudhir) April 2, 2025

pic.twitter.com/6zSf2fi0QH

— Tribal Army (@TribalArmy) April 3, 2025

The Telangana government’s handling of the situation has been marked by opacity, brute force, and suppression of dissent. Despite the Hyderabad Central University’s historical claim over the land and the petitions pending to be heard by Constitutional Courts, the Congress-led administration bulldozed ahead with its plans, using police to clamp down on protests. Students and environmental activists were detained for attempting to join the agitation, while the government dismissed the outcry as “misinformation” and “political opportunism.” Meanwhile, the opposition BRS, led by K.T. Rama Rao, has accused Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s administration of hypocrisy, recalling Congress’s past stance on Aarey forest in Mumbai. Yet, even Congress’s student wing, NSUI, has taken a cautious approach, criticising the government’s failure to secure the land while stopping short of outright opposition.

The administration’s justifications—promises of Rs 50,000 crore in investments and five lakh jobs—fail to address the reckless environmental destruction underway. Officials insist that the land is not classified as forest, yet the Supreme Court’s observations suggest otherwise, raising concerns about procedural violations and potential contempt of court. The government’s relentless push for rapid development, without transparency or public consultation, has turned the issue into a flashpoint of governance failure. Now, with the highest court stepping in, the Telangana government finds itself cornered—forced to defend its actions in what has become a battle between unchecked urbanisation and judicial oversight.

Supreme Court proceedings on Kancha Gachibowli tree felling on April 3, 2025

Post-Lunch Developments: Expressing shock over the large-scale deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court issued an immediate order halting all development activities in the region. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, took suo-moto cognisance of the matter on the same day and directed that no activity, except measures to protect the remaining trees, should take place until further notice.

The court strongly emphasised compliance, warning that any violation of its directive would lead to the personal liability of the Chief Secretary of Telangana. To ensure transparency, the bench ordered the Chief Secretary to submit a detailed affidavit addressing the following concerns:

1. What was the compelling urgency that necessitated the developmental activities, including large-scale tree removal, in the disputed area?
2. Did the state government obtain the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certification before commencing the project?
3. Were the requisite permissions from forest authorities or any other relevant local bodies obtained before felling the trees?
4. What was the rationale behind including specific officers in the committee constituted by the Telangana government, particularly those who seemingly have no role in identifying forest areas?
5. What is the state government’s plan for the felled trees?

Earlier in the day, the court had passed an interim order staying further tree felling and directed the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial) to conduct an on-site inspection and submit a report by 3:30 PM. When the case was resumed at 3:45 PM, the Supreme Court reviewed the report and found it to be deeply alarming. The inspection revealed that large-scale deforestation was underway, with heavy machinery such as JCBs being used to clear hundreds of acres. The court also noted images showing peacocks and deer fleeing from the destruction, suggesting that the area was an active habitat for wildlife.

Referring to its previous orders in the Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors case, the court emphasised on its March 4 directive that held state Chief Secretaries personally accountable for the failure to constitute statutory committees tasked with identifying forest lands. It also cited its February 3 order in the same case, which prohibited states from reducing forest cover without providing compensatory afforestation land. The court was particularly critical of the Telangana government’s actions, questioning why the deforestation was carried out with such urgency when the statutory process to determine forest land status had not even begun.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, representing the State of Telangana, argued before the Supreme Court that the disputed land did not fall under the category of forest. However, the bench remained unconvinced. Justice B.R. Gavai pointedly questioned whether the government had obtained the necessary permissions for tree felling, emphasising that the classification of the land was secondary to the legal requirements for environmental clearances.

“Forest or not, did you secure the requisite approvals before cutting down the trees?” Justice Gavai asked, as per a report in LiveLaw, expressing dismay over the rapid deforestation. “Clearing 100 acres in just two to three days is alarming… We must remind you of a simple principle—no matter how powerful, no one is above the law.”

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on behalf of certain intervenors, informed the bench that students protesting the destruction were being detained, highlighting the Telangana government’s heavy-handed approach in suppressing opposition to the project.

Morning proceedings and initial stay order: In the morning session, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order staying the tree-felling activities in Kancha Gachibowli, acting on an urgent oral mention by Senior Advocate K. Paremeshwar, the amicus curiae in the broader forest conservation case (TN Godavarman matter).

The bench took cognisance of media reports highlighting rapid deforestation over the extended weekend, suggesting that authorities had deliberately accelerated the process to avoid public scrutiny. The reports further indicated that the forest area housed at least eight species of scheduled wildlife. Concerned by these developments, the court ordered an immediate site inspection by the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial), directing that an interim report be submitted by 3:30 PM on the same day.

The directive was communicated to the Telangana High Court’s Registrar (Judicial) by the Supreme Court’s Registrar (Judicial) to ensure prompt compliance. Additionally, the court instructed the Chief Secretary of Telangana to prevent any further tree felling until further orders were issued.

As per Live Law, the order was dictated as follows:

“News reports indicate extensive deforestation is taking place in the Kancha Gachibowli forest. A vast number of trees are reportedly being felled, and it appears that authorities have taken advantage of the long weekend to expedite the destruction. Reports also suggest that the area is home to multiple scheduled wildlife species. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Telangana High Court to conduct an immediate site visit and submit an interim report by 3:30 PM today. The Registrar (Judicial) of this court is directed to communicate this order forthwith. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary of Telangana shall ensure that no further tree felling is permitted in Kancha Gachibowli until this court issues further directions.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Telangana government, informed the court that the Telangana High Court was also hearing a related matter. In response, the Supreme Court clarified that while it was taking suo-moto cognisance of the issue, it had not placed any restrictions on the proceedings before the High Court.

The Supreme Court’s strong intervention signals its deep concern over environmental degradation and the failure of state authorities to adhere to legal and procedural safeguards before undertaking large-scale deforestation. The matter is expected to be closely monitored in the coming days.

Telangana High Court proceedings on Kancha Gachibowli forest case

Hearing on April 3, 2025: On Thursday, the Telangana High Court extended its interim order directing a status quo concerning the large-scale felling of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area, located near the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) campus. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, also granted the State government time until April 7, 2025 to submit its counter affidavit in the matter. The court’s intervention followed an earlier directive issued on April 2, wherein it had explicitly restrained the State from taking any coercive steps until further deliberations. During the said hearing, the court was informed that the Supreme Court had also taken cognisance of the matter earlier in the day and had required for a site inspection to take place.

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, argued that the Supreme Court’s directive requiring a site inspection should not be misinterpreted as a restriction on the High Court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the case. He contended that the land in question had been subject to litigation for decades, yet no claims or legal documents had ever categorised it as a forest. According to him, the absence of such claims over the last 30 years underscored that the area was never formally recognised as forest land. Singhvi further claimed that several institutions in the vicinity, including a botanical garden and a golf course, demonstrated the region’s long-standing allocation for non-forest purposes. He insisted that the land had been assigned to a private entity nearly 20 years ago, and the State’s actions were in line with established policies.

In response, Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the Vata Foundation, strongly refuted the State’s assertions. He informed the court that despite the Supreme Court’s order staying tree felling, the destruction had continued until Thursday morning. Reddy submitted an interim application (IA) containing newspaper reports and timestamped photographic evidence substantiating his claim. Additionally, he alerted the court to alleged police repression, revealing that a student who had been documenting the tree felling through video recordings was detained at a local police station. Reddy emphasised that the petitioners were now shielded by the Supreme Court’s intervention but urged the High Court to scrutinise the State’s conduct in its upcoming hearing on April 7.

Another counsel representing a student union underscored the alarming pattern of police atrocities against students peacefully protesting the destruction. He further argued that the land in question belonged to the University of Hyderabad, strengthening the case against its allocation for commercial IT development. Acknowledging these submissions, the High Court directed the State’s legal representatives to formally respond to these serious allegations and scheduled the matter for further hearing on April 7.

The High Court’s order summarised the joint submission made by Senior Advocate Singhvi and the Advocate General, wherein they requested that the matter be heard on April 7 to allow the State sufficient time to file a counter affidavit. The court recorded that the petitioners had no objection to this timeline, provided that the interim relief against tree felling remained in place. Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy reiterated that since the Supreme Court had already imposed a stay, the High Court should simply proceed with the scheduled hearing on April 7. The court accepted these arguments and directed the State to file its response to all interim applications submitted by the petitioners.

Hearing on April 2, 2025: On Wednesday, the Telangana High Court had imposed a temporary stay on the felling of trees in the disputed Kancha Gachibowli land. The matter was heard following an urgent plea against the Telangana government’s issuance of a Government Order (GO) that sought to alienate 400 acres of green cover for the development of IT infrastructure.

The matter arose from a petition filed by the environmental non-profit Vata Foundation, which challenged a contentious government order facilitating the alienation of 400 acres of green land in the region for IT infrastructure development. The petitioners argued that the GO violated the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and demanded that all government actions undertaken pursuant to the order be annulled. They further urged the court to designate the land as a ‘National Park.’ Additionally, the court heard a similar Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by retired scientist Kalapala Babu Rao, who sought equivalent relief.

Between 28/03/25 to 02/04/25.. just 3 – 4 days… lives of peaceful living beings has been turned upside down.. in its desperation.. while the court believed otherwise.. the Govt deploys dozens of heavy machinery to flatten a beautiful deemed forest land in #KanchaGachibowli..… pic.twitter.com/NR8Bf1Typj

— Vata Foundation (@vata_foundation) April 2, 2025

The Vata Foundation’s plea asserted that the land, which had remained untouched for centuries, was home to 237 bird species, spotted deer, wild boars, star tortoises, snakes, and ancient rock formations and lakes. The petitioners contended that the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC), which acquired the land in 2012, issued the GO in 2024 intending to divert the land for commercial purposes. The rapid deforestation prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court, highlighting that the area also encompassed land belonging to the University of Hyderabad, which needed urgent protection.

The court had originally scheduled the matter for April 7 but was forced to intervene earlier after the petitioners reported that 40 JCB machines had been deployed for large-scale tree felling. Following urgent lunch motion requests, the High Court took up the matter on April 2 and imposed a stay.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate L. Ravichander, appearing for the petitioner Kalapala Babu Rao, highlighted the blatant disregard for judicial precedents by the Telangana government. He pointed out that the government’s actions flouted two crucial Supreme Court judgments—T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Others—which mandated the identification and preservation of forests, including areas not officially designated as such but qualifying under the dictionary definition. He further argued that the region’s unique rock formations, estimated to be nearly 2 billion years old, harboured rare flora and exotic bird species that warranted urgent protection.

Conversely, the State’s Advocate General A. Sudharshan Reddy dismissed the petitioners’ case as being based solely on “Google images” rather than official records. He argued that the government held clear revenue records indicating that the land had always been designated for industrial use. Attempting to trivialise the issue, he remarked that if the presence of peacocks, mongooses, and snakes were to determine forest status, then large parts of Hyderabad, including the city’s golf course, should also be declared forests. The High Court, however, refused to accept this line of reasoning and reiterated the need for a thorough examination of the matter.

Union government’s intervention

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change officially intervened in the contentious clearing of 400 acres of forest land in Kancha Gachibowli, Hyderabad, which has been earmarked for auction by the Telangana government. Expressing serious concern over the alleged large-scale deforestation and environmental damage, the ministry has demanded an immediate factual report from the State government regarding the ongoing developments on April 2, 2025.

In a formal communication addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) of Telangana on Wednesday, Assistant Inspector General of Forests S. Sundar stated that the ministry had been alerted to reports of “illegal felling and removal of vegetation” in the Kancha Gachibowli area. The Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TGIIC), the entity responsible for the land’s auction, was identified as carrying out these activities. The letter noted that widespread news coverage in both print and digital media had highlighted concerns over ecological destruction, particularly regarding harm to the region’s wildlife, water bodies, and distinctive rock formations.

Further amplifying the gravity of the situation, the letter revealed that the Union Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav, had received multiple representations from Members of Parliament and various public representatives, urging immediate action to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

In light of these alarming concerns, the ministry directed the Telangana government to submit a detailed factual report on the matter without delay. Additionally, the State was instructed to initiate legal proceedings as per the relevant statutes, including the Indian Forest Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, and the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, among other applicable laws. The letter also stressed the necessity of ensuring strict adherence to judicial directives issued by courts and tribunals concerning forest conservation and land protection.

Reacting to the Union’s intervention, Union Minister for Coal and Mines G. Kishan Reddy publicly expressed his gratitude to Bhupender Yadav for taking decisive action in the matter. Reddy emphasised that the Union’s response was a crucial step towards ensuring governmental accountability, preventing further environmental degradation, and safeguarding the region’s green cover. He further remarked that the intervention would help ensure that all actions related to the disputed land remain within legal boundaries and undergo the necessary scrutiny through proper consultation processes.

Environmental devastation and rising concerns

Student groups and environmental activists have warned that the destruction of the Kancha Gachibowli Forest will have dire ecological consequences. Researcher Arun Vasireddy, in a report on the area’s environmental significance, highlighted that deforestation in Kancha Gachibowli Forest could lead to a rise in local temperatures by 1 to 4 degrees Celsius, worsening heat conditions in the Gachibowli region. As Hyderabad’s IT corridor continues to expand, activists argue that the loss of such a crucial green space will further degrade air quality, threaten biodiversity, and contribute to climate instability.

Despite mounting protests, the state government has shown little willingness to engage with environmental concerns, opting instead for heavy-handed police action against students and journalists alike.

Congress government’s crackdown on student protest at University of Hyderabad

The University of Hyderabad (UoH) has erupted in protest as students launched an indefinite boycott of classes, condemning the Telangana government’s decision to auction 400 acres of Kancha Gachibowli through the TGIIC for the development of an IT park. The protests gained momentum amid allegations of state overreach, police repression, and environmental destruction.

According to Akash Kumar, vice president of the UoH Students’ Union, students are being forcibly restricted within the campus premises by the police, preventing them from taking their protest to the streets. “The ongoing deforestation by TGIIC is leading to irreversible ecological damage. Kancha Gachibowli is home to diverse flora and fauna, and we demand an immediate halt to these reckless land-clearing activities. We have launched an indefinite strike today and will continue until the deforestation stops,” Kumar stated while conversing with reporters of The Hindustan Times. He further demanded the removal of the heavy police presence and the more than 50 earthmoving machines that have been systematically razing down the land.

Protesting students emphasised that Kancha Gachibowli is not merely an empty piece of land but an ecological hotspot that harbours over 734 plant species, 220 bird species, and vulnerable wildlife, including the Indian Star Tortoise. The land’s unique rock formations and lakes contribute to the biodiversity of the region, and its destruction for an IT park is seen as an act of environmental vandalism.

Despite widespread public outrage, TGIIC has persisted with the clearing activities since Sunday. The Telangana police, on the other hand, attempted to whitewash their role by releasing a statement on Monday denying the use of force. According to their version, students were not subjected to lathi charges but had instead “attacked officials and workers with sticks and stones.” On Monday and Tuesday, the state police detained 55 students in what has been described as a preventive measure, later releasing 53 of them. However, as per Telangana Today, two students—B. Rohit Kumar and Erram Naveen Kumar—were arrested and remanded to judicial custody, having been booked under multiple sections related to criminal trespassing and rioting.

Escalation of State Repression: Police brutality and arbitrary detentions

As protests entered their fourth consecutive day on April 2, 2025, the situation on campus turned increasingly tense. Students and faculty members, led by the University of Hyderabad Teachers’ Association and the Joint Action Committee, intensified their agitation, rallying inside the campus and condemning both the government’s actions and the university administration’s inaction. However, in a move reminiscent of authoritarian crackdowns on student movements, the state responded with force.

On Tuesday, police had resorted to lathi charges as demonstrators attempted to march towards the main gate. Several students sustained injuries as scuffles broke out at the East Campus, further fuelling resentment against the state’s heavy-handed tactics. Videos circulating on social media show police officers beating students and forcibly dragging them away, despite peaceful protest being a fundamental democratic right.

NSUI-HCU General Secretary Prabhakar Singh spoke to the media and lambasted the university administration for what he called “facilitating” police brutality. “The administration has completely failed us. They enabled the police to enter the campus and allowed JCB machines to continue their destruction. They have not even disclosed the details of the executive council meeting held on March 20, which would have clarified their stance on the land issue,” he said.

The demonstrations have united an unusual mix of political and student groups. Left-wing and Dalit-Bahujan student organisations, along with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the BJP’s student wing, are all opposing the auction. Student unions from institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Osmania University have also extended their support. Meanwhile, the Congress’s student wing, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), has taken a more neutral stance, criticising the university’s failure to protect the land while advocating for discussions on securing its ownership.

A Legacy of Encroachments: The larger struggle for campus land

For many within the university community, this battle is not just about the 400 acres at Kancha Gachibowli but about a continued history of state encroachments on university land. Over the years, multiple projects have chipped away at the university’s territory, including the establishment of the IIIT campus, Gachibowli Stadium, a bus depot, a power station, a school, and even a shooting range. “The state has systematically grabbed land from the university for years. Now, this last remaining stretch, which we consider part of our campus, is also being taken away,” said a protesting student, as per the Hindustan Times.

The faculty and students fear that if this land is lost, the university’s expansion will be severely hampered, undermining its status as an Institution of Eminence. More importantly, they stress that the encroachment of green spaces in favour of commercial ventures sets a dangerous precedent, where corporate interests are prioritised over public welfare and environmental sustainability.

While the Telangana government continues to claim sole ownership of the 400-acre land, its narrative has been met with stiff resistance. The state maintains that a survey conducted on July 19, 2024, in the presence of university officials, confirmed that the University of Hyderabad holds no legal claim to the land. However, the university administration has refuted these claims, stating that no such survey ever took place. The institution insists that it has been repeatedly requesting the state for proper demarcation, only to be ignored.

Regardless of the state’s legal claims, protesting students claim that the issue at hand is not mere ownership but environmental conservation and academic autonomy. The land is an irreplaceable green lung for Hyderabad’s IT corridor and must be preserved rather than handed over to corporate interests.

As the protests persist, students remain resolute in their demands: immediate withdrawal of police forces and bulldozers from the campus vicinity, a written assurance from the university administration that it will fight for the land’s legal registration under its name, and transparency in land-related documents and executive decisions.

Journalist detained amid crackdown on protest coverage

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president K.T. Rama Rao has strongly criticised the Congress-led Telangana government for allegedly detaining a journalist covering the ongoing student protests at the University of Hyderabad. KTR condemned the police action, describing it as an excessive use of state power to silence dissent. He accused the government of suppressing press freedom and stifling critical voices. “The draconian police overreach in Telangana is alarming! Journalists are being detained & dissenting voices arrested. This blatant suppression of free speech & expression is unacceptable. And Rahul Gandhi goes to town preaching about democracy and free speech The double standards is beyond sickening.,” he stated in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

The draconian police overreach in Telangana is alarming!

Journalists are being detained & dissenting voices arrested.

This blatant suppression of free speech & expression is unacceptable.

And @RahulGandhi goes to town preaching about democracy and free speech

The double… https://t.co/tRDPyndwc2

— KTR (@KTRBRS) March 30, 2025

The detained journalist, identified as Sumit, was documenting the arrests of students protesting the destruction of greenery on the university campus. He later posted a video on social media showing his detention by the police, sparking outrage among press freedom advocates. BRS spokesperson Krishank also slammed the Congress government, arguing that arresting a journalist for doing their job was an attack on the fundamental role of the media in a democracy.

Political opposition intensifies

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president and former Telangana minister K.T. Rama Rao has called on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to intervene in the ongoing land dispute at the University of Hyderabad. Citing Gandhi’s past opposition to the destruction of Mumbai’s Aarey forest, KTR questioned the Congress’s silence on deforestation in Telangana.

This is brazen green murder by destroying 400 acres of precious lung space in western Hyderabad

You can hear the peacocks crying for help as the bulldozers and JCBs of the Congress Govt rummage

If you don’t speak up now, it’s on you Mr @RahulGandhi #SaveHCUBioDiversity pic.twitter.com/iPxnhSgAdv

— KTR (@KTRBRS) March 31, 2025

Amidst growing tensions, Telangana police on April 1 had detained several BJP leaders, including MLAs Payal Shankar and Dhanpal Suryanarayana Gupta, as they attempted to join student protests at the university. The BJP has escalated the matter at the national level, with Telangana BJP president G. Kishan Reddy, Union Minister Bandi Sanjay, and BJP MPs meeting Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan in Delhi to seek his intervention.

KTR, in a series of posts on X, accused the Congress-led state government of suppressing student voices, harming the environment, and even displacing wildlife. He alleged that police were preventing BRS leaders, including himself, from visiting the protest site. Drawing a comparison, he recalled how Rahul Gandhi was given full security and access when he visited Hyderabad Central University twice during K. Chandrashekar Rao’s tenure to support justice for Rohith Vemula. “Why this hypocrisy, Rahul Ji? What is your government trying to hide from the world?” KTR asked.

హైడ్రా, మూసీ పేరుతో ప్రజల ఇండ్లు – హెచ్‌సీయూలో పక్షుల గూళ్లు

నోరున్న జనంపైకి బుల్డోజర్ – నోరు లేని మూగజీవాల మీదకు బుల్డోజర్!

మూసీలో, హైడ్రాలో మూటల వేట – ఆఖరికి హెచ్‌సీయూలోనూ కాసుల వేట

పంటలు ఎండుతున్నాయి నీళ్లు లేవంటూ రైతుల గోస – అర్ధరాత్రి బుల్డోజర్ దెబ్బలకు వన్యప్రాణాల… pic.twitter.com/jvTFiO1hB4

— KTR (@KTRBRS) April 1, 2025

There have been no social media posts from senior Congress leaders regarding the issue. Leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, and Priyanka Gandhi have not made any public statements about the protests, arrests, detentions, or the deforestation.

Telangana government defends land auction and development plans

Despite the mounting opposition, the Telangana government is pushing ahead with its plans. Heavy machinery has been deployed to level the land, removing trees and shrubbery over the past few days. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has defended the project, arguing that developing the 400-acre site will spur economic growth, attract investments worth ₹50,000 crore, and generate five lakh jobs. He dismissed opposition leaders as “cunning foxes” attempting to obstruct progress.

On March 31, Telangana’s Revenue Minister Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy had asserted that the state holds full legal ownership of the land. “We took possession of this land after winning legal battles in both the high court and the Supreme Court. Not a single inch belongs to Hyderabad Central University. Any attempt to dispute this is contempt of court,” he declared.

Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka, an alumnus of the university, clarified that HCU had long assumed the land was under its jurisdiction. He explained that when the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) government allocated 400 acres to a private firm in the past, an alternative 397-acre plot in Gopanpally was provided to the university in exchange.

Accompanied by fellow HCU alumnus and IT Minister Sridhar Babu, Bhatti presented evidence of agreements signed between the university’s former registrar and state revenue officials. Sridhar Babu assured that the auction and development would not harm the ecosystem, including landmarks like Peacock Lake and Mushroom Rock, and that students would continue to have access to these sites.

The ministers also accused opposition parties, particularly the BRS, of spreading misinformation by using old images—such as pictures of a dead deer—to mislead students. TGIIC and Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) officials stated that revenue records confirm the 400-acre plot is not classified as forest land, countering BJP claims that it falls under a protected zone. Officials further revealed that a survey was conducted in July 2024 with the consent of the university registrar, and boundary demarcations were finalised in the presence of university and government officials.

Background: The 400-acre land dispute at Hyderabad University

The 400-acre land parcel at the centre of the controversy is part of the approximately 2,500 acres originally allocated to the University of Hyderabad (Hyderabad Central University) when it was established through an Act of Parliament in 1974. The undivided Andhra Pradesh government had granted this land, which was then a remote area about 20 km from Hyderabad’s city centre. Over the years, with the expansion of Hyderabad’s financial district, the land has become highly valuable, particularly due to the growth of the IT sector and corporate developments.

Located in survey number 25 of Kanche Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district, the land is now surrounded by key institutions, including the university, the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), the Indian School of Business (ISB), and major technology campuses such as Microsoft.

In January 2004, following the successful hosting of the 2003 Afro-Asian Games at the nearby Gachibowli sports complex, the then Chandrababu Naidu-led government allotted these 400 acres to IMG Academies Bharat Private Limited for the development of sports facilities. However, the project never took off, leading to the cancellation of the allotment in November 2006 by Naidu’s successor, Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy. The land was subsequently transferred to the state’s youth advancement, tourism, and culture department.

IMG challenged the cancellation in court, resulting in a prolonged legal battle that lasted nearly two decades. When the Revanth Reddy-led government came to power in December 2023, it pursued the case aggressively. In March 2024, the Telangana High Court ruled in favour of the state government. IMG then appealed to the Supreme Court, but the petition was dismissed in May 2024. Following the court’s decision, the Telangana government formally took possession of the land.

In June 2024, the TGIIC submitted a proposal to utilise the 400-acre plot for IT and commercial projects. Subsequently, on July 1, 2024, the revenue department officially transferred the land to TGIIC, paving the way for its auction and development.

Related:

Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

Record number of forest diversion took place in 2023 amidst decline in spend of CAMPA funds, MoEF data reveals

With less than two weeks for polling, how concerned are national parties on land and forest rights for Adivasis?

The post Mass Deforestation, Protests, Detentions: Supreme Court halts Telangana’s reckless tree felling at Kancha Gachibowli, questions permissions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This case, arising from an FIR registered against Imran Pratapgarhi, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, for offenses related to a poem he shared on social media, specifically addressed the application of Section 173 of the BNS, which governs the procedure for handling information in cognisable cases and the subsequent registration of FIR.

Brief Facts and Background

Parliament Member Imran Pratapgarhi posted a video in which a poem was shared, which according to a complainant, promoted enmity between religious communities, and that it constituted imputations that are prejudicial to the national integrity.

The FIR was filed with offences under Section 302 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person), Section 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), Section 57 (Abetting commission of offence by public or by more than ten persons).

Mr. Pratapgarhi approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR. Section 528 of the BNSS states that nothing in the BNSS limits or affects the inherent powers of the High Court to pass such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under BNSS or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides High Courts with the power to issue certain writs to any person or authority, including Government in appropriate cases for enforcing fundamental rights provided under Part III of the Constitution, or for any other purpose.

The High Court refused to intervene. Aggrieved, Mr. Pratapgarhi approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the poem in question and opined, first, that there is nothing in the poem which attracted the offences mentioned before. Later, it went on to deal with the question of whether, in this case, it was obligatory under Section 173(1) of the BNSS to register FIR or not.

Provisions and case law

Section 173(1) of the BNSS states that every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given (orally or via electronic communication) to an office in-charge of a police station and if given orally, such officer shall reduce it to writing by him or under his direction, read it over to the informant, and have it signed by the informant.

Essentially, when one gives a complaint over a cognisable offence, the police will have to record it in writing and take signature of the complainant. This record is commonly known as a First Information Report (FIR). Section 173(2) states that a copy of the FIR be given to the complainant free of cost.

Section 173(3) states that when an information relating to commission of a cognisable offence which is punishable with three years or more but less than seven years of imprisonment, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer, not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,

1. proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
2. proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

There exists a conflict between Section 173 (1)—which states FIR should be registered when cognizable offence related information comes and Section 173 (3)—which states that a preliminary investigation ought to be done for cognizable offences which are punishable for more than three but less than seven years.

In Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated that the condition sine qua non (essential condition) for registering FIR is that there must be information, and the information discloses commission of cognisable offence, the reasonableness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for the registration of FIR.

Supreme Court resolved this contradiction in Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410).

Judgement and its reasoning

On Section 173

While Section 173 (1) is the general rule, according to the court, Section 173 (3) is an exception to the rule. This means that when information is given to the police, if prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out, an FIR is to be registered unless the offence is covered under Section 173 (3) in which case a preliminary investigation could follow (Para 25).

According to the court, Section 173 (3) of the BNS thus introduces a notable exception, granting the police the discretion to conduct a preliminary assessment even when the information received might disclose a cognisable offense, if it is falling within the specified punishment range.

This pronouncement highlights a significant deviation from the general principle of immediate FIR registration for cognisable offenses, as previously emphasized by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC).

On free speech and usage of Section 173(3)

In its judgment, the Supreme Court laid significant emphasis on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court went further to characterize the registration of the FIR against Mr. Pratapgarhi as a “mechanical exercise” and a clear “abuse of the process of law” (Para 36).

This strong condemnation implies that the police acted without a proper appreciation of the nuances of free speech and potentially misconstrued the intent and message of the poem. The Court also highlighted the societal value of various forms of artistic expression, including poetry, literature, drama, films, and satire, emphasizing their role in enriching human life and the necessity of their protection under the umbrella of free speech (Para 38).

In this case, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that when an allegation concerns an offence that falls under the ambit of the restrictions on free speech outlined in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, it is invariably appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 (3) of the BNS before proceeding to register an FIR (Para 29).

The Court reasoned that when allegations are predicated on spoken or written words, it is incumbent upon the police officer to carefully examine the content to ascertain whether it indeed constitutes a cognizable offense

According to the Court, this initial assessment of the material does not equate to a preliminary inquiry that would be impermissible under Section 173 (1) when the information already discloses a cognizable offense. The Court underscored that the failure to utilize the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 (3) in cases where potential free speech violations are at issue could result in the registration of an FIR against an individual merely for exercising their fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a), even if the restrictions stipulated under Article 19 (2) are not applicable.

Furthermore, the Court opined that neglecting to invoke Section 173 (3) in such circumstances would undermine the very purpose for which this sub-section was incorporated into the BNSS (Para 29). It would also contravene the constitutional obligation of the police under Article 51-A (a) to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals, according to the Court.

To this end, the Supreme Court suggested that the higher police officer, whose permission is required under Section 173(3), should ordinarily grant such permission to conduct a preliminary inquiry in cases involving the exercise of free speech where the potential punishment falls within the range of three to seven years (Para 29).

This directive indicates a clear expectation from the apex court that superior officers should facilitate the process of preliminary inquiry in such scenarios to ensure that the fundamental right to freedom of speech is adequately protected from unwarranted criminal prosecution at the very outset.

Conclusion: a paradigm shift in policing free speech

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat marks a transformative moment in the jurisprudence of free speech and police powers, recalibrating the balance between constitutional rights and procedural obligations. By mandating preliminary inquiries under Section 173 (3) of the BNS for allegations implicating Article 19 (2) restrictions, the Court has introduced a safeguard against precipitate criminalization of speech. This intervention is not merely procedural but foundational, ensuring that the exercise of free expression—particularly in artistic or public discourse—is shielded from arbitrary state action.

The ruling underscores that police discretion under Section 173 (3) is not a license for inaction but a constitutional duty to scrutinise allegations rigorously. By requiring higher police authorities to authorise preliminary inquiries, the judgment institutionalizes accountability, preventing FIRs from becoming tools of harassment. This is especially critical in speech-related cases, where the line between lawful dissent and cognizable offenses is often blurred by subjective interpretations. The Court’s emphasis on the societal value of poetry, satire, and other forms of expression serves as a reminder that democratic robustness thrives on diversity of thought, even when contentious.

Critically, the judgment does not dilute the obligation to act on cognisable offenses but contextualises it. By distinguishing between immediate FIR registration under Section 173 (1) and the need for preliminary assessment under Section 173 (3), the Court harmonises competing imperatives: the necessity of prompt action in grave crimes versus the imperative to protect speech from overzealous policing. This nuanced approach ensures that the police remain guardians of both law and liberty, rather than arbiters of societal consensus.

While the judgment does not absolve individuals of accountability for speech that incites violence or undermines public order, it raises the threshold for criminal prosecution. This is a welcome check on the expanding criminalisation of political and artistic expression, which has historically been weaponised to stifle dissent.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

‘Courts, Police Have Duty to Protect Freedom of Speech’: SC on FIR against Congress MP Over Poem

The post SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of the Rouse Avenue Courts orally remarked, “this means FIR,” indicating that the court’s directive for further investigation effectively necessitates the registration of a First Information Report against Mishra. The judge observed that a cognizable offence had been established concerning one of the incidents detailed in the complaint, warranting deeper scrutiny.

The court stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly placed Mishra at the scene and that “all the things were corroborating.” It further noted that Mishra, during interrogation, admitted to being in the area and acknowledged that people had gathered around him, many of whom he knew. This admission, the court stated, “fortifies the allegations of the complainant.”

Significantly, the court pointed out that Mishra’s statement was not framed in terms of support for or opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) but rather in explicitly communal terms. The court noted that Mishra “had not framed his statement under ‘Pro-CAA or Anti-CAA’ but rather ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM’ with the distinction of us and them, wherein them is ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM.’” The judge remarked that such rhetoric “clearly establishes sides and requires investigation to unearth the truth.”

As per a report in LiveLaw, the court further observed that Mishra’s presence in North-East Delhi a day before the riots, which he himself admitted, could not be ignored. Additionally, it directed that senior police officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya be examined, following allegations by the complainant that Surya had threatened protesters, saying, “If you did not stop this protest, then consequence will happen here that you will be killed.” The judge stressed that “his personal interrogation is necessary,” adding, “The series of events reveals that perhaps, if allegations of complainant are found to be true, then DCP Ved Prakash Surya knows something which this Judiciary does not.”

At the same time, the court stated that if the complainant’s allegations were proven false, the Delhi Police would be at liberty to take action under Section 182 of the IPC for filing false information. It also directed the DCP of North-East Delhi to ensure that the order for further investigation was sent to the appropriate police station within its jurisdiction. Failure to comply, the court warned, would hold the DCP legally accountable.

The Delhi Police has been ordered to file a compliance report by April 16, 2025, the next date of hearing. Petitioner Mohammad Ilyas was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, while Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi Police.

This directive represents a major step towards accountability in the 2020 Delhi riots case, even if it is beginning 5 years down the lane. Despite the political climate and prior reluctance to act against influential figures, the court’s insistence on further investigation highlights the need for an impartial and thorough probe into the events leading to the communal violence.

Details of the complaint against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra

A Delhi court was hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Ilyas, seeking an investigation into the alleged role of BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The plea, however, was met with strong opposition from the Delhi Police, who argued that Mishra was being falsely implicated as part of a “well-planned conspiracy.”

The complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the registration of an FIR against Mishra, along with then SHO of Dayalpur police station and five other individuals, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former BJP MLAs Jagdish Pradhan and Satpal Sansad.

According to Ilyas, on February 23, 2020, he personally witnessed Mishra and his associates blocking a road and destroying the handcarts of street vendors. He also alleged that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) and other officers were present alongside Mishra as he issued warnings to anti-CAA protesters, demanding they vacate the area or face dire consequences.

Ilyas had moved the court in December 2024, urging an inquiry into the roles of Mishra and six others in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. In March 2025, the Delhi Police reiterated their stance, arguing that Mishra’s role had already been investigated and “nothing incarcerating” had been found.

In his petition, Ilyas specifically named Mishra, Mustafabad MLA and Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht, the then DCP (North-East), the then SHO of Dayalpur police station, and former BJP legislator Jagdish Pradhan, holding them responsible for inciting the riots. As reported by The Hindu, Ilyas stated that he saw Mishra and his associates obstructing a road in Kardampuri and damaging street vendors’ stalls. Additionally, he alleged that the former North-East DCP and several police officers stood by as Mishra issued threats to anti-CAA demonstrators.

Ilyas also accused the former Dayalpur SHO and others of vandalising mosques across North-East Delhi, further intensifying concerns over the role of law enforcement in the communal violence.

Delhi Police opposes plea seeking FIR

On March 6, 2025, the Delhi Police filed a written submission before a Delhi court, opposing a plea that sought the registration of an FIR against BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra for his alleged involvement in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The police contended that the complaint, filed by Mohammad Ilyas, was part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to falsely implicate Mishra in the riots. They asserted that the BJP leader had no role in the violence and was being deliberately framed.

As part of their argument, the prosecution referred to conversations from various WhatsApp groups, including the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), alleging that certain individuals had orchestrated a social media campaign against Mishra. The police claimed that the hashtag #ArrestKapilMishra was being used strategically to construct a misleading narrative around his involvement in the riots.

Additionally, the Delhi Police maintained that Mishra’s alleged role had already been investigated and that no incriminating evidence was found against him. In an earlier submission from October 2024, the police argued that the riots were the outcome of a “pre-planned conspiracy” designed to incite violence in Muslim-majority areas, particularly around mosques and religious sites. The goal, they claimed, was to escalate “protests” into “Chakkajaam” (road blockades) once a critical mass of demonstrators had gathered.

The police further stated that misleading WhatsApp messages were circulated at the time, falsely alleging that a mob led by Mishra had initiated the violence. They insisted that these claims were part of an attempt to create a false narrative and implicate him in the riots.

Opposition demands resignation of Kapil Mishra following court’s order

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress on April 1, 2025, demanded the resignation of Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra after a city court directed the registration of an FIR to investigate his alleged role in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Addressing a press conference, Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj stated that sufficient evidence of Mishra’s involvement was already in the public domain and called for his immediate arrest. “Mishra should resign and be arrested, as the court has ordered an FIR to probe his role in the riots. For the sake of morality, he should step down, just as others accused in the case have been arrested,” Bharadwaj asserted.

As per the report of Times of India, Bharadwaj further criticised the delay in legal proceedings, pointing out that it took over five years for the judicial system to act on the case. Bharadwaj also alleged that a judge who had previously directed the police to take action in the case was transferred to another state.

AAP’s chief spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar echoed the demand, questioning why Mishra was being treated differently from others accused in the riots. “Every other accused in the Delhi riots case has been arrested. Why is Kapil Mishra an exception?” she asked.

Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav also called for Mishra’s resignation, citing the court’s findings. “The Rouse Avenue court has established that there is a cognisable offence against him. This is a serious matter, and if there is any sense of morality left, he should resign immediately to allow for a fair and independent investigation,” Yadav said.

Delhi riots case and Mishra’s incendiary speech

The 2020 North-East Delhi riots: The 2020 Delhi riots, which took place between 24 and 26 February, led to significant violence in North-East Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths, over 500 injuries, and extensive property damage. Ironically, while a majority of those killed and harmed were Muslims, most of those who have been arrested for their role during the riots are also Muslims. Several student leaders and activists, including Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, were accused by the police of conspiring to incite the riots. These remain in jail, with the trial yet to begin. However, a fact-finding team formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission concluded that the violence was “planned and targeted” and held BJP leader Kapil Mishra responsible for triggering it.

Mishra’s alleged role in inciting violence: Delhi Cabinet Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra is accused of provoking violence through a speech delivered at Maujpur Chowk on February 23, 2020. In his speech, he issued an ultimatum, demanding that the police clear anti-CAA protest sites within three days or risk intervention by his supporters.

The fact-finding report had noted that “violence started in different pockets almost immediately after the short speech of Shri Kapil Mishra on 23 February, 2020, at Maujpur, in which he openly called for forcefully removing the protestors at Jafrabad in North-East Delhi.” It further highlighted Mishra’s explicit warning: “After that, we will not listen to the police if roads are not cleared after three days…”

The committee criticised the Delhi Police for failing to act against Mishra, despite senior officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya standing beside him during the speech. The report stated that “the open admission of ‘not listening’ to the police and extra-legal tactics should have been seen by the authorities as inciting violence.” The committee concluded that by not apprehending Mishra, the police “failed to take the first and most immediate preventive step needed to avoid violence and protect life and property.”

Legal challenges against Mishra and other political leaders: Multiple legal petitions have been filed seeking an FIR against Kapil Mishra for inciting violence. Human rights defender Harsh Mander had petitioned for an FIR against Mishra under Section 153 of the IPC (provocation for riot) and Section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act (causing ill will between communities for electoral purposes). These sections do not require prior government sanction.

Similarly, CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat has been pursuing legal action against politicians whose speeches allegedly incited violence against anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protestors. She approached the Delhi High Court after her plea to register an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches was dismissed by a trial court on technical grounds. The trial court had ruled that a prior sanction from the central government was required before proceeding. Karat challenged this ruling, arguing that such procedural objections should be addressed early to prevent unnecessary delays in cases involving hate speech. (Details may be read here.)

Related:

Kapil Mishra delivers anti-Muslim statements, targets activist Harsh Mander in his speech

Kajal Hindusthani, Kapil Mishra, amongst others, target Muslim religious minorities, calls for their “erasure” and “Ghar Wapasi” unchallenged

Did Kapil Mishra’s Ram Navami speech incite communal violence, demolition drive in Khargone?

I have no regrets, if need be, I’d do it again: Kapil Mishra

CJP moves MEITY against Kapil Mishra’s communal social media posts

The post “This Means FIR”: Delhi Court orders further investigation, FIR against BJP leader Kapil Mishra five years after Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On April 1, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the demolitions had been executed in blatant disregard of due process, with authorities failing to provide proper notice before destroying the residences. The ruling underscored the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, reminding the state that “the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

Violation of Due Process and Right to Shelter

The Court expressed its deep dismay at the brazen manner in which these demolitions were carried out. “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the manner which we have discussed in detail,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw. Justice Oka, during the hearing, further criticised the conduct of the authorities, observing, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”

One of the most damning aspects of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of the method by which demolition notices were allegedly served. As per the details of the case, the authorities had affixed notices to properties instead of properly delivering them in person or by registered post, effectively depriving the occupants of any real opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, condemning the practice as a flagrant violation of legal safeguards.

Procedural lapses and flawed execution of notice

The timeline of events further illustrated the authorities’ disregard for procedural fairness. As dictated by Justice Oka in his order, a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and immediately affixed, with a perfunctory note claiming two prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service. A demolition order followed on January 8, 2021, which was again affixed but never sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched only on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, and the demolition was carried out the very next day—denying the appellants any meaningful chance to exercise their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach, clarifying that the objective of the proviso to Section 27(1) was to ensure a genuine opportunity for affected individuals to respond before any demolition took place. “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court held, as per a report in LiveLaw.

Interpretation of legal provisions on service of notice

The order also addressed the legal requirements for serving notices under Section 43 of the U.P. Planning Act. The Court highlighted that affixation could only be resorted to if personal service had genuinely been attempted and failed. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the Court observed.

The Court’s ruling also referenced its 2024 decision in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down clear guidelines for the service of notices and procedural safeguards to be followed before demolishing structures. While the present case predated that judgment, the Court applied Section 43 to underscore the authorities’ failure to comply with even existing statutory requirements.

Compensation and accountability

Initially, the Court had considered allowing the appellants to rebuild their homes, provided they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. However, during the latest hearing, their counsel submitted that they lacked the financial means to do so, prompting the Court to award compensation instead. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed this move, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The Court rejected this line of reasoning outright, stating that the availability of alternative housing did not justify the violation of due process.

Justice Oka was emphatic that financial compensation was necessary to ensure accountability. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he declared during the hearing.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not ruled on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land in question, leaving them free to initiate proceedings to establish their title. Additionally, it directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines set out in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures going forward, ensuring that such abuses do not recur.

A win for due process, justice and equality

The case had an additional political dimension, with the petitioners alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. They maintained that their homes were demolished without notice under this pretext. The Uttar Pradesh government countered that the structures were unauthorised and that the occupants had overstayed their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge on the grounds that their leases had expired in 1996 and that their freehold applications had been rejected in 2015 and 2019.

This Supreme Court order represents a crucial intervention against the increasing trend of illegal demolitions carried out under the guise of law enforcement. By awarding substantial compensation and issuing a strong condemnation of the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative expediency. The said stance of the Supreme Court sends a clear message that state authorities cannot bulldoze homes without following the law—a warning that should serve as a precedent in future cases of unlawful demolitions and state-sponsored targeting.

Related:

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hegemony and Demolitions: The Tale of Communal Riots in India in 2024

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gujarat high court had refused to quash FIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire judgement may be read here:

Related:

Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court’s observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts of the case and High Court’s ruling

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

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

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

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

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

The judgment of the HC may be read below.

Previous dismissal of writ petition challenging the High Court order

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

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

Implications of the Supreme Court’s intervention

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

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

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) March 24, 2025

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

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

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

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

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

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

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

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

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

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

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

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

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

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

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

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

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

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

Sequence of events and aftermath

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

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

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

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

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

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

Safety of journalists, media persons: a major concern

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

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

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

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

Media and judiciary require one another to be free and independent

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

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

Internet shutdowns and chilling impact on free speech

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

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

Government’s crackdown on dissent

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

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

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

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

Role of social media and misinformation/disinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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