Petition filed by accused’s wife against demolition notice

The Court was hearing a petition titled Husan Begum v State of Uttarakhand, [WPCRL/419/2025], filed by the accused’s wife, Husan Begum. She challenged a three-day demolition notice issued by the local municipal body for their family home, where she stated they have been residing for over 20 years without ever receiving any encroachment notice prior to this.

Her plea also raised alarm over ongoing communal violence and threats to her family, citing the urgency of police protection in the volatile atmosphere. She argued that the short notice period made it impossible to respond, especially since all documentation related to the house was managed by her husband, who is currently in custody.

HC flags violation of Supreme Court orders on demolitions

The High Court expressed grave concern over the issuance of the demolition notice, deeming it a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s directives aimed at preventing unlawful demolitions of properties belonging to accused individuals. Citing a landmark ruling from November 2024, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that no demolition should occur without a prior show cause notice—returnable either as per local laws or within 15 days, whichever is later.

The High Court sternly warned, “We are issuing contempt and we are taking it up seriously. You cannot violate the Supreme Court order. It was not passed eons ago… The Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure…” as Bar and Bench reported

[BREAKING] “Incompetent”: Uttarakhand High Court slams police for communal violence in Nainital after rape of minor; pulls up municipal body for bid to demolish house of accusedhttps://t.co/4c1UDtxEmL

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2025

Administrative failure and police incompetence in maintaining law & order

The Bench criticised the district administration and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) PS Meena for failing to prevent mob attacks and vandalism in the market area housing Usman’s office. The judges noted with concern the destruction of property—including that of unrelated individuals like a woman named Bimla Devi—and questioned the police’s apparent inability to contain the situation, Bar and Bench reported.

“Your incompetence leads to all these problems and you want to cover it up. Shops belonging to everybody… some Bimla Devi, why was her shop ransacked?” the Court asked pointedly, emphasising the systemic failure of the law enforcement apparatus, as reported

Demolition amidst mob violence: legal and ethical violations

According to Live Law, taking oral note of the “disturbing” series of events, the Bench lambasted the municipal council for flouting Supreme Court orders. “Tell us why we should not initiate suo moto contempt against you?…The Supreme Court has considered all these kinds of issues, especially in this background and you all go on a rampage like this, what is this?… We will take up contempt seriously,” the Court remarked.

The municipal body’s counsel responded by tendering an unconditional apology and assured the Court that the demolition notice would be withdrawn. “Immediately, all the notices will be withdrawn. We can only proceed as per the Supreme Court’s order,” the counsel submitted.

Communal violence following rape allegation against 76-years-old Muslim man

Sabrang India reports that communal violence erupted on May 1, a day after the police registered a complaint alleging the rape of a 12-year-old girl by Muhammad Usman. Right-wing protesters took to the streets demanding swift action, which soon escalated into targeted attacks and destruction of property in Nainital. The accused’s wife subsequently approached the Court not only to challenge the demolition notice but also to seek police protection amidst threats to her family.

The Court was also informed of an altercation that occurred when the accused was produced before the trial court, during which his lawyer faced interference. The judges were quick to condemn the incident. “How can lawyers prevent anybody from representing anyone…” They added that the entire situation was avoidable had the police exercised due vigilance, and inquired, “What action have you taken against arsonists?”

Administration urged to remain unemotional, act lawfully

The Bench made an indirect reference to the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly citing the dignity and restraint shown by Himanshi Narwal, wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal. She had publicly rejected hatred against Muslims and Kashmiris, calling only for peace.

Quoting her implicitly, the Court remarked, “Can somebody access the Times Of India… that wife of that slain Navy officer, please read her statement… please read that statement… The Naval officer, who was killed… See public may get emotional, can the administration get emotional?” as per Live Law report.

The Court advised the government counsel not to get swayed by emotion but to act strictly in accordance with law, reinforcing the principle that legal procedures cannot be abandoned under the pressure of public outrage.

Advocate Dr. Kartikeya Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner, Husan Begum. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 6. The Court reiterated that the actions of the authorities would continue to be scrutinized, especially in light of Supreme Court precedent and the ongoing threat to the rule of law posed by emotionally driven administrative decisions.

Related:

Nainital on communal edge after 75-year-old Muslim man booked for alleged rape of minor girl

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

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

The post Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old aspirant who had travelled from Pune to Parbhani to appear for a law entrance examination, was among the 50 individuals detained by the Parbhani police on December 11 and 12, 2024, in connection with the violence that erupted after the desecration of a replica of the Constitution on December 10. Suryawanshi was allegedly picked up by the police on December 11. He died four days later, on December 15, while in judicial custody. According to police accounts, he collapsed due to shock from multiple injuries and was taken to a government hospital after complaining of chest pain inside the Parbhani district central prison.

However, a magisterial inquiry concluded on March 20, 2025, had clearly held the police responsible for Suryawanshi’s custodial death. In response, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission had issued notices to top state officials, including the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Additional Director General of Police (CID – Crime), and the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Parbhani, seeking comprehensive reports.

Representing the petitioner Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi, the deceased’s mother, advocate Prakash Ambedkar, assisted by advocates Sandesh More and Hitendra Gandhi, strongly argued for immediate registration of an FIR against the police officers allegedly responsible. The petitioner further demanded the constitution of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure an independent and impartial probe into the custodial death. Advocate Gandhi questioned the credibility of a police-led inquiry in a case where the police are themselves accused, asserting that continuing the current investigation would only further erode public trust in the system.

Drawing parallels with the precedent set in the 2023 Badlapur custodial death case, where the Bombay High Court had ordered an SIT to probe the custodial killing of Akshay Shinde—an accused in a sexual assault case allegedly killed in a staged encounter—advocate Gandhi urged the court to issue similar directions in Suryawanshi’s case. In the Badlapur matter, Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale had ordered an SIT led by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai, Lakhmi Gautam, and allowed him to form his own team, led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, with officers from any department of his choosing.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, public prosecutor A.B. Girase, representing the Maharashtra government, informed the court that the state intends to file an affidavit in response to the concerns raised.

The court’s restraint order, along with its strong observations, underscores a growing judicial intolerance toward the mishandling of custodial death investigations. It also signals a potential shift towards stricter judicial oversight in such cases. If the court accedes to the petitioner’s demand for an SIT and guidelines for handling custodial deaths, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for accountability mechanisms in police custody cases across the state.

Related:

Magistrate probe indicts Parbhani police in Somnath Suryawanshi custodial death: MSHRC

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

Massive all-party march in Parbhani demands justice for Dalit youth’s custodial death

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

The post Biased and Preconceived: Bombay HC criticises police inquiry into Parbhani custodial death of Somnath Suryawanshi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The proceedings for these arrests, six in total,   including three retired teachers and a government employee, for various social media posts—ranging from questioning government failures to allegedly defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi– in the context of the Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir were made in quick moves,  while  no strict and concrete actions  have been taken against those openly calling for violence against minorities, secular persons, and Opposition party members,  is the allegation against the police and their policies.

The recent arrests reportedly came after some ‘Hindu activists’, identifying themselves as ‘sanatanis’, marched the streets or lodged police complaints, even  branding the accused as “communists and anti-nationals”. They reportedly also unleashed a campaign for these arrests through online posts.

Among those arrested are:

Jahar Debnath, a retired teacher from Ambassa in the Dhalai district in Tripura, who is alleged to have questioned the “perceived silence of Hindu deities during the killing of Hindus in Pahalgam” in a social media post. In another post, he demanded punishment for supporters of the Pahalgam attackers: “Those who support the brutality of Pahalgam should be hanged publicly.” Before his arrest, Debnath could issue a statement saying: “If any of my posts hurt anyone, I apologize (in the context of questioning ‘silence’).”

Kuldip Mondol, a Students Federation of India (SFI) leader, from the same locality, was arrested for “supporting Debnath” and “expressing similar views”. Both were labelled as “communist” and “anti-national” by so-called ‘sanatanis’.

Debnath and Mandal have been charged under stringent Sections 152 and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and others. Section 152 criminalises inciting secession or rebellion against India, punishable by life imprisonment. Section 299 punishes deliberate insults to religious feelings, carrying up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine. Both are under five days of judicial custody.

Sajal Chakraborty, a retired teacher from a northern Tripura sub-division, Dharmanagar, is said to have questioned intelligence failure in a social media post, suggesting similarities of Pahalgam with the Pulwama attack and its possible electoral implications. He demanded the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for the “lapses”. In a comment on someone else’s post, he also  suggested that with elections due in Uttar Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal and Kerala, such an incident appeared “an attempt to gather support”.

Chakraborty has been charged under BNS Sections of 196, 352 and 353, for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony. Section 196 criminalises actions or speech that incite hatred or disharmony between communities. Section 353 addresses statements or information that could lead to public mischief, fear, or harm, particularly when they incite hatred or enmity between different groups. Section 352 addresses the offense of intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace. It penalizes individuals who deliberately insult others, knowing or intending that their actions will incite a person to disturb public order or commit a crime.

Prabir Chaudhuri, another retired teacher from Dharmanagar, was arrested in follow-up action after a group of BJP kariyakartas complained against him a day after Chakraborty’s arrest, for commenting “right” etc., on a post by Chakraborty.

Mansoor Ali, a government employee in the state fire department, was arrested by the Dharmanagar police for posting images “defaming PM Modi, HM Amit Shah, and Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.”

In all the cases, certain saffron brigade  or BJP leaders are said to have filed cases or complaints.

Jahirul Islam from Sonamura, a religious minority-predominated sub-division in the Western Tripura, was arrested for a social media post for allegedly issuing a warning of violence against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has been granted bail.

The R K Pur police of the Gomati district arrested one Sadek Miah at his home from another district in an ‘wee hours operation’  for allegedly posting defaming content against the Prime Minister, said an police officer adding that there is another accused of the same kind, and the youths might have been misguided.

The arrests come in the backdrop of members of some saffron-aligned groups openly spreading hate against a religious  minority community.  For instance, Tripura Yuba Morcha (a ruling BJP affiliate) state spokesperson Amlan Mukherjee, in his posts, has labelled members of the religious minority community as “terrorists”. He has allegedly called upon ‘Bengali Hindus’ to stop donating blood (for patients), and vowed not to donate blood to ‘*****’.  In another post, the BJP youth leader has even reportedly made derogatory remarks “connecting the birth of ‘secular Left and Congress’ activists”. Mimicking the colonial British paraphrase of “Dogs and Indians…”, he has displayed a poster on his Facebook page, “Dogs and ****** are not allowed.”

It may be mentioned that BJP is in alliance with two Scheduled Tribe- based parties, IPFT and Tipra Motha, and has been running the state government.

In contrast to the arrests, questions are being raised as to why the police are yet to take firm action against those spreading hate  against the minority community and  attempting to promote  enmity among different communities via social media posts and videos. For instance, a purported video circulating on social media openly threatens gory physical violence against Muslims and secular voices, posted by one Chandan Debnath of Belonia in South Tripura.

In the wee hours, the police reportedly took Debnath to the police station and released him on a personal bond. This reporter spoke to the OC, who said they prosecuted him under BNSS 126 and BNSS 129. Several lawyers, who have been watching these proceedings,  opining to the action that came  after days from postings of the alleged video,  commented, ” Too little” and “Too late”.

The retired teachers or a youth, who raised questions, and demanded the Home Minister’s resignation for “lapses” or saw the possibility of national tragedies turning into electoral gains, are being prosecuted in almost a lightning speed.

Those lawyers pointed, ” Jahar Debnath, Kuldip Mondol were arrested within 24-hours after they wrote those posts, and under stringent sections, while Chandan Debnath got  a walk-in and go home chance.”

No action has also been taken against several persons affiliated with Sangh   outfits, such as one Pranab Das, a teacher from Sabroom, a southern sub-division, who called for violence against minorities  as well as “Secular Hindus, Congress, Trinamool and CPI(M)” in a social median post.

“No ****** can live in our Tripura and India. If you see any ****** kill them and also kill Secular Hindus, Congress, Trinamool and CPI (M),” he reportedly wrote.

The crackdown drive by Tripura Police seems to have mainly focused on those questioning the State’s failures, crticising BJP leaders,  or  religious narratives disliked by the saffron brigade. BJP youth leader Mukherjee’s communal posts continue without facing any legal action.

A right wing  group at the Gomati district headquarters had  been staging demonstrations  from the morning blocking a highway bridge  demanding the arrest of a youth who, according to them, made inappropriate remarks against a deity. They chanted slogans like, “We will peel off skin,” and, “Wherever he is on this planet, he should be arrested.” However, there have also been alleged derogatory remarks against other religious figure.The police gave them an undertaking to arrest the accused in a time bound manner by completing tasks of  deporting him from abroad!

A section of people perceived to be from the intellectual class, such as physicians and journalists, are also highly  active in hate-mongering.

The complaint leading to the arrest of Jahar Debnath and Kuldip Mandal was filed by Parashar Biswas, a local press reporter. Ironically, Biswas himself had recently posted inflammatory content suggesting that “tip-clipped” (circumcised?) people from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and ‘here’ should be killed. No police action has been taken against him either.

An influential leader of government doctors in Tripura, Dr. Ajoy Biswas, mocked ‘Bapu’ in a post, writing: “If Bapu were alive today, he would have gone on a hunger strike unto death, for stopping  the water supply to Pakistan.”

In a separate post on April 20, Dr. Biswas wrote: “Hindus do not block roads because they respect the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not respect Hindus because they do not block roads.”

Both the journalist and the doctor are evidently aligned with the saffron ideology.

These are only a few instances amid the flood of posts and comments in social media after the Pahalgam terror incident. But, targeting secular and liberal persons seems to have become ‘normal’ in the state.

Two days ago,  two CPI(M) party offices, in Dharmanagar and Dukli, were attacked, including the personal car of a state-level Left leader.  A district-level Left leader Haridhan Debnath is recuperating in hospital after being allegedly attacked.

According to political observers, the crackdown on social media posts appears to have been triggered by the demands made by certain saffron  groups, and silence on  or absence of actions to hate-speech targeting  seculars, minorities  stand in sharp contrast to Prime Minister Modi’s statements: “We are secular not because the word was added in our Constitution. Secularism is in our blood. We believe in Sarva Pantha Sambhava.” He tweeted these in 2014.

Meanwhile, CPI(M)’s Jitendra Chowdhury, who is Leader of Opposition in the Tripura Assembly, has reacted sharply to the recent events in the state.

“This is not the time for allegations and counter-allegations. It is a time of crisis when the whole nation must unite to fight terrorism, whether it is outside or inside the country, this is not the time for mudslinging. Unfortunately, I am seeing that ruling party workers and supporters are directly inciting violence.”

Chowdhury cited a teacher from Manubazar “openly saying that Muslims should not be allowed to stay in India and that CPI(M), Congress, and secularists should be attacked. Where are the police? Where is the cyber cell? Sadly, a retired teacher and a youth have been arrested in Ambassa for peaceful calls to unite people against terrorism. It is not a crime to call for peace. Why is there no action against ruling party leaders giving threats on social media?”

The CPI(M) leader urged the Chief Minister and DGP: “Please remember that the administration has no political party. If the administration acts with one eye closed, terrorists will be encouraged. This is not the right way to fight terrorism. Those writing such things on social media must refrain. The unity of the people of India is essential.”

Despite repeated attempts by this reporter, police authorities did not respond to queries. Messages and emails to IGP (Law and Order) Manchak Ippar and SP (Police Control) Ranadhir Debbarma remained unanswered. Only AIGP (Law and Order) Ananta Das responded, stating that he was on leave and could not comment, and advised contacting Debbarma, who is in-charge—but those attempts too yielded no response. Other police sources were tight-lipped when asked how the police were viewing the matter overall, including social media comments and counter-comments related to the Pahalgam incident. Some of the queries were: How many people have been arrested in total? Names and details? Exactly what charges have been filed against them, and under which sections? Regarding the posts that led to their arrests, what exactly was written? Some alleged obscene remarks about ‘Tripureshwari’ have circulated on social media, though the person in question posted an apology—has he been arrested? Also, a post demanding this person be ‘sacrificed’ has surfaced. A seemingly retaliatory post to his contains alleged derogatory remarks about another religious entity. Has any action been taken in these cases? Posts advocating violence against a particular community, Opposition party members, and secularists have appeared. Has any action been taken in these contexts? If not, surely there must be some reasons. What are those reasons? However, no response has been received from any officer, even after a considerable time has elapsed.

Meanwhile, the Tripura Police has issued a warning against forwarding communal content—similar to statements made during the 2018 mob lynching spree, which resulted in few or no concrete actions.

Also, the Chief Minister convened a meeting with the SPs and DMs, reportedly to identify foreigners staying in the state illegally. No Pakistanis have been found in the state so far, claimed a source.

The writer is a freelancer based in Tripura. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Pahalgam: Tripura Police Face Allegations of Bias Amid Arrests for Social Media Posts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The IJR 2025 delivers a sobering yet illuminating portrait of the state of justice delivery across the country. Drawing from government data across police, judiciary, prisons, legal aid, and human rights commissions, it presents a powerful call to action. Despite pockets of progress, the national picture remains dominated by chronic capacity deficits, deep systemic inequalities, and a sluggish pace of reform.

A System Under Strain: Deficits and gaps

Across the pillars of justice, major structural weaknesses persist. Police forces nationwide allocate a mere 1.25% of their budget to training, a clear indicator that human capital development remains a low priority. Alarmingly, no state or union territory meets its own reserved quotas for women in the police, exposing deep gender disparities at the very frontline of law enforcement.

The forensic science ecosystem, crucial to modern crime detection and fair trials, is also buckling. Half the sanctioned forensic staff positions across the country remain vacant, paralysing investigations and exacerbating delays. In prisons, conditions continue to deteriorate: 176 prisons report occupancy rates of 200% or more, while over 20% of undertrial prisoners have been incarcerated for one to three years without conviction — an indictment of both police investigation and judicial functioning.

Judicial backlogs have reached staggering heights, with over five crore cases pending across court levels, reflecting a crippling burden on the system. Meanwhile, the promise of judicial dynamism is undermined by the fact that only 4% of cases are initiated suo motu — a marker of proactive judicial intervention — leaving citizens heavily dependent on individual litigation to seek redress.

In the realm of legal aid, there has been a disheartening drop in the number of paralegal volunteers since 2019, and access to basic legal advice in rural and marginalised communities remains worryingly thin.

The crisis extends to prisoner welfare too. For a prison population exceeding 5.7 lakh, the country boasts just 25 sanctioned psychologists or psychiatrists, with 25 states and UTs sanctioning none at all. The absence of mental health support in overcrowded, violent environments exacerbates the cycles of trauma and criminality that prisons are supposed to break.

Green Shoots: Signs of progress

Yet, amidst these dismal findings, rays of hope shine through. A steady expansion of digital infrastructure and gender diversity points towards meaningful, if limited, gains.

By 2025:

• 83% of police stations have at least one CCTV camera, a critical tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in custodial settings.
• 78% of police stations now have women’s helpdesks, offering marginal improvements in gender-sensitive policing.
• 86% of prisons are equipped with at least one video-conferencing facility, easing prisoner access to courts without physical transfers.
• The share of women judges in the district judiciary has climbed to 38%, a vital step towards a more representative bench.

Notably, six states now meet the recommended benchmark of one woman medical officer for every 300 women inmates in prisons, addressing a long-standing neglect of gender-sensitive prison health services.

High courts have managed to maintain case clearance rates exceeding 100% annually since 2017, a promising trend suggesting some resilience even under extreme workload pressures.

Data based on the national findings:

1. Who Leads, Who Lags: Rankings across states

Large and mid-sized states (Map 1)

• Karnataka retains the top position among 18 large states, with a composite score of 6.78/10.
• Andhra Pradesh makes a remarkable jump to second place (6.32), up from fifth earlier.
• Telangana ranks third (6.15), showing consistent progress since 2019.
• Kerala and Tamil Nadu complete the top five.

At the bottom:

• Bihar, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal occupy the lowest ranks.
• West Bengal drops to the bottom (18^th place), swapping places with Uttar Pradesh.

Small states (Map 2)

• Sikkim remains the top-ranked small state (5.20/10).
• Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh follow closely.
• Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Goa slide to the bottom ranks among the seven small states.

2. Scorecards of Change: Who improved? (Figure 1: Improvement scorecard)

The report measured whether states had improved between the 2022 and 2025 editions across 68 indicators.

Top improvers among large states:

• Bihar improved on 47 out of 68 indicators — the highest improvement rate.
• Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Karnataka also showed strong positive shifts (around 40 indicators each).

Among small states:

• Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim were the most consistent improvers.

Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh showed moderate improvements, while states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu showed worrying stagnation or decline.

3. Diversity and Representation: Still a distant goal?

Diversity rankings (Figure 2)

• Karnataka is the only large state to meet SC, ST, and OBC quotas in both police and judiciary.
• Caste-based diversity in judicial appointments is poor across most states, despite constitutional mandates.

Women’s representation (Figure 3–5)

• Five states — Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chandigarh, Ladakh, and Tamil Nadu — are moving steadily towards achieving 33% women’s representation in police.
• District judiciary has seen a steady rise in women judges, now at 38%, but High Courts and Supreme Court continue to show male domination.
• Projections suggest that even at the current pace, it will take decades for full gender parity.

4. Human Resources: Vacancies and gaps (Figure 7–9)

• Judge-to-population ratios remain poor across almost all states; subordinate courts suffer from 20% judicial vacancies on average.
• Police vacancies have barely improved since 2017.
• Forensics staffing is dangerously low, jeopardising the quality of investigations and trials; Out of nearly 10,000 sanctioned posts across states, nearly 50% remain vacant.

5. Justice system intent and budgets (Figure 10-11)

• Budgets for judiciary, legal aid, and police have increased — but primarily towards salaries, with little new investment in training, modernisation, or infrastructure.
• States’ contributions to legal aid budgets remain minimal, indicating a continued lack of political will.

6. Pendency of cases (Figure 12-15)

• Cases pending for more than three years account for a large proportion of the backlog in subordinate courts.
• Cases pending more than five years are also rising steadily — indicating systemic failures in ensuring timely justice.

Regional leaders and laggards

Southern states dominate the upper echelons of the justice delivery rankings. Karnataka leads among large states, followed closely by Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka stands out as the only state that meets Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Other Backward Classes quotas in both the police and judiciary.

Among smaller states, Sikkim has consistently retained its top position, followed by Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh. In contrast, Goa, Mizoram, and Meghalaya have slipped to the bottom rungs.

At the lower end, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal continue to battle for last place among larger states, highlighting severe structural deficits.

Capacity challenges across the board

The findings also reveal that capacity-building remains elusive across pillars. Police forces struggle with low personnel numbers and training investments. Prisons remain overcrowded and under-resourced. Judicial strength and efficiency remain hostage to persistent vacancies and procedural rigidity. Legal aid services show shrinking outreach efforts. State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) display improved case disposal rates, but this masks a worrying trend: many SHRCs reject complaints at the outset rather than offering substantive resolutions, compromising their integrity and public trust.

Moreover, while technology adoption has expanded — with platforms like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and NALSA’s legal aid management system — poor internet access, patchy digitisation, and bureaucratic inertia hamper real transformation.

A call to action

The India Justice Report 2025 makes it starkly clear: without serious, sustained investment in the structural capacities of the justice system, without a genuine commitment to inclusion, transparency, and systemic reform, India’s vision of equitable, accessible justice will remain out of reach.

Data from the report underscores that while isolated improvements are visible, the system as a whole still falters. Fragmented, underfunded, and often discriminatory, India’s justice institutions need not just incremental changes but a concerted, well-resourced overhaul.

The findings are not just a mirror of current realities, but a roadmap for an ambitious, necessary transformation — one where justice, as promised by the Constitution, can become a lived reality for all.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

Beed to Delhi: Lawyer beaten in Maharashtra, judge threatened in Delhi—what the path for justice means for women practioners in today’s India

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale released: Seven years of injustice by a state that punishes dissent

The post Underfunded, Overburdened, and Unjust: The national verdict from the India Justice Report 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Part 1: The Legacy of Waqf – From pious endowments to modern law

The concept of Waqf is deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, representing a unique form of religious and charitable endowment. In Islamic law, Waqf signifies the permanent dedication, by a person professing Islam (known as the Waqif), of any property, whether movable or immovable, for purposes recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious, or charitable. Crucially, once a property is declared Waqf, its ownership is considered to vest in God Almighty, rendering it inalienable – it cannot typically be sold, gifted, or inherited. The income generated from these properties is earmarked for specific objectives outlined by the Waqif, such as the upkeep of mosques, dargahs, graveyards, imambaras, the support of educational institutions (madrasas), or providing assistance to the poor and needy within the community. A caretaker, known as a Mutawalli, is usually appointed to manage the property’s day-to-day affairs.

There are 872,000 registered Waqf properties across the country, running into lakhs of acres. This immense scale explains the socio-economic and religious significance of Waqf assets within the Muslim community.

The administration of these properties has evolved through various legislative frameworks over the past century. An early attempt at regulation was the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923. Post-independence, the Waqf Act, 1954, marked the first significant effort to establish a structured system for managing these endowments. This Act underwent several amendments (in 1959, 1964, 1969, and 1984) aimed at refining administrative processes.

A more comprehensive legal structure arrived with the Waqf Act, 1995. This Act repealed the 1954 law and its subsequent amendments, seeking to provide for the “better administration of Auqaf (Waqfs) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. The 1995 Act laid down the framework for establishing State Waqf Boards and a Central Waqf Council, defining their powers and functions. Further amendments were introduced in 2013 by the then UPA government, which, among other changes, formally established the statutory framework for State Waqf Boards and increased the permissible lease period for Waqf properties from three years to thirty years, aiming for better utilization of assets.

This historical progression of legislation reveals a trend towards increasing formalisation and state intervention in the management of Waqf properties. What began as a community-managed religious practice gradually came under greater regulatory scrutiny, reflecting the complex interplay between religious institutions, community autonomy, and the state’s administrative imperatives. The sheer scale and value of Waqf assets have inevitably drawn governmental interest, shifting the focus over time from purely religious oversight towards broader concerns of administration, management efficiency, and, as recent events suggest, potentially political control. The 1995 Act itself represented a significant step in this direction, setting the stage for the more pervasive changes introduced in 2025.

Part 2: Understanding the Waqf Act, 1995: Key Provisions Explained

The Waqf Act, 1995, served as the cornerstone of Waqf administration in India for nearly three decades before the recent amendments. Understanding its key provisions is essential to grasp the significance of the changes brought about by the 2025 Act.

Defining and recognizing Waqf (Section 3 (r) – Pre-amendment)

The 1995 Act recognised Waqf formation through three primary means:

1. Declaration: A formal dedication of property by its lawful owner for religious or charitable purposes under Muslim law.
2. Waqf by User: This crucial provision allowed a property to be recognised as Waqf if it had been used for a long period for any religious or charitable purpose recognized under Muslim law, even in the absence of a formal dedication deed. This acknowledged the reality of many historical endowments, particularly older mosques, graveyards, or community spaces, where formal documentation might be lost or non-existent but continuous religious use established its character.
3. Waqf-alal-aulad: An endowment where the benefits primarily accrue to the founder’s family or descendants for a specified period, with the ultimate benefit designated for a religious or charitable purpose upon the extinction of the family line.

Governance Structure

The Act established a hierarchical structure for Waqf administration:

• State Waqf Boards (Establishment under Section 13, Composition under Section 14 – Pre-amendment): The Act mandated the establishment of a Waqf Board in every state. States could also establish separate Boards for Shia and Sunni Waqfs if their population and Waqf numbers warranted it.
  • Composition: The Boards were designed to be predominantly composed of Muslim members, reflecting the religious nature of the institutions they governed. Section 14 provided for a mix of elected and nominated members. Elected members included up to two representatives each from electoral colleges comprising Muslim Members of Parliament (MPs), Muslim Members of State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and Legislative Councils (MLCs), and Muslim members of the State Bar Council. Nominated members included government officials and individuals recognized for their expertise in Islamic law, finance, or administration. The Act also mandated the inclusion of at least two women members.
  • Functions (Section 32): The Boards were vested with the general superintendence of all Waqfs within the state. Their key functions included ensuring that Waqfs were properly maintained, controlled, and administered according to the Act, Muslim law, and the specific objectives laid out in the Waqf deed; settling schemes for management; directing the utilization of surplus income for approved purposes; scrutinizing and approving budgets submitted by Mutawallis; and appointing or removing Mutawallis under specified conditions.
• Central Waqf Council (Establishment under Section 9 – Pre-amendment): At the national level, the Act provided for a Central Waqf Council.
  • Composition: It was chaired by the Union Minister in charge of Waqf. Critically, Section 9 stipulated that, barring the Minister, all other members of the Council had to be Muslims. These included MPs, scholars of Islamic theology, representatives of national-level Muslim organizations, and former judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. At least two members were required to be women.
  • Role: The Council’s function was primarily advisory. It was tasked with advising the Central Government, State Governments, and the State Waqf Boards on matters concerning the effective administration of Waqfs and the functioning of the Boards.
• Mutawalli (Defined in Section 3 (i)): The Act defined a Mutawalli as any person appointed, either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a Waqf has been created, or by a competent authority, to manage or administer such Waqf. They were the primary managers at the property level, responsible for implementing the Waqf’s objectives and managing its income and expenditure, subject to the oversight and direction of the State Waqf Board.
• Survey Commissioner (Section 4 – Pre-amendment): The state government was required to appoint a Survey Commissioner to conduct preliminary surveys of all Waqf properties existing in the state. The Commissioner was responsible for identifying Waqfs, investigating their nature and extent, and submitting a report to the state government and the Waqf Board.

Identifying and Managing Waqf Property

• The Power of Section 40 (Pre-amendment): This section granted the State Waqf Board the power to determine, after conducting an inquiry, whether a particular property was Waqf property. The Board could issue notices to interested parties and hold hearings.
• Registration of Waqfs (Section 36): The Act mandated the registration of all Waqfs, whether created before or after the commencement of the Act, at the office of the respective State Waqf Board.
• Protection of Waqf Property: The Act included provisions to safeguard Waqf assets:
  • Restrictions on Alienation (Section 51): It generally prohibited the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, or transfer of Waqf property. Leases exceeding one year (or three years for agricultural land) required prior sanction from the Board (Section 56). The 2013 amendment significantly extended the permissible lease period up to 30 years with Board approval, aiming for better economic utilization.
  • Penalties for Encroachment (Section 52A – added by 2013 amendment): This section defined ‘encroacher’ and prescribed penalty of imprisonment for up to two years, for illegally occupying Waqf property.

Dispute Resolution

• Waqf Tribunals (Establishment under Section 83 – Pre-amendment): To handle disputes related to Waqf properties, the Act mandated that state governments constitute one or more Tribunals. These Tribunals had jurisdiction over questions such as whether a property is Waqf, disputes regarding Mutawallis, or issues concerning Waqf administration.
  • Composition: Section 83 specified the composition: a Chairman who was a member of the State Judicial Service (holding a rank not below that of a District, Sessions, or Civil Judge, Class I), one member from the State Civil Services (equivalent in rank to at least an Additional District Magistrate), and crucially, one member having knowledge of Muslim law and jurisprudence. This composition aimed to blend judicial, administrative, and religious legal expertise.
  • Jurisdiction (Section 85): The Tribunals were granted exclusive jurisdiction over Waqf matters, explicitly barring suits or legal proceedings in civil courts concerning any dispute required to be determined by the Tribunal under the Act.
• Finality of Tribunal Decisions (Section 85 – Pre-amendment): The Act did allow the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction – it could call for records and pass orders either on its own motion (suo motu) or on the application of the Board or an aggrieved person on any matter which has been determined by the tribunals, and even modify such order.

Exemption from Limitation Act (Section 107 – Pre-amendment)

• A significant protective measure was Section 107, which stipulated that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which sets time limits for initiating legal action) would not apply to any suit for the possession of immovable property in any Waqf. The purpose of this exemption was to safeguard Waqf properties from being lost due to adverse possession – where an encroacher occupies land openly and continuously for a prescribed period (typically 12 years for private immovable property under the Limitation Act). Section 107 allowed Waqf Boards to initiate recovery proceedings for encroached land regardless of how long the encroachment had persisted.

Significance of the 1995 Act

The 1995 Act, therefore, represented a layered legal architecture attempting to balance the unique religious nature of Waqf with the requirements of modern administration and state oversight. Provisions ensuring Muslim majority representation on Boards and Councils, and the inclusion of Muslim law experts in Tribunals, sought to maintain the institution’s religious integrity. However, the very establishment of state-controlled Boards, the appointment of Survey Commissioners, the broad powers under Section 40, and the Tribunal system itself signified substantial state involvement.

Part 3: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: What has changed?

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, introduces sweeping changes to the 1995 framework, impacting nearly every aspect of Waqf definition, governance, property management, and dispute resolution. The government has renamed the legislation the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act” (UMEED Act), in line with the government’s enthusiasm to rename things.

Redefining Waqf creation and scope:

• New Criteria for Declaration (Amended Section 3(r), New Section 3A): The Act imposes new conditions for creating a Waqf by declaration. Firstly, only a person who has demonstrably practiced Islam for at least five years can now declare a Waqf. Secondly, the Act explicitly requires the person creating the Waqf (Waqif) to be the lawful owner of the property being dedicated.
• Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’ Prospectively (Amended Section 3(r)): The Act removes the concept of ‘Waqf by user’ for recognising future This means properties cannot be newly recognised as Waqf based solely on long-term religious or charitable use without a formal declaration by a qualified owner. While the amendment includes a proviso stating that existing properties registered as ‘Waqf by user’ before the Act’s commencement will remain Waqf, it adds a crucial exception: this protection does not apply if the property is “wholly or in part, in dispute or is a government property”. This exception clause creates uncertainty for many existing ‘Waqf by user’ properties, particularly those facing legal challenges or situated on land claimed by the government.
• Waqf-alal-aulad clarification (new Section 3A(2)): The amendment specifies that the creation of a Waqf-alal-aulad (family Waqf) must not result in the denial of inheritance rights to the Waqif’s heirs, explicitly including women heirs, or infringe upon the rights of others with lawful claims. This is presented by the government as a measure to ensure gender equality and protect inheritance rights.

Shift in Property identification and Survey:

• Deletion of Section 40: The Section 40, which empowered State Waqf Boards to declare properties as Waqf after an inquiry, has been entirely removed.
• Collector’s Role in Survey (Amended Section 4): The role of the Survey Commissioner is abolished. Instead, the District Collector (or an authorised officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector) is now responsible for conducting surveys of potential Waqf properties. These surveys are to be conducted according to the procedures laid out in the state’s revenue laws. This transfers significant authority from a potentially specialised body focused on Waqf to generalist revenue administration officials, raising concerns about potential bias and lack of specialized knowledge.
• Government property: The Act explicitly states that any government property identified as Waqf will cease to be considered Waqf property. In cases of uncertainty regarding ownership between Waqf claims and government claims, the Collector is empowered to determine ownership and report to the state government.

Changes in governance bodies (Amended Sections 9, 14):

• Inclusion of Non-Muslims: A major structural change is the mandatory inclusion of non-Muslim members in both the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. The Act specifies at least two non-Muslim members for State Boards and mandates two non-Muslims on the Council, while also removing the previous requirement that certain categories of Council members (like MPs, former judges, eminent persons) must be Muslim.
• Nomination over Election: The previous system where some members of State Waqf Boards were elected by specific Muslim electoral colleges (MPs, MLAs/MLCs, Bar Council members) has been abolished. The Act now empowers the state government to nominate all members of the State Waqf Boards. This significantly increases state government control over the composition and functioning of the Boards.
• Mandated Representation: While increasing government control, the Act also mandates specific representation within the nominated Boards. They must include at least one member each from Shia, Sunni, and recognized Backward Classes among Muslims. Additionally, if there are Bohra or Agakhani Waqfs in the state, one member from each of these communities must be included. The requirement for female representation is retained, specifying that at least two Muslim members must be women.

Tribunal reforms (Amended Section 83, Omission of Section 85 finality clause):

• New Composition: The Tribunal will now consist of three members like before but with some changes in the composition: a Chairman who is a current or former District Court judge, and a member who is a current or former state government officer of the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent and a person having the knowledge of Muslim law.
• Appeal to High Court: In essence, provides a 90 day time limit to appeal the tribunal’s decisions to the High Court. However, the appeal provision existed in the 1995 act too.
• Digital Mandate and Financial Changes:
• Central Portal and Database (New Section 3B, Amended Section 3(ka)): The Act mandates the establishment of a central online portal and database managed by the Central Government. All existing Waqfs registered under the Act prior to the amendment are required to file detailed information about the Waqf and its properties on this portal within six months of the Act’s commencement.
• Contribution Reduction: The mandatory annual contribution payable by Waqfs from their net annual income to the State Waqf Board for administrative expenses is reduced from 7% to 5%.

Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 (Omission of Section 107):

• Perhaps one of the most impactful changes is the omission of Section 107 of the 1995 Act. This means the Limitation Act, 1963, which sets time limits for filing lawsuits, will now apply to Waqf properties like any other property from now on. Consequently, the special protection Waqf properties previously enjoyed against claims of adverse possession is removed. Individuals or entities who have illegally occupied Waqf land for the period specified under the Limitation Act (often 12 years for immovable property) could potentially claim legal ownership, severely hindering the ability of Waqf Boards to reclaim long-encroached properties and effectively legitimizing past illegal encroachments.

These amendments, viewed collectively, represent a significant shift in the governance philosophy surrounding Waqf. While the 1995 Act balanced community involvement with state oversight, the 2025 changes appear to tilt this balance decisively towards state control. The removal of the Board’s power under Section 40, the replacement of the Survey Commissioner with the Collector, the introduction of nominated Boards with mandatory non-Muslim presence, and the altered Tribunal composition all point to a reduced role for community institutions and increased authority for government functionaries.

Part 4: A question of rights: How the 2025 amendments impact minorities

The passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has been met with strong opposition and rightly so. A widespread concern regarding its impact on the fundamental rights of India’s Muslim minority is prevalent. Why?

Erosion of religious autonomy (Violation of Article 26)

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The 2025 Act infringes upon this right by significantly increasing government control over Waqf administration. The transfer of survey powers to the District Collector, the replacement of elected Board members with government nominees, and, most notably, the mandatory inclusion of non-Muslims in the governing bodies (State Boards and Central Council) are direct state interference in the management of inherently religious and charitable endowments established under Muslim law.

Concerns over Non-Muslim representation

While the government presents the inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards and the Council as a move towards inclusivity and secular administration, this provision fails to hide the intentions of the ruling establishments to somehow gain control over the spaces that have been reserved for Muslims. When contrasted with the strict norms for say the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam where the service rules mandate that any appointment to any category of post in the TTD should be made from among the persons professing Hindu Religion. Some employees were pulled up in February 2025 for engaging in non-Hindu activities and were sent memos.

The question of whether our society can hire individuals from different religions for non-religious roles—and what it reveals about us if we cannot—is a separate and deeply important conversation in itself. However, what needs to be noted here is that if traditional Hindu dominions like the TTD have such strict and well accepted rules over all categories of employees, it is not fair to have non-Muslims’ representation in dominions that have been held by Muslims for generations now. This is not a question of essential religious practices but a question of how spaces occupied by two religions are being treated differently.

The argument is that Waqf properties are specifically dedicated under Islamic law for purposes defined by that law, and their management should primarily rest with members of the Muslim community who understand the religious context and obligations.

Weakening property protection and potential for dispossession

Several amendments are directly weakening the legal protections afforded to Waqf properties, raising fears of systematic dispossession:

Impact of Removing Section 107

The repeal of the exemption from the Limitation Act, 1963, is arguably one of the most damaging changes. By making Waqf properties subject to claims of adverse possession (typically after 12 years of uninterrupted illegal occupation), the Act potentially legitimizes decades of encroachment and makes it significantly harder, if not impossible, for Waqf Boards to recover vast tracts of land illegally occupied in the past. This fundamentally undermines the principle of Waqf property being inalienable and perpetually dedicated.

For example, in Telangana, more than 70% of Waqf land has been encroached by various elements. Now, the biggest protection to Waqf was that even if the encroachers squatted on the land for more than 12 years, they would not have had the right to claim it and this changed with the amendment thus putting the encroached properties in danger.

Impact of abolishing ‘Waqf by User’

Removing the possibility of recognizing new Waqfs based on long-term usage closes off a vital avenue for protecting historical community assets where formal documentation is lacking. Furthermore, the caveat that even existing registered ‘Waqf by user’ properties lose protection if they are disputed or on government land creates significant vulnerability.

Collector’s Enhanced Role: Empowering the District Collector, a revenue official accountable to the state government, to conduct surveys and determine ownership in case of disputes involving government land fuels concerns about political interference and decisions potentially biased against Waqf claims. 

Arbitrary restrictions and discrimination

Certain provisions that have been brought via the amendment are plain arbitrary and discriminatory

• The ‘5-year practice’ rule

The requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf is an arbitrary and intrusive limitation on religious freedom. It imposes an unnecessary burden of proof on individuals born into the faith and lacks a clear legislative rationale.

• Exclusion of ‘Waqf by User’

The prospective abolition of ‘Waqf by user’ is discriminatory against a historically significant method of recognizing community endowments based on established practice.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, enacted under the banner of the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Act,” seeks to reform the administration of Waqf properties in India. However, a critical examination reveals that its provisions represent a significant regression, fundamentally undermining the religious autonomy and property rights of the Muslim minority, thereby challenging constitutional safeguards.

A central pillar of this critique rests upon the Act’s assault on the autonomy guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution, which allows religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The systematic replacement of elected members on State Waqf Boards with government nominees, coupled with the mandated inclusion of non-Muslim members in both State Boards and the Central Waqf Council, constitutes an unprecedented level of state interference in the governance of institutions intrinsically linked to Islamic faith and practice. This contrasts starkly with the governance norms often applied to the endowments of other faiths, raising legitimate concerns about discriminatory application of legislative principles.

Furthermore, the Act delivers a severe blow to the protection of Waqf properties. The repeal of Section 107 of the 1995 Act, which shielded Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, 1963, is particularly damaging. This single amendment potentially legitimizes decades of illegal encroachment by allowing claims of adverse possession, threatening the recovery of vast tracts of land  that were intended for perpetual religious and charitable use. This action directly contradicts the core Islamic principle of Waqf property being inalienable.

While framed as a move towards transparency and efficiency, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, functions as a mechanism for increased state control over minority religious institutions and assets. It markedly weakens property protections, erodes constitutionally guaranteed autonomy, and introduces potentially discriminatory clauses. Far from progressive reform, the Act represents a shift that jeopardizes the integrity and security of Waqf institutions and properties across India, rightly prompting serious constitutional challenges.

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

Related:

Amid Waqf Debate, Should Hindu Endowment Boards be Held Responsible for the Sorry Plight of Dalits?

Waqf Amendment Act 2025: SC grants some time to Centre on condition no non-Muslims appointed to Board, Council & no change in any Waqf status

SC to UoI on Waqf Amendment: ‘Are you willing to allow Muslims on Hindu endowment boards?’

The post Waqf Amendment Act 2025: An erosion of rights under the garb of reform appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Court did not stay the investigation, it directed the police that if they intend to question Kamra, they must do so in Chennai, where Kamra currently resides. Notably, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court also clarified that if a chargesheet is filed during the pendency of Kamra’s quashing plea, the trial court shall not proceed against him until the High Court has decided the matter. The order made permanent the interim protection that had been granted to Kamra earlier on April 16.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, argued that the FIR was a direct attack on the comedian’s constitutional right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. As per the report of Bar and Bench, he maintained that the impugned remarks were part of a larger political satire, a form of commentary that has long been protected in democratic societies. According to Seervai, the term gaddar was used in reference to the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena, when Eknath Shinde and a group of MLAs broke away from the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction and aligned.

Court’s key rulings and procedural safeguards

• Kamra shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR during the pendency of his petition.
• The Mumbai Police is permitted to continue the investigation but must question Kamra only in Chennai, his current place of residence.
• If the police file a chargesheet, the trial court must not initiate proceedings against Kamra until the High Court rules on the quashing petition.
• The police’s notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which does not require arrest. The court recorded this intention of non-arrest in its order.
• Should new material arise, the police may approach the court for further directions.

Arguments presented by Kamra’s counsel

1. Freedom of Speech under Article 19

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, firmly asserted that the content of Kamra’s comedy act falls squarely within the ambit of the right to free speech and expression protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He maintained that the performance was satirical in nature, dealt with public political events, and did not fall within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).

As per LiveLaw, referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, Seervai argued that censorious actions against artists amount to chilling effects and suppress free speech through fear of prosecution. He emphasised that this case was emblematic of the State’s misuse of legal processes, allegedly at the behest of a political party, to intimidate a comedian and send a broader message to dissenting artists.

2. Misuse of police machinery and procedural flaws

Seervai questioned the haste with which the FIR was filed. He pointed out that the complainant, Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, reportedly viewed the clip at 9:30 pm on March 23, filed a complaint at 10:45 pm, and an FIR was registered by 11:52 pm on the same night. Summons were issued the following day. As per Bar and Bench, Seervai contended that the FIR process was mechanically executed without due application of mind.

Additionally, he argued that Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to defamation, was incorrectly invoked since the person allegedly defamed—Eknath Shinde—had not filed the complaint himself.

3. Lack of grounds for Section 353 (1) (b) BNS

The charge under Section 353(1)(b) BNS, which concerns attempts to create fear or alarm leading to offences against the State or public tranquillity, was also challenged. Seervai maintained that Kamra’s act was a factual and satirical account of political developments in Maharashtra, notably the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena and the subsequent change in government. He argued that satire should not be judged at face value and must be assessed from the standpoint of a rational, strong-minded observer.

4. Death threats and intimidation

Highlighting the threats Kamra has received from political workers, Seervai accused the police of harassment by insisting on Kamra’s physical presence despite his willingness to cooperate via video conferencing. He described the police’s approach as a “witch hunt”, citing that audience members and the show’s production team were called for questioning over 60 times.

State Government’s submissions

1. Distinction between humour and malicious targeting

The State’s counsel contended that Kamra’s remarks were not protected by Article 19(1)(a) because they constituted a cognisable offence. According to the State, the content of Kamra’s act crossed the line from satirical critique to “malicious targeting” of an individual. The counsel argued that public figures also possess a right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that Kamra’s performance lowered Deputy CM Shinde’s dignity by targeting his appearance and political conduct.

The State rejected the comparison to politicians using similar language, stating that the absence of prior prosecution did not bar lawful action in Kamra’s case.

2. Section 353(2) and political community

The State also argued that Kamra’s clip promoted public mischief under Section 353(2) BNS. The counsel alleged that it contained false information and fostered ill-will. Notably, the State interpreted “community” to include political parties with large followings and common ideology, implying that Kamra’s remarks could foment hostility between political groups.

3. On threats and police conduct

While the State claimed responsibility for Kamra’s safety, it pointed out that Kamra had not filed any formal complaint about the threats. The High Court, however, acknowledged Kamra’s communications indicating fear for his safety and asked the police if his statement could be recorded in Chennai with the assistance of the local police.

When the State argued for liberty to arrest in future if new material emerged, the court responded that the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS already recorded the police’s current intent not to arrest and that the State could not now deny this position.

Background of the case

Kunal Kamra, who is currently residing in Tamil Nadu, had previously secured interim anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court, extended until April 17. The case stems from a Zero FIR initially filed under Sections 353 (1) (b), 353(2), and 356 (2) of the BNS at the behest of Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, who claimed that Kamra’s reference to a “traitor” was directed at Eknath Shinde. Although Shinde’s name was not explicitly mentioned in the performance, the MLA alleged that the remarks were clearly intended against him in the context of the Shiv Sena split.

The show, titled Naya Bharat, reportedly covered a range of political and social issues, including commentary on political opportunism, the power of India’s billionaire class, and gender inequality. Following the controversy, Shiv Sena workers vandalised Mumbai’s Habitat Studio, where Kamra had performed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the violence and later released on bail. Kamra maintains that he has been facing death threats ever since.

Kamra subsequently received multiple threats and moved the Madras High Court—since he currently resides in Tamil Nadu—seeking interim anticipatory bail. On April 7, 2025, the Madras High Court extended his interim protection from arrest until April 17. Thereafter, Kamra approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

Related:

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

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

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Bombay High Court grants permanent protection from arrest to Kunal Kamra in FIR over ‘Gaddar’ remark appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This case, which challenged the expulsion of a sitting Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) for alleged misconduct, brought to the forefront the inherent tension between the need to maintain order and decorum within legislatures and the imperative to safeguard democratic representation and the individual rights of elected representatives. In a way, it is also a check on majority parties trying to have their way in legislative houses on account of their brute majority.

Facts and context

The controversy leading to the legal challenge began with the expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, an MLC from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), by the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) in July 2024. The expulsion was a consequence of alleged derogatory remarks made by Dr. Singh against the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, during the budget session in February 2024. These remarks reportedly included sloganeering, using the term “Palturam” to suggest the Chief Minister’s propensity for political alliances, mimicking his body language.

Dr. Singh, a senior RJD leader known for his critical stance against the ruling Janata Dal (United) (JDU)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition, found himself facing disciplinary action in a politically charged environment. Following a complaint, the matter was referred to the Ethics Committee, where Dr. Singh initially sought exemptions from appearance. While another MLC involved in the same incident expressed regret, Dr. Singh reportedly questioned the committee’s authority. Ultimately, the Ethics Committee recommended Dr. Singh’s expulsion, a recommendation that was subsequently ratified by a majority vote in the BLC.

Dr. Singh challenged his expulsion by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Arguments

Dr. Singh contended that his remarks were merely a reflection of public opinion and that a much lighter punishment was given to another MLC involved in the same incident [Para 4(d)].

The Bihar Legislative Council, on the other hand, justified the expulsion as necessary to maintain the discipline and decorum of the House, citing Dr. Singh’s history of alleged misconduct and defiance [Para 6(e)]. It was also argued that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide on this issue due to the restrictions imposed by Article 212 on Courts to not inquire into proceedings of the legislature.

Judgement

On Jurisdiction to decide on a matter under Article 212

Article 212 of the Constitution states as follows:

212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature

(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

This, by literal reading, means that courts do not have jurisdiction over the proceedings of the legislature. In this case, the decision of the Ethics Committee was on the basis of the proceedings of the legislature meaning that there was an element of confusion as to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction or not.

The Court clarified this by holding that while Article 212(1) of the Constitution imposes limitations on judicial interference in legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities, however as in the present case, that this immunity does not extend to substantive decisions, especially those affecting fundamental rights [Para 12].

The Court considered the Ethics Committee’s recommendation for expulsion as an administrative function, thus subject to judicial review based on the principle of proportionality.

On expulsions effect on representative democracy

The democratic process in the legislatures, according to the court, relies on the active participation of all members and a brief absence can impede a member’s ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions. Therefore, it clarified that, while representation of the constituency is not the sole factor in determining the punishment to be imposed on a member, it nonetheless remains an important aspect that merits due consideration [Para 59].

The court stated that when the punishment inflicted on a member, is prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, held that the expulsion was “highly excessive” and “disproportionate” to the nature of the offense [Para 88].

The Court traced the evolution of the doctrine of proportionality in Indian constitutional law, referencing seminal cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), and Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of M.P. (2016). The Court emphasized the importance of the electorate’s right to representation and deemed the seven months Dr. Singh had already spent out of the council as sufficient punishment, ordering his immediate reinstatement [Para 88(d)].

Doctrines of proportionality and double proportionality

The principle of proportionality, which formed the bedrock of the Supreme Court’s judgment, is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, extending across various legal domains. Rooted in the ideals of fairness and the safeguarding of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, this doctrine dictates that the severity of a punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense.

For example, if someone commits a wrong like smoking a cigarette in a public space, it is a disproportionate action to have her house demolished. Instead, there should be a proportional punishment for such wrong. According to the court, the test of proportionality is satisfied by considering a myriad of non-exhaustive factors such as fairness, justice, absence of vindictiveness, predominance of objectivity, adherence to natural justice, fair play, and the recognition of mitigating circumstances etc.

While this doctrine is used in service matters and administrative law matters, it is also widely used in constitutional matters. In this context, according to the Supreme Court, the test of proportionality largely seeks to identify whether the restriction sought to be placed on the right is proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by the restriction.

According to the court, the disproportionate punishment of elected representatives by legislative bodies carries significant democratic consequences. Such actions can undermine democratic values by depriving the electorate of their chosen representative, thus silencing their voice in the legislature [Para 58]. Moreover, the fear of excessive disciplinary measures can create a chilling effect on democratic frameworks, according to the court [Para 22].

Since the authority (legislative council) dealing with the question of expulsion of Dr. Singh, by virtue of dealing with him—it is also dealing with the electorate that put him there in that house, their voices, aspirations and democratic rights. The Supreme Court stated as follows in this context:

“While dealing with individuals, such as the Petitioner, it is imperative that disciplinary measures are undertaken with due regard to the principles of proportionality and fairness. The House, in the exercise of its authority to regulate its own proceedings and maintain order, must not lose sight of the necessity for a calibrated and judicious approach.”

The court essentially carved out the jurisdiction for itself by differentiating the proceedings of the legislature and ‘legislative decision’ with the latter not being immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 212. Thereafter, it examined whether expulsion passes the well-established test of proportionality or not. In this context, it stated as follows:

“In fact, this aspect is already prescribed in the Rules governing the procedure of the BLC. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 10, Chapter 36 of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, which provides for the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend. A perusal of the provision depicts that if the Committee finds a member violating the code/rules, it may recommend: (a) Censure, (b) Reprimand, (c) Suspension from the House for a specified period; and (d) any other punishment as deemed fit.” [Para 74]

Given the applicable provisions and the underlying objective of imposing penalties on members of the House, we are of the view that the primary purpose of imposing penalties is to discipline the members and ensure the smooth and orderly functioning of the House. A more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House. [Para 76]

By saying that the (above) punishment Dr. Singh served was sufficient, the Supreme Court directed to reinstate him to legislative council. It also quashed a press note of the Election Commission which spoke about by-elections for Dr. Singh’s constituency.

On guidelines to consider while taking action against members of legislatures

The Court, critically, also laid down an indicative list of parameters to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s). They are as follows:

1. Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House.
2. Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House.
3. The previous conduct of the erring member.
4. The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism.
5. Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member.
6. Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect.
7. Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and
8. Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates judicial innovation in the interpretation of Article 212 of the Indian Constitution. This case is significant as it clarifies the scope of judicial review over legislative actions concerning the discipline of its members. The Court creatively interpreted Article 212, distinguishing between “proceedings in the legislature” and “legislative decisions”, and held that the latter can be subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when they affect fundamental rights. Whether this proactive nature will seep into other cases like those involving defection is yet to be seen.

The judgement may be read here.

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

Related:

SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?

Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition

India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy

The post Bihar: SC frowns on disproportionate punishment of opposition legislators & its democratic consequences appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“This attack on the Supreme Court, as an institution, and qua the Chief Justice of India Mr Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as an individual, is unacceptable and must be dealt with in accordance with the law,” the statement added.

The association urged the attorney general to take action against Dubey. Already an advocate on record Anans Tanvir has approached the SC with a plea to launch contempt proceedings to which a division bench of the court, led by Justice Gavai asked the advocate to seek the Attorney General (AG). The hearing on this is listed for next week as there has been no response from the AG.

Under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act, an individual can file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court only with approval from the attorney general or the solicitor general, it has been reported.

In his letter to the SC, Tanvir had argued that contempt proceedings should be initiated against Dubey for his “grossly scandalous” and “misleading” pronouncements on the CJI that were aimed at “lowering the dignity and authority of the Court.”

The SCBA in its resolution has stated that “this attack on the Supreme Court as an institution and qua the Chief Justice of India, Mr Justice Sanjiv Khanna as an individual is unacceptable and must be dealt with in accordance with law.”

The resolution may be read here.

Besides the bar association, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association on Tuesday passed a resolution condemning Dubey’s remarks, Live Law reported.

“Such remarks are not only factually baseless and deeply irresponsible, but they also amount to a direct and unwarranted attack on the independence, dignity, and majesty of our country’s highest constitutional court,” the resolution was quoted as saying.

The Advocates-on-Record Association added that Dubey’s statements were “defamatory in nature and seek to lower the judiciary’s authority in the eyes of the public”.

The resolution emphasised the importance of judicial independence in a democracy and stated that while disagreements with the court’s decisions are acceptable, they must be expressed respectfully and within legal bounds.

The association also urged public representatives to “exercise restraint, uphold constitutional values, and respect the dignity of the judiciary”.

The post SCBA demands contempt action against BJP MP for remarks about CJI Sanjiv Khanna appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the past six weeks, an unprecedented coordination effort has been underway, uniting left parties, progressive organisations, human rights groups, and people’s movements across the state. This united front—comprising the CPI, CPI(M), Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, CPIML, Lal Nishan Party, Satyashodhak Communist Party, Shramik Mukti Dal, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), PUCL, and Sarvahara Jan Andolan, among others—has culminated in this planned day of state-wide action. Major opposition parties including the Maha Vikas Aghadi and its constituents—Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar)—have also publicly extended their support to these protests.

Thousands of pamphlets have been disseminated across the state, particularly those authored by CJP, outlining the bill’s draconian provisions and urging citizens to join the resistance. The agitation on April 22 will span virtually every major district in Maharashtra, covering district collectorates, tehsil and taluka offices, and important public squares. In Mumbai, demonstrators will gather outside the Collectorate in Bandra. In Pune, protests will take place at the Collectorate and in Ambegaon and Junnar. In Nagpur, the protest will take place around Samvidhan Chowk. Thane district will see action at the Collector’s Office, as well as in Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, and Palghar tehsils. Additional protest locations in Thane include Shahapur tehsil.

Planned protests across Maharashtra

On April 22, widespread demonstrations, dharnas, and sit-ins will be held at government offices, district collectorates, and tehsil headquarters across multiple districts of the state. The key protest sites include:

• Mumbai – At the Collector’s Office, Bandra
• Pune – Collectorate and Ambegaon, Junnar offices
• Nashik – Collectorate and Tehsildar Offices in Surgana, Kalwan, Dindori, Chandwad, Peth, Trimbak, Nandgaon, Malegaon, Malegaonshahar, and Niphad
• Thane – Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, Palghar, Shahapur Tehsildar’s Office and District Collectorate
• Ahmednagar (Ahilyanagar) – Collectorate, Sangamner Provincial Office, Shevgaon Tehsil Office
• Nagpur – Samvidhan Chowk
• Wardha – Collector’s Office
• Amravati – Collector’s Office and Tehsildar’s Office
• Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – Divisional Commissioner’s Office
• Jalna – Collector’s Office and Partur Provincial Office
• Nanded, Satara, Sangli, Jalgaon, Solapur, Dhule, Chandrapur, Akola, Gondiya, Bhandara – Collector’s Offices
• Parbhani – Collector’s Office and Tehsil Offices at Shelu, Manawat, Pathri, and Purna
• Buldhana – Tehsildar Offices at Khamgaon, Malkapur, Sangrampur
• Gadchiroli – Tehsildar’s Office, Armori
• Raigad – Uran Tehsildar’s Office
• Kolhapur District – Protests coordinated by the Left Front at multiple locations: Collector’s Office, Ichalkaranji, Gadhinglaj, Kagal, Ajra, Radhanagari, Bhudargad, and Shahuwadi Tehsildar’s Offices

These demonstrations are expected to bring together thousands of protestors, including workers, farmers, students, lawyers, and community organisers. The agitation has witnessed an unprecedented unification of ideological and political forces.

Concerns about the bill

The scale and intensity of the agitation reflect the deep concern that the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 poses a grave threat to democratic freedoms and civil liberties. Although framed by the state as a public safety initiative, the bill has been widely criticised for granting the government extensive powers to enable surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. Civil liberties groups, including CJP and other rights organisations, warn that the legislation empowers the state to criminalise peaceful protest and legitimate political expression under vague definitions of “unlawful activity.”

Incidentally, the Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here.

Problematic sections

The Advisory Board envisaged under Section 5 is also problematic. Unlike earlier legal frameworks which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this Bill allows for individuals merely qualified to be appointed judges, diluting judicial independence and creating scope for politically aligned appointments.

The Bill also provides for arbitrary seizure and eviction powers. Section 9 empowers District Magistrates or Police Commissioners to take over any notified area and evict its residents with little to no legal oversight. Section 10 further extends this to allow the confiscation of moveable property, which could be used to cripple individuals or organisations financially.

Perhaps most shockingly, Section 12 bars those detained under this law from seeking redress in district courts, forcing them to approach only the High Court or Supreme Court. This effectively removes a critical layer of legal protection for common citizens and disproportionately affects the poor and marginalised who may lack the means to access higher courts.

Finally, Sections 14 and 15 grant blanket immunity to police officers and bureaucrats, even in cases where they are found to have abused the law. This creates a culture of impunity, with no accountability for misuse or excesses.

A direct threat to Constitutional freedoms

Legal experts and rights groups assert that the MSPS Bill poses a serious threat to several constitutional rights, including:

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech, assembly, and association
• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• Article 14 – Right to equality before the law

By granting unchecked powers to the executive and removing essential judicial safeguards, the Bill represents an alarming shift toward authoritarian governance. The concerns raised go beyond legal technicalities—this is a battle to preserve the democratic ethos of Maharashtra and, by extension, India.

In response, this April 22 protest will serve as a powerful expression of public resistance. It is not just a symbolic protest, but a collective demand for the preservation of democracy, civil liberties, and constitutional values in Maharashtra. The coming together of political parties, civil society groups, and grassroots organisations is a rare but urgent show of unity against legislation that threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Related:

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

The post Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thirty-six-year-old Dnyaneshwari Anjan, a practising advocate at the Ambajogai Sessions Court, had reportedly approached the police with a complaint about loudspeakers blaring from a nearby temple, as well as the constant disturbance from three flour mills installed near her home. Villagers, including the sarpanch (village head) however claim that she was a persistent (and often exaggerated complaint), sometimes even filing false complaints! Her claim that the persistent noise triggered migraines and caused her physical distress brought her violent retribution. Instead of any attempts at dialogue with her, detractors resorted to what, increasingly is seen, vigilante violence.

On the morning of April 19, 2025, Anjan was attacked by her village sarpanch and at least nine of his supporters. According to her account, they dragged her to a farm and formed a circle around her, beating her with wooden sticks and plastic pipes—including on her head—until she nearly lost consciousness. The photos of her severely bruised and battered back, which she later shared publicly, went viral on social media, igniting an outcry among civil society, and opposition leaders.

An attack orchestrated by power and patriarchy

This was not a spontaneous act of rage—it was a deliberate, orchestrated punishment for speaking up. Anjan revealed that prior to the attack, the sarpanch had visited her house and told her parents to “reprimand” her, as though her assertion of rights was a form of insubordination. An FIR was registered a full day after the assault, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections for rioting (Section 191(2)), assault to outrage modesty (Section 74), unlawful assembly (Section 189), criminal intimidation (Section 351(2)), and voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means (Section 118(2)). And yet, as of the last update, none of the accused had been arrested. The police at Yusuf Wadgaon station claimed that search teams had been formed, but the perpetrators remain at large—shielded, perhaps, by political proximity or the comfort of knowing that consequences are rarely swift for those who harm women.

Political firestorm, but no real action

Opposition leaders were quick to condemn the incident. Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal declared it a “proof” of the BJP-led government’s failure to ensure women’s safety, stating, “If a woman lawyer is not safe, what about ordinary citizens?” He added that the lawyer was taken to a farm and mercilessly beaten till she fell unconscious, demanding the arrest of the accused and accountability from Devendra Fadnavis, who also holds the home portfolio.

Amol Kolhe, NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MP, called the incident a “blot on a progressive state like Maharashtra”, invoking the legacy of icons like Jijabai, Ahilyabai Holkar, and Savitribai Phule, and pointing to the collapsed law and order under the BJP-Shiv Sena-NCP alliance. As per Hindustan Times, he added, “Instead of working for the people, alliance leaders are busy fighting among themselves for power.”

Even as the outrage spread online, with photos of Anjan’s injuries making the rounds, the BJP led Maharashtra state government’s silence has been deafening. As public confidence in the state’s protection mechanisms erodes, what is left is the image of a woman lawyer—bruised, nearly broken—punished for doing what the law allows: filing a complaint.

A female advocate was brutally beaten by Sarpanch and his accomplice at Beed District of Maharashtra. Beed again news for wrong reasons#Beed #beednews #Maharashtra pic.twitter.com/QftUfGeCbR

— Tikam Shekhawat (@TikamShekhawat) April 18, 2025

From Beed to Delhi: A wider crisis of safety for women in law

What makes the Beed incident even more disturbing is that it is not isolated. Just days earlier, in Delhi, a woman Judicial Magistrate was subjected to a shocking episode of intimidation and abuse—this time within the confines of her own courtroom.

After convicting an accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Judicial Magistrate Shivangi Mangla recorded in her official court order that the accused and his lawyer hurled abuses, made death threats, and attempted to hurl an object at her. The convict told her, in open court, “Tu hai kya cheez… tu bahar mil, dekhte hain kaise zinda ghar jaati hai”—a direct threat to her life.

The lawyer, Atul Kumar, joined his client in pressuring the magistrate to resign and reverse her judgment. Judge Mangla noted that the harassment continued beyond the courtroom, including psychological pressure to quit her post. In her courageous response, she announced her intent to approach the National Commission for Women, and also issued a show cause notice to the lawyer, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

Here was a woman judge, upholding the law of the land, being told she might not “make it home alive” for doing her job.

A systemic pattern of violence and intimidation

What connects Dnyaneshwari Anjan in Beed and Shivangi Mangla in Delhi is not just their profession—it’s the price they paid for exercising their legal rights and authority. In one case, a complaint. In another, a conviction. In both cases, the state’s promise of safety and institutional protection crumbled in the face of patriarchal rage and unchecked power.

It is not enough to call these “rare” or “shocking.” They are part of a wider pattern of systemic violence against women—especially those who step outside domestic spaces and challenge the authority of men in politics, religion, and even the courtroom.

What is at stake is the integrity of the legal system itself, the right to justice, and the belief that the rule of law can protect us.

Conclusion: When the protectors are left unprotected

The brutal assault on Dnyaneshwari Anjan and the threats against Judge Shivangi Mangla should not be seen as two separate news items—they are symptoms of the same disease. A society where women in legal professions are met with violence, abuse, and threats, simply for doing what the law entitles them to do, is a society teetering on the edge of lawlessness.

Where is the urgency in the state’s response? Where is the accountability from those in power? Notably, both the states where these incidents took place are being governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. When perpetrators feel empowered enough to attack lawyers and threaten magistrates, they are signalling something far more dangerous—that they believe the law is on their side, or at least will look the other way.

Related:

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

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

The post Beed to Delhi: Lawyer beaten in Maharashtra, judge threatened in Delhi—what the path for justice means for women practioners in today’s India appeared first on SabrangIndia.