Since end July 25 and after August 1, when the ECI published the draft first list excluding a staggering 65 lakh voters, the VFD team of experts and legal analysts have scrutinised the ECI’s own data and come up with startlingly inconsistent hike periods of deletions.

VFD released this data today through a Facebook live event. The entire report and power point presentation may be viewed here.

Vote for Democracy: Key findings from the analysis of ECI data

1. Legally unsanctioned process: The term Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has no legal or statutory basis under existing electoral laws. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 only permits summary, intensive, or partial revisions. The ECI not only devised a new nomenclature but also violated Rule 8 by introducing non-standard enumeration forms and failing to provide receipts or duplicate copies to electors, compromising basic procedural safeguards.
2. Statistical irregularities and data “jugglery”: Between July 14 and July 25, deletion categories such as “deceased,” “permanently shifted,” and “untraceable” showed sudden, exponential jumps that defy logical or statistical explanation:

• Unprecedented one-day spike in “deceased” voters: A staggering 2, 11, 462 electors (18,66,869 – 16,55,407) are claimed to have been found dead over just one day, between July 21 and July 22, 2025.
• Mass constituency-level removals in over one day: Worse, 870 electors on an average per constituency have been removed over one day, between July 21 and July 22. This makes the electors removed per constituency in that period at 2,11,462. Is this part of a genuine clean-up process or a pre-determined mass deletion?
• Five-day surge in “deceased” category: During the last five days of the SIR process, July 21 to July 25, the ECI has magically raised the number of dead electors from 16,55,407 on July 21, 2025 to a significant 22 lakh dead voters, four days later, on July 25. Thus, we see a hike of deletions in this category at 5,44,593 in 243 constituencies (which is a figure that is 2,241 dead electors per constituency).
• Sharp three-day escalation in “permanently shifted” voters: The hike in the mass deletions under the head “permanently shifted” is too high to be digested and the same in the last three days is 15,24,769 for all the 243 constituencies, and this turns out to be 6,275 per constituency on an average. Thus, the last three days have been the most marked deletion days (!!!) for the ECI’s Bihar SIR process where 8,516 electors have been removed from each of the state’s 243 constituencies.
• Deletions exceeding forms processed: All this already points to what amounts to a jugglery in data science. Why? Because the huge surge in the number of “dead” and “permanently shifted” voters is almost double the number of the electors’ forms digitalised in those very hours! Between July 23 and July 25, the number of digitised electors increased from 7.17 crore to 7.23 crore. Concurrently, the total count of deceased and permanently shifted voters rose from 48 lakh to 57 lakh, an increase of approximately 9 lakh!
• Disappearance of “multiple registration” category: Another ECI-driven miracle is that in this same period i.e., July 23 to 25, there was not even a single such elector who exists in the “registered at more than one place” category! Observation: The ECI appeared to be in a hurry over the last days of the SIR exercise to complete the first phase of pre-determined and desired number of deletions.

Such anomalies, where deletions exceed even the number of forms received, suggest possible manipulation of data to meet a pre-decided quota of deletions.

3. Opacity and aggregation of deletion data: On July 23, the ECI replaced category-wise reporting with “Merged Data”, collapsing separate categories (e.g., deceased, shifted, untraceable) into one opaque classification: “Electors not found at their addresses.” This intentional data obfuscation came just as deletion figures accelerated, reaching 65 lakh by July 27.
4. Disproportionate impact in key districts: Deletion rates vary wildly across districts, with Gopalganj (15.10%), Purnia (12.08%), Kishanganj (11.82%), and Madhubani (10.44%) among the worst affected—well above the state average of 8.31%. These districts are known for marginalised populations, migrant workers, and minority communities, raising fears of targeted disenfranchisement.
5. Democratic and legal concerns:
   • The Supreme Court, in its July 29 hearing, refused to stay the publication of the draft rolls but cautioned that it would intervene if “mass exclusion” was proven.
   • Petitioners, including ADR, have pointed out that the ECI has failed to publish names of those marked for deletion, denying voters the opportunity to file claims or objections.
   • The burden of proof has effectively been shifted onto voters to defend their inclusion, a reversal of the ECI’s constitutional obligation to ensure due process.

Broader implications for electoral democracy
The ECI claims that no deletion occurs without a prior notice and hearing. However, with 65 lakh deletions across 243 constituencies, this would mean conducting an average of 26,748 hearings per constituency within a month—a logistical impossibility that casts serious doubt on procedural compliance.

Further, many of the categories used for deletions, such as “untraceable” or “permanently shifted”, are highly vulnerable to subjective assessment, especially given the scale and speed of the deletions. The introduction of new deletion categories mid-way, rapid statistical jumps, and the disappearance of disaggregated data suggest a process driven by pre-determined numerical targets, not genuine verification.

Call for transparency and legal scrutiny
Vote for Democracy (VFD) and allied experts and researchers are calling for the ECI to immediately release:

• The complete list of deleted voters with reasons for deletion.
• Documentary proof backing each deletion, as required by law.
• A clear breakdown of deletion categories per constituency.

With Supreme Court hearings set for August 12 and 13, the credibility of Bihar’s electoral process now hinges on whether these deletions withstand judicial scrutiny and public transparency. Anything less risks undermining the very foundation of the right to vote in India.

The experts involved with the VFD are Dr Pyara Lal Garg, Former Dean, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh, MG Devasahayam, IAS (Retd), Convenor, Forum for Electoral Integrity & Coordinator, Citizens Commission on Elections,  Madhav Deshpande, Computer Science Expert over four decades and a former consultant to the Obama administration. Teesta Setalvad & Dolphy D’Souza are Co-Convenors of Vote for Democracy[1]

The Power Point presentation may also be viewed here:

[1] Vote for Democracy (VFD) is a Maharashtra-level citizens’ platform of individuals and organisations formed in 2023 to ensure Voter registration, Voter Awareness, and a Hate-Free Poll where Accountability & Transparency is key. Teesta Setalvad and Dolphy D’Souza are Co-Convenors and for this report a slew of legal researchers and activists contributed to the final product, this Report.

Related:

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

The post Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a passionate defense of Urdu’s rich heritage and its rightful place as a language of India’s heart, in an article shared on his Facebook wall, former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju delves into its origins, evolution, and cultural significance, describing it as a uniquely Indian language with a dual character—both aristocratic and rooted in the common man’s experience. Titled “What is Urdu,” the piece challenges the notion that Urdu is a foreign language, asserting its indigenous roots and its deep connection to the Indian populace.

Urging its revival and recognition as a unifying cultural force, Justice Katju explains that Urdu emerged from the superimposition of Persian vocabulary and features onto a Hindustani (Khariboli) foundation, making it a hybrid language, once called Rekhta. “Urdu is a language created by the combination of two languages, Persian and Hindustani,” he writes, emphasizing that its verbs, derived from Hindustani, classify it as a special kind of Hindustani rather than Persian. “The fact that it is a special kind of Hindustani shows that it is a desi or indigenous language,” Katju asserts, countering claims that Urdu is foreign.

Tracing the historical context, Katju notes that Hindustani, the foundation of Urdu, developed as the common language of urban markets in North India, facilitating trade across diverse regions. “A trader traveling from Bihar or Madhya Pradesh could easily sell his goods in a city in Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan or Punjab because there was a common language, Hindustani,” he explains. Urdu, built on this base, incorporated Persian sophistication due to the latter’s status as the court language during the Mughal era, particularly from Emperor Akbar’s time.

Katju highlights the transformation during the decline of the Mughal Empire after 1707, when the later Mughals, reduced to nominal rulers, adopted Urdu as the court language. “Urdu is thus the language of aristocrats who had become pauperized, but who retained their dignity, pride and respect,” he writes, citing the example of poet Ghalib, who, despite financial struggles, maintained his aristocratic pride. Katju quotes Urdu poet Josh to encapsulate this dignity: “Hashr mein bhi khusrawana shaan se jaayenge hum / Aur agar purshish na hogi, to palat aayenge hum” (Even on judgment day I will go in style / And if not given respect, will turn back).

The article underscores Urdu’s dual nature: “It is both an aristocratic language as well as the commoner’s language.” While its content reflects the struggles and aspirations of the common man, its polished, sophisticated style draws from Persian influences, making it a powerful medium for expressing human emotions. Katju praises Urdu poetry’s elegance, stating, “In no language does the voice of the human heart emerge with such power and elegance (andaz-e-bayan) as it does in Urdu.”

However, Katju laments the damage inflicted on Urdu post-1947 Partition, when it was branded as a “foreign” or “Muslim” language in India. He criticizes the systematic replacement of commonly used Persian words with obscure Sanskrit ones, such as replacing zila (district) with janapad. “This policy of hatefully removing Persian words… resulted in almost genocide for Urdu in India,” he writes. Despite this, he remains optimistic, pointing to the enduring popularity of Urdu in mushairas, Hindi film songs, and the sale of Urdu poetry books at railway bookstalls as evidence of its vitality.

To revive Urdu, Katju suggests making it compulsory in schools for five years, alongside Sanskrit, to connect it to livelihoods and ensure its cultural preservation. He also advocates for publishing Urdu works in both Persian and Devanagari scripts to make them accessible to a wider audience. Quoting Urdu critic Shamshur Rahmaan Farooqui, who called Urdu a “dead and buried” language, Katju disagrees, asserting, “The language which speaks the voice of the heart can never be stamped out as long as people have hearts.”

Katju concludes by urging Urdu and Hindi writers to use simpler language to address contemporary issues like poverty and unemployment, making literature a tool for the masses. He celebrates Urdu poetry’s ability to capture historical transitions, citing Firaq’s couplet: “Har zarre par ek kaifiyat-e-neemshabi hai / Ai saaqi-e-dauran yeh gunahon ki ghadi hai,” which he interprets as a profound depiction of India’s ongoing transition from feudalism to modernity, marked by societal upheaval and clashing values.

The post ‘Heartbeat of India’s soul’: Urdu is an indigenous language with a dual nature, insists Markandey Katju appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I write this to you with a heavy heart: shocked and saddened; upset and angry. This letter to you, is perhaps to ease the angst in me; I really don’t know what to say and how to say it! But I am sure that what I write, is also the sentiments, the emotions of many, from all over: Jesuit companions, colleagues, collaborators, alumni well-wishers and friends who knew you so well and particularly, the Adivasis and other sub-alterns,whom you loved so much and gave your life for. This letter comes from the bottom of my heart (and our hearts) to say “Sorry, Stan!”

On August 9, St Xavier’s College(SXC) Mumbai, (through their Department of Inter-Religious Studies) was scheduled to hold ‘The Annual Stan Swamy Memorial Lecture’. The topic was ‘Migration for Livelihood: Hope Amidst Untold Miseries’.It was to be delivered virtually by Jesuit Fr. Prem Xalxo, currently Associate Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University, Rome. The speaker was a renowned personality and the topic timely and relevant. On August 4, representatives of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad(ABVP) met the SXC authorities, and in a written letter ‘strongly condemned’ the organising of the lecture and demanded its cancellation. Very sadly, the Jesuit management and other officials caved in to this pressure and cancelled the lecture. For this, “Sorry, Stan!”

In their letter ( which they have put on their facebook page)the ABVP said “organising a lecture in memory of a person who was a key accused in serious crimes, like UAPA, including contact with the banned CPI (Maoist), financing and recruiting armed Naxalite groups, and seizure of documents containing a conspiracy to overthrow the constitutional government through armed uprising, is glorifying the Naxalites…“it is extremely sad that prestigious colleges like St. Xavier’s are trying to encourage Naxalist ideas by glorifying a person accused of committing anti-national conspiracies. We demand that the principal cancel this lecture immediately.” All this is patently false and it has been proved that even the so-called ‘incriminating documents’ were planted in your computer. Besides for an ‘alleged’ crime, the law stipulates that one is innocent, till proved guilty. That you are innocent is without doubt.  Judge after judge have rescuedthemselves from your case, for the simple reason, is that theywill have to declare you innocent! For the falsehood and slander you are still subject to, “Sorry, Stan!”

Stan, you are aware that SXC is my Alma Mater. I spent cherished years as a Xavierite from 1968 – 1972 (1969 was our Centenary year). At that time, we had Jesuits who were stalwarts, Staff who were excellent and a great student body! It was a joy to be a Xavierite. It was at that time I first met youin a Social Analysis Programme – and ever since, you have been to me a hero, mentor and guide. In 1974, (and later), after entering the Society, together with my companions, wereadily accepted the faith – justice mandate under the leadership of Fr Pedro Arrupe. Over the years, I learnt that you heroes were Dom Helder Camara, Paolo Friere, Ivan Illich and Arrupe. Your knowledge on their writings and works, rubbed off on many. As a good friend of yours, as an SXC alumnus and as Jesuit, feel duty bound to say, “Sorry, Stan!”

Ever since the news broke out of the cancellation of the Memorial lecture, I have been literally besieged with calls and comments; in the many groups, I belong to, on social media, there are innumerable comments against the Jesuits, and particularly against SXC (some of the comments are even offensive) From across the board, people (including several alumni and Jesuits) are feeling angry and let down. They say that SXC has failed to see the big picture: cancelling the lecture means giving in to the anti-national and anti-Constitutional fascist forces.; acquiescing with these forces means that they are emboldened and will continue to call the shots.

 It means negating the academic freedom which is the essence of every institution of higher learning; it means that the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression is not important. In the past, when there were such threats, we are aware that, SXC called in the police and continued with their programme.

Today’s (10 August) Mid-day reports, “We are surprised that the college has shown cowardice and yielded to pressure tactics. We teach our students about the values of justice, democracy, and peace, but when it comes to taking a stand, we bow down to the pressure, even when Stan has not been proven guilty. This has been the general pulse of the St Xavier’s alumni and the community,” said a source from the St Xavier’s College Society. “Sorry, Stan!”

On July 1, our Superior General Fr Arturo Sosa, delivered a path-breaking inaugural address to the Assembly of International Association of Jesuit Universities (IAJU) gathered in Colombia. Among the many other things, he said, “At the 2018 IAJU Assembly in Bilbao, I also recalled how Ignacio Ellacuría, S.J., one of the martyrs of the UCA-El Salvador, strongly insisted on understanding the university as a project of social transformation. Trying to explain the meaning of those words, I said: “It is a university that moves toward the margins of human history where it encounters those who are discarded by the dominant structures and powers. It is a university that opens its doors and windows to the margins of society. With them comes a new breath of life that makes efforts for social transformation a source of life and fulfilment.””. That the Jesuits of SXC have not understood this fundamental of Jesuit education, we say “Sorry, Stan!”

Today on Facebook I came across a powerful picture and quote posted by ‘Earth. We Are One’.( ewao.com) we are one. The picture shows birds in a cage criticising the bird who dares fly. The quote said, “The image of caged birds criticising a rebel who has chosen to fly free is a powerful metaphor for the way society often views those who dare to challenge the status quo. The caged birds represent the fear and conformity of those who prefer to remain inside their safe boundaries, while the free bird embodies the courage to break away from societal norms. What is it that makes us fear the rebel—the one who chooses to question the rules? Perhaps it’s because they see a different path, one that holds the potential for growth and freedom. This cartoon asks us: Is it better to stay in the cage, or should we follow our own path toward true liberation?”  That reminded me of you Stan, someone who had the courage to fly and even when you were caged in prison, you dared to tell us that even caged birds sing. Of course you meant the song of truth and justice. For not having the courage to fly and even to sing whilst being caged, we say with humility “Sorry, Stan!”

I can see you Stan, smiling at us here below, telling us in your own inimitable and no-nonsense way of how we have lost the plot! You tell us that instead of accompanying the Adivasis and the Dalits, the excluded and exploited, the minorities and marginalised, the poor and vulnerable, we focus on constructing buildings and on institutionalisation. You question us about ‘forming men and women for others’ when some of those who take away the jal-jungle-jameen other natural resources, identity and dignity fromthe Adivasis, are those ‘educated’ by us. You remind us of the film ‘Mission’ and of the Jesuit Martyrs of El Salvador; you challenge us to live our faith-justice mandate and to realise the Universal Apostolic Preferences (UAPs) in all our initiatives. Above all, you tell us that mere ‘tokenism’ and ‘cosmetic activities’ will in no way help us truly walk the talk! Yes, Stan, we have betrayed you, your vision and mission. Perhaps, this act by SXC, may evenhopefully help us all to ‘examen’ ourselves much more and honestly! Till then “Sorry, Stan!”

Forgive us, dear Stan, and intercede for us from your eternal abode,

Your brother,

Cedric

The author is a human rights, reconciliation & peace activist /writer

Related:

Fr. Stan Swamy SJ: Person, Pilgrim, Prophet

Fr. Stan Swamy’s legacy lives forever!

Jailed Father Stan Swamy dies ahead of his bail hearing

Fr Stan Swamy’s institutional murder

The post Sorry, Stan! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The notification issued by the Union Territory’s Home Department on August 5, 2025 was unprecedented and sweeping in more ways than one. It included scholarly and rigorously  researched books by a range of academics and writers from across the globe, including the noted  constitutional scholar, the late A G Noorani, the writer Arundhati Roy, academics Sumantra Bose, Christopher Snedden and Victoria Schofield and journalist and editor Anuradha Bhasin. Books edited by researchers, activists and intellectuals of calibre such as Essar Batool, Tariq Ali, Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal,  Angana Chatterjee, etc, have also been prohibited.

The books have been in circulation for several years. For instance, “Kashmir Politics and Plebiscite” by Dr Abdul Jabbar Gockhami was published in 2011, “The Kashmir Dispute 1947-2012” by A G Noorani in 2014, while “A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370” by Anuradha Bhasin was published in 2022 and “Colonizing Kashmir: State-building under Indian Occupation” by Hafza Kanjwal was published in 2023.

The religious-political text ‘Al Jihad Fil Islam’, by the Islamic scholar and founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Maududi, on the concept of jihad in Islam was published in 1927, while “Mujahid Ki Azan”, another Urdu book by Hasan Al Banna Shaheed, was published in 2006 and is out of stock.

But whether or not the books are out of stock is immaterial, as mere possession is outlawed. A day after the notification,  the Anantnag police scoured stationery shops for the books but there is no information as to whether any of the offending publications were located and seized. In February 2025, six years after the ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir, police had raided bookstores and seized around 600 books, mostly Islamic literature, though there was no official notification on their forfeiture.

The recent notification, issued  under Section 98 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, grants powers to the State Government to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search-warrants for them, if they violate Section 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 197 (imputations and   assertions prejudicial to national integration and harming national unity), Section 294 and Section 295 (obscenity), Section 299 (acts outraging religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The notification itself provides little evidence of the precise violations of Section 98 of the BNSS or of the multiple sections of the BNS by which books can be banned or forfeited. Instead, the notification is replete with terms that find no place in actual law. For instances, the notification says the banned literature propagates false narratives, giving no instances or examples of these narratives and why they are considered false.

The letter and spirit of the law (however flawed its application) is practically drowned in a discourse of the most fantastical language of condemnation, the more wild, unreasonable and irrational, the better.

By what stretch of imagination are books by such scholars like Noorani or Anuradha Bhasin or Arundhati Roy or Essar Batool or any others named in the notification even remotely obscene? How are these books, primarily words that convey ideas, historical facts and analysis “acts” that endanger the sovereignty and unity of India? How do they promote enmity between communities or endanger national harmony? There are no clues in the notification.

For the authors or the publishers of the books, the only recourse would be under Section 99 of the BNSS, which gives them two months to apply to the High Court to set aside the declaration of forfeiture. A special three-judge bench of the High Court will be convened to consider the applications.  Till then, the sale and possession of the books will be considered a crime.

Misplaced “concern” for youth

Betraying a staunchly paternalistic tone towards youth of the former state, the notification goes on to say that a significant driver behind youth participation in violence and terrorism is “the systematic dissemination of false narratives and secessionist literature by its persistent internal circulation disguised as historical and political commentary”. Why is it internal, when most of the more popular books are freely available, online and offline and what is disguised about the commentary – the notification doesn’t bother to say.

Reiterating the state government’s “concern” for the youth of Kashmir, the notification further says that  the books are responsible for “misguiding youth, glorifying terrorism and inciting violence against the Indian State”. The last is a serious charge but, again, there is scant detail on any of these 25 books.

Notwithstanding its avowed concern for youth, the notification also slams them, stating that these 25 books promote a “culture of grievance, victimhood and terrorist heroism.”

Ironically, it is also perhaps the first official acknowledgment of the “alienation” of the youth of Jammu and Kashmir, who are today bearing the brunt of decades of conflict and a history passed down, not only through books, but by shared accounts of  successive generations of more than 75 years of living in an area of militarized strife.

Far from book bans, what really ought to concern the government of Jammu and Kashmir is unemployment, poor healthcare (including for mental health) and education. In all these spheres, the undisputed data itself starkly tells the true story of the youth in Kashmir.

Official data on Kashmiri youth pegs unemployment at 17.4 per cent, far above the national average of 10.2%. According to the Baseline Survey Report 2024-25 under Mission YUVA (Yuva Udyami Vikas Abhiyan), which cited the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023-24, the overall unemployment rate in J & K is 6.7%, nearly double the national average of 3.5%. According to the report, released by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in June this year, women face even steeper barriers, with urban female unemployment recorded at 28.6%.

Studies on the condition of mental health in the population, given the prolonged conflict, are also cause for alarm. An epidemiological study, conducted in 2024, of psychiatric disorders in Kashmir, observed that 11.3% of the adult population suffered from mental illness in the valley. As compared to males (8.4%), there was a higher prevalence among females(12.9%). Depressive disorders (8.4%) were the most common psychiatric disorders, followed by anxiety disorders (5.1%).

What would be the effect of such arbitrary and repressive acts on an already beleaguered population?

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by FreeSpeechCollective (@freespeechcollectiveindia)

Erasure of history and the fear of recollection

 The ban on books comes a day after the 6th anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in August  2019. Scrapping the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Union Government has aggressively pushed for its “naya Kashmir “project and multiple erasures of lived histories and experiences have marked the last six years.

While newspapers mirrored the government-led normalcy, a deafening silence has prevailed, first due to the unprecedented communications blockade that lasted till 2021 and then due to the crackdown on journalists, lawyers, human rights activists, academics and political party members. There have been police summons and detentions, disembarking of journalists flying out of the country for legitimate professional work, suspension and withdrawal of passports and no-fly lists.

While the invisibilising of everyday accounts has become the norm, the digital erasure of archives of published accounts of multiple journalists has been a chilling feature of the toolkit for the new Kashmir. Heavily dependent on government advertising, the media in Kashmir put up little resistance to the mass deletion of their own archives. Independent journalists found that their social media accounts were also vulnerable, as content was taken down and accounts were blocked with impunity.

The censoring of universities and academic spaces is, of course, an all-India project. Conferences, talks, discussions and even film screenings on sensitive issues need prior permission, chapters in text books have been changed, historical accounts are dropped from the curriculum and teachers are under watch both in the classroom and for posts on their private social media accounts, as the experience of Prof. Tejaswini Desai of the Kolhapur Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering or of Prof.  Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University reveal.

But the ‘K’ word occupies a special place as the recent development over the revised syllabus for MA in Political Science reveals. According to this report in Maktoob Media, the paper “DSE 17: Politics and Ethnic Conflicts in J&K,” including debates on state autonomy, self-determination, secessionist politics and factors of terrorism, was flagged by the Standing Committee (of the University) for its discourse on the Indian national identity, Hindu nationalism and Politics of anxiety. It had earlier been approved by the Academic Council and the Executive Council of the University.

In the face of all these official attempts to wipe our plural viewpoints, however reasoned and well-researched, the J & K government’s book ban is the most objectionable effort. The ban seeks to arbitrarily criminalise 25 books, casting them as the prime accused and convicting them before a fair trial. Though words have a way of escaping the bars of forfeiture and prohibition, unlike the prolonged jailing of academics, human rights activists, journalists, lawyers and students, the notification must go.

First Published on freespeechcollective.in

The post J & K Govt. Book Ban: What do the Thought Police Fear? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire text of the letter may be read here:

To

Shri Gyanesh Kumar

Chief Election Commissioner

Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu

Election Commissioner

Dr Vivek Joshi

Election Commissioner

Dear S/Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi,

Many TV channels have just now aired a press conference held by the leader of a national political party today (https://youtu.be/fi9Y0yWsPkg), in which he alleged irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls in Karnataka and a few other States. His allegations revolving around factual information, seemed to be based on an audit of hard copies of electoral rolls available in the public domain. 

If I were to be in your place in the Election Commission, I would have ordered a thorough verification of the factual information released in the press conference to satisfy myself of the veracity of the basis for the allegations, as those allegations, if they were to be factually correct, would have serious implications for the integrity of electoral rolls in general. 

In my view, each one of you, responsible under Article 324 of the Constitution to enhance the overall credibility of the electoral process, should readily take cognizance of each and every complaint of that kind and suo moto get such a complaint verified, as feedback of that kind would help the Commission to identify the shortcomings in every segment of the electoral process and take corrective measures.  

What surprised me was that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka lost no time in issuing a notice to the concerned political leader calling upon him to “substantiate his claims of electoral fraud with a signed declaration under oath, as per Rule 20(3)(b) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960”.

I am sure that the CEO would not have responded so promptly without keeping the Commission informed. The impression I get from this that the Commission and its officers treat every complainant as an adversary and, instead of taking advantage of the contents of the complaint as a means to scrutinise the integrity of preparation of electoral rolls at the ground level, call upon the complainant to swear that the complaint is based on facts, whereas all those facts could be readily cross-verified with the help of the enormous resources they have at their command. It appears to me that the Commission and its machinery are more anxious to prove that the complainant is wrong than welcoming such a complaint as a part of a readily available feedback system that helps the Commission in constantly improving its internal procedures and practices. The effectiveness of the Commission  depends crucially on its ability to respond to public complaints in a meaningful manner and its ability to elicit public trust. If it closes its doors to public complaints and complaints from political parties, it loses the advantage of using such complaints as a means to correct its own internal procedures in a transparent manner. I am afraid that the Commission, in recent times, let go of such excellent opportunities, as it has resorted to treating complainants as adversaries.

In this connection, I refer to a letter I addressed you some time ago in which I had expressed my concerns about several issues that remained unaddressed, that would erode the credibility of the electoral process. While the Commission may not care to respond to a letter from a senior citizen like me, the least that the Commission could have done was to ponder over the concerns expressed by me and take appropriate corrective measures. To the best of my understanding, the Commission has chosen to ignore those concerns, perhaps adopting its usual stance of treating all such complaints as irritants.

Once again, let me caution you that the Commission’s effectiveness as an apolitical Constitutional authority would critically depend on its ability to respond to public complaints in a constructive manner, rather than treating them as vexatious.

All the best,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to the Government of India

Visakhapatnam 

Related:

Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud

SC to ECI: Explain alleged irregularities in deletion of 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert

Memo to ECI: Make Voter’s Form 17Cs list accessible on Commission website, clean up existing, technologically messy EVS structure, say citizens

The post Election Commission must take the Indian people into confidence, correct its procedures & practices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Gandhi, in a detailed press conference held at the AICC headquarters in New Delhi, described the alleged irregularities as a systemic subversion of Indian democracy, claiming “massive-scale electoral fraud” or vote chori (vote theft) had taken place. He called this an “institutional crime against the Constitution.”

Key allegations and claims

The ‘Atom Bomb’ evidence

• Gandhi declared that the Congress has unearthed hard evidence of voter list manipulation after a six-month internal investigation.
• He asserted that 1 lakh fraudulent votes were cast in the Mahadevapura assembly segment of the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency of Karnataka alone.

Maharashtra Election: An alarming spike

• Congress began suspecting vote rigging after the 2023 Chhattisgarh elections, but their fears were confirmed in Maharashtra (2024).
• Over one crore new voters were added to Maharashtra’s electoral rolls in just five months—more than the total added in the preceding five years.
• Gandhi highlighted a suspicious surge in voter turnout after 5:30 PM, and the ECI’s refusal to release CCTV footage from polling booths, by unexpectedly changing rules to block access. (December 2024)
• “Why destroy evidence if nothing went wrong?” Gandhi asked, implying deliberate alteration of age old transparency driven laws/rules to prevent scrutiny.

Bangalore Central: A Case Study in ‘Vote Chori’

Focusing on the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency, Gandhi said the Congress had anticipated a win based on internal surveys, but lost narrowly:

Margin: 32,707 votes

INC led in 6 out of 7 assembly segments, except Mahadevapura, where it lost by a staggering 1,15,586 votes.

Findings from Mahadevapura:

Congress’s detailed audit revealed:

Gandhi alleged that voters were registered multiple times—in the same constituency, across different states, and even using non-existent or zeroed addresses.

Example:

• 68 voters registered at a brewery (“Biere Club”).
• One voter, Shakun Rani, was registered twice in two months with slightly altered details and both entries cast votes. Ironically this woman voter (a mid-70 year old) was registered in the Form 6 batch of voters that are the ‘new voter’ category in ages 18-25 years!

Exit Polls vs Final Results: The growing mismatch

Rahul Gandhi further questioned:

• Why does anti-incumbency seem to affect every party except the BJP?
• Why are exit and opinion polls consistently off the mark in BJP’s favour?
• He noted similar suspicious swings in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh.

In Haryana:

• Congress lost 8 seats by a combined margin of only 22,779 votes—out of over 2 crore votes cast.

Nationally:

• BJP won 25 Lok Sabha seats with margins under 33,000 votes.
• “That’s all Modi needed to stay in power—just 25 seats,” Gandhi said.

Denial of Digital Voter Rolls: A deliberate barrier

Gandhi revealed that the ECI refused to share machine-readable voter rolls, instead providing physical documents that:

• Were over 7 feet tall when stacked.
• Could not be scanned using OCR (optical character recognition).
• Made manual verification virtually impossible.

“This is by design,” Gandhi alleged. “If the EC gave us electronically readable (searchable) digital data, we’d analyse it in 30 seconds. But they gave us deliberately un-scannable formats to stall scrutiny.”

Call for judicial oversight and constitutional accountability

• Gandhi called the EC’s actions a violation of its constitutional duty to safeguard elections.
• He urged the judiciary to intervene, declaring: “This is no longer just about one party’s loss. It’s a threat to the very foundation of Indian democracy—where every citizen gets one vote.”

He warned that the entire electoral process is being choreographed, facilitated by media hype, multi-phase polls, and an opaque EC.

Conclusion: A crisis at the heart of Indian democracy

Rahul Gandhi’s allegations go beyond partisan politics—they strike at the core of India’s democratic framework. If even a fraction of what he claims is true, it suggests that the electoral process, the one institution that legitimises political power, is compromised through a mix of bureaucratic opacity, voter list manipulation, and denial of digital transparency.

The Congress’s evidence-heavy exposé raises urgent questions:

• Why are electoral rolls being altered on such a massive scale without scrutiny?
• Why is the Election Commission refusing to provide machine-readable data, as required for transparency?
• Why were CCTV records from sensitive polling periods destroyed or withheld?

These are not just technical lapses—they are constitutional red flags. The principle of “one person, one vote” is not merely an administrative guideline; it is the very foundation of the Republic. If institutions tasked with protecting democracy instead facilitate its erosion, the implications are grave—not just for one election cycle, but for the future of electoral legitimacy in India.

The presentation given by Rahul Gandhi may be viewed here.

Related:

SC to ECI: Explain alleged irregularities in deletion of 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

Principles of secret ballot, free will compromised, electronic surveillance a possibility with Voting APP introduced by the ECI: Expert

Memo to ECI: Make Voter’s Form 17Cs list accessible on Commission website, clean up existing, technologically messy EVS structure, say citizens

The post Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘Vote Chori’ in 2024 polls, accuses BJP-ECI nexus of systematic electoral fraud appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the report, the decision follows a meeting chaired by the Home and Political Department on July 17, 2025, under instructions from Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. According to the official minutes, Foreigners Tribunals have now been instructed that they are “not supposed to pursue cases of foreigners belonging to the six specified communities…who had entered into Assam on or prior to 31.12.2014.” District Commissioners and police heads have been asked to hold immediate meetings with tribunal members and submit periodic action-taken reports on the withdrawal of such cases. This executive diktat, that clearly discriminates against citizens based on faith (violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution) and has still to be accessed in the public domain (through a notification etc)

This comes just over a year after the Union Government notified the long-pending rules of the CAA in March 2024, nearly five years after the Act was passed in Parliament amidst widespread protests. The law fast-tracks Indian citizenship for undocumented migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan belonging to six religious groups—excluding Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists—on the condition that they entered India before the cut-off date of December 31, 2014.

The state’s internal notification also “encourages and supports” affected persons from these communities to apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA. Simultaneously, district authorities have been told to ensure compliance with earlier state instructions to withdraw cases against individuals from the Gorkha and Koch-Rajbongshi communities—both identified as politically significant electoral blocs.

Electoral calculations, policy contradictions

The timing of these directives is politically significant. Assam heads to the polls in 2026, and the withdrawal of cases against Bengali Hindus, Koch-Rajbongshis, and other non-Muslim groups may be read as a strategic move to consolidate the BJP’s support base. In April 2025, the CM had already promised to revoke 28,000 pending FT cases against Koch Rajbongshis—a move greeted with both celebration and skepticism. Detailed report may be read here.)

However, the credibility of these decisions remains under question. Despite the state’s commitment to drop all FT proceedings against Koch Rajbongshis, hearings continue against members of the community, such as Kishor Barman, whose case was heard at the Kajalgaon FT just days after the CM’s announcement.

These inconsistencies echo past episodes. For instance, despite an earlier 2021 promise to halt all new FT references against Gorkhas, members of the community have continued to face exclusion and legal scrutiny, including a former army jawan whose case reached the Gauhati High Court.

Moreover, while the government claims that indigeneity is a basis for withdrawing cases, especially in the case of Koch Rajbongshis. other indigenous communities like the Goria, Moria, Deshi, and Sayeed Muslims continue to be targeted by the FT system. The term “Khilonjia” (original inhabitants) remains undefined in Assam’s legal framework, raising troubling questions about the political selectivity of who gets protected and who remains vulnerable.

The CAA-NRC Convergence: A weaponised citizenship regime?

These developments lay bare the core fears that had animated the mass protests against the CAA in 2019–2020: that the law, in tandem with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), would create a two-tiered citizenship regime—offering protection and rehabilitation to non-Muslim undocumented migrants, while leaving Muslims, Sri Lankans and Buddhists vulnerable to statelessness and detention.

In August 2019, Assam released the final NRC list, excluding over 19 lakh people—around 5.7% of applicants. As per CM Sarma’s own admission in March 2024, this excluded group included five lakh Bengali Hindus, two lakh Assamese Hindus (from groups like Koch-Rajbongshi, Kalita, and Sarma), and 1.5 lakh Gorkhas.

Sabrangindia was the first to report on the demography of the exclusion. (Over 7 lakh Hindus among those excluded from the NRC, leaked data suggests)

The BJP’s public stance has been that Hindus left out of the NRC would be protected through the CAA—a promise that is now being visibly executed. But for Muslims similarly excluded from the NRC, no parallel legal shield exists. Instead, they continue to face FT proceedings, with the risk of indefinite detention, being illegally pushed back or statelessness.

A legally divisive, politically calculated shift

The state’s current instructions, coupled with CM Sarma’s selective commitments, reinforce what critics have long argued: that the CAA-NRC framework is less about identifying undocumented migrants and more about institutionalising religious discrimination in India’s citizenship law. Assam’s implementation model offers a blueprint of how this discrimination is playing out on the ground—one in which the fate of a person’s citizenship is decided not by facts or legal consistency, but by their religion, political expediency, and electoral arithmetic.

As Assam moves closer to the 2026 elections, the government’s latest moves seem less about course correction and more about shaping a religiously filtered citizenry—an outcome long feared by constitutional scholars, civil society groups, and affected communities alike.

Related:

‘An Explosive Situation’: Gun licences, evictions, and the manufacturing of a majoritarian crisis in Assam

Assam’s Foreigners’ Tribunals bypass constitutional safeguards: Report

Development by Displacement: Assam evicts thousands for Adani project without due process

The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

The post Assam Government moves to drop ‘foreigner’ cases against non-Muslim communities citing Citizenship Amendment Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Allegations of irregularities and opaque process

The case was brought to the Court’s attention through an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). According to Live Law, ADR’s counsel, Prashant Bhushan, contended that the ECI had not disclosed the identities of the 65 lakh voters whose names were removed. He further alleged that the ECI failed to specify whether these voters were deceased or had migrated, a crucial detail for ensuring the integrity of the electoral roll.

Bhushan also raised concerns about the process itself, stating that political parties were not given the lists at the block level, a step he claimed was essential for transparency. He also highlighted a lack of clarity on whether the inclusions and omissions in the list were based on the recommendations of the Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

Appearing before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh, advocate Prashant Bhushan stated that “We have filed an IA…the draft roll they have published says 65 lakh voters’ names have been omitted…they have not given list of those names…they have said people are dead, have migrated…they should disclose who are the 65 lakhs, who are dead, who have migrated…secondly, the BLOs when forwarding the forms have said this person is/is not recommended by BLO…they have not published for rest of the people that means out of 8 crores minus 65 lakhs, whether BLOs have recommended or not recommended…this information will be very important. IA may be listed tomorrow or day after” as reported by Live Law.

Bhushan also claimed that a significant number of voters were included in the list even though they were not recommended by the BLOs. He argued that these voters had failed to submit the required 11 documents, and in many cases, BLOs themselves had filled out the forms without any supporting documentation.

“Even those who have been included, BLOs have not recommended. Vast majority, more than 75%, have not submitted these 11 documents. BLOs have themselves filled up the forms and there are no documents in any of them. Among those, they are now saying BLOs have not recommended. About 12% in 2 constituencies have not been recommended,” Bhushan said, as reported by Live Law.

ECI’s defence and the Court’s directive

In response, the counsel for the ECI refuted Bhushan’s claims, stating that the submissions were “incorrect.” He asserted that the draft list was indeed shared with representatives of political parties before its publication. When asked by the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh, why the ECI couldn’t put this information in a formal reply, the counsel was directed to do so.

“Why can’t you say all this in a reply? If you have supplied, please give a list of political parties to whom you have supplied, so that Mr Bhushan’s client can collect information from those authorized representatives. File your reply by Saturday,” Justice Kant said

Justice Kant also pointed out that since this was only a preliminary list, the reasons for the deletions would be provided later, along with the final list. He also emphasised the importance of ensuring that every affected voter’s information is duly considered. The Court has scheduled the next hearing on the petitions challenging the Bihar SIR for August 12.

Background of the Bihar SIR process and SC hearings

The SIR in Bihar is an exercise undertaken by the ECI for updation in electoral rolls. On June 24, the ECI announced the SIR for Bihar ahead of the state’s assembly elections. This process required voters, particularly those whose names weren’t on the 2003 electoral roll, to re-verify their details by submitting new enumeration forms with supporting documents. The ECI cited the need to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters, and migrated individuals from the rolls.

The legality and methodology of this exercise were swiftly challenged in the Supreme Court by ADR and other petitioners, including political parties and social activists. The petitioners argued that the SIR could disenfranchise a large number of genuine voters, especially from marginalised communities, due to the stringent documentary requirements and a tight deadline. They also questioned the ECI’s authority to conduct such a revision so close to an election.

The Supreme Court has been hearing the matter since July 10. During the initial hearings, the Court refused to halt the SIR but urged the ECI to “consider” accepting additional documents like Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards for voter verification, which were initially excluded from the ECI’s list of 11 acceptable documents. The Court also expressed its concern about the potential for “mass exclusion” of voters and warned that it would intervene if any irregularities were found. 

The ECI, in turn, defended its actions by stating it had the constitutional authority to carry out the SIR and that the process was being conducted transparently in collaboration with political parties’ Booth Level Agents (BLAs). The current hearing on August 6 is a follow-up to these earlier proceedings, triggered by the publication of the draft electoral roll with the significant deletion of 65 lakh names.

Related

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

The post SC to ECI: Explain alleged irregularities in deletion of 65 lakh voters from Bihar’s draft electoral rolls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The detailed order, passed on July 22 by Special MCOCA Judge V.H. Patwadkar, underscores Karad’s alleged role as a shadow operator who directed the assault from behind the scenes and maintained operational control over his co-accused. According to the report of Hindustan Times, the court found that the accused had filmed the violent attack on Deshmukh and made video calls during the act — a deliberate attempt to instil fear and assert the dominance of their gang.

Background: A murder tied to an extortion racket

Deshmukh, aged 45, was kidnapped, tortured, and killed on December 9, 2023, allegedly for opposing an extortion demand of ₹2 crore made to Avaada Energy Private Limited by Karad and his associates. The company was operating wind energy projects in Kaij taluka, a region where local political-criminal networks have increasingly targeted renewable energy ventures for extortion.

According to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which took over the probe due to the case’s high-profile nature, Deshmukh had attempted to shield the company from this illegal pressure. In response, as reported by Mid-day, Karad and his co-accused allegedly conspired to eliminate him. After being abducted, Deshmukh was brutally beaten, with the assault recorded and live-streamed to Karad. His body was later dumped near Daithana Phata, and the assailants fled the scene.

Detailed background may be read here.

Charges, evidence, and organised crime angle

Karad and seven other accused have been charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The CID has filed a 1,200-page chargesheet detailing the conspiracy, digital footprints, phone data, video recordings, forensic reports, and witness statements.

As per The Hindu, Rejecting Karad’s discharge plea, the court stated: “The statements of witnesses, electronic, digital, scientific, forensic evidence, etc., prima facie show the complicity of the applicant. It appears that he has been a member of the organised crime syndicate and was involved in continuing unlawful activities. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant. The accused is not entitled to be discharged.”

Karad’s Defence: Claims of political vendetta and procedural gaps

Karad, known to be a close aide of former NCP minister Dhananjay Munde, had filed the discharge application claiming he was being framed for political reasons. He questioned the validity of the MCOCA sanction granted in February 2025, alleging procedural irregularities. He further argued that of the 20 past cases cited by the prosecution, he had been acquitted or discharged in nearly 15, including one case in which the Bombay High Court reversed his conviction on appeal.

He also asserted that the police failed to establish any specific role linking him to the crime or to any larger syndicate.

Prosecution rebuts, cites criminal history and control over co-accused

Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, opposing Karad’s plea, strongly defended the use of MCOCA and accused the defence of stalling proceedings through repeated discharge pleas. According to the report of The Hindu, he argued that Karad was the mastermind who controlled the operation remotely, threatening his co-accused for not executing the plan swiftly.

“This is a modus operandi to obstruct the course of justice,” Nikam told the court. “If his name is dropped, it would embolden the crime syndicate and compromise law and order.”

The prosecution highlighted that Karad had been booked in 20 criminal cases, including serious charges such as attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, and unlawful assembly — with seven cases registered within the last 10 years alone. The cumulative pattern of criminal conduct was presented as proof of his leadership in an organised crime syndicate.

Draft charges and consolidated discharge plea

On July 22, alongside the rejection of Karad’s discharge plea, the prosecution submitted draft charges against all eight accused, proposing 12 to 13 charges per individual. However, the court clarified it would consider these only after adjudicating the pending discharge pleas of the remaining seven accused.

In a critical move to prevent further delays, the court directed that all remaining accused must now file a consolidated discharge application, rejecting the tactic of multiple, piecemeal filings.

A separate prosecution plea seeking asset seizure from the accused has been reserved for a future order.

Political Fallout: Demands for CBI probe in parliament

The case has triggered intense political ripples in Maharashtra. Supriya Sule, MP and Working President of NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), raised the issue during Zero Hour in Parliament, demanding a CBI investigation into the murders of Santosh Deshmukh and Mahadev Munde, a trader found murdered in Beed in October 2023.

“These brutal, inhuman killings have shocked the state. Beed has always stood for dignity and progress. I urge the Union Home Minister to order a CBI inquiry into both murders,” Sule said, accusing the Maharashtra Home Department of inertia.

Karad’s proximity to Dhananjay Munde, who resigned from the Maharashtra cabinet in March 2025 following allegations of his links to Karad, has further intensified calls for accountability. Munde, despite stepping down, continues to occupy the official ministerial bungalow ‘Satpuda’, delaying its transfer to his successor Chhagan Bhujbal. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, when questioned, said he was unaware of the penalty levied for Munde’s overstay.

Conclusion

The Beed Sarpanch murder case has become a litmus test for Maharashtra’s ability to tackle organised crime with political overtones. With the discharge plea of the key accused now rejected and the court acknowledging the presence of a structured syndicate, the focus shifts to upcoming hearings and the fate of the remaining accused. The case is poised to remain in the spotlight — not only for its legal implications but for what it reveals about the murky intersections of crime, politics, caste and power in Maharashtra.

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

Beed, Marathwada: A heady and dangerous mix of mafia-political nexus has tainted the social fabric

“Beed has become the new caste now!” an in-depth exploration of simmering caste tensions in Marathwada

Gruesome murder of Sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh in Beed triggers state-wide protests, political fallout in the ruling government, and rampant calls for justice

The post Beed Sarpanch Murder: Special court finds prima facie evidence of organised crime syndicate, rejects Karad’s discharge plea appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision, described as an “in-principle” nod after high-level deliberations, was conveyed to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on July 30 by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said the move stemmed from the “peculiar facts and unusual circumstances” of the case. This marks a significant climb-down by the Centre, which had earlier defended her expulsion on technical grounds. Mehta further stated that once Rashid returns, she may also pursue her two pending applications—one for Indian citizenship (filed in 1996) and the other for long-term visa (LTV) renewal.

From Deportation to Hope: A timeline of arbitrary state action

Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani national by birth and resident of Jammu’s Talab Khatikan locality, entered India legally in 1990 on a 14-day visitor visa. Her stay was subsequently regularised through a year-on-year Long-Term Visa (LTV), granted on the strength of her marriage to Indian citizen Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, a retired government servant. Over the years, she built a life in Jammu, raising four children, all of whom are Indian citizens.

However, on April 25, 2025, just three days after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) abruptly cancelled all visas of Pakistani nationals. On April 28, Rashid was served a “Leave India Notice” by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), despite the fact that her LTV was valid until January 13, 2025, and her renewal application had already been filed.

In a move devoid of legal due process, she was forcibly taken from her home early on April 29 and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border, where she was pushed across into Pakistan. She was denied legal representation, not provided with a formal deportation order, and removed while her LTV extension request was still pending, a fact later confirmed through official emails from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).

Justice Bharti’s Resounding Rebuke: A “Constitutional SOS”

Rashid’s family immediately approached the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, seeking redress. In a powerful June 6 order, Justice Rahul Bharti denounced the deportation as both unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Observing that the petitioner was lawfully residing in India on an LTV and had a pending citizenship application, the judge framed the case as an extraordinary breach of due process, driven more by fear and bureaucratic indifference than by law.

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3–5, Judgment dated June 6).

Justice Bharti recognised that Rashid had not been deported through lawful procedure, nor was her case considered individually despite the MHA’s own circular exempting Pakistani women married to Indian citizens and LTV holders from the mass visa cancellations.

Detailed report may be read here.

MHA’s Appeal: Deflecting responsibility through technicalities

Rather than complying with the order, the MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, a day before the compliance hearing. In its appeal, the MHA avoided challenging the core humanitarian facts of the case. Instead, it relied heavily on technical defences, arguing:

• LTV had lapsed: The Ministry claimed Rashid’s visa was no longer valid on the date of deportation, making her an illegal resident.
• Delay in application: It alleged that her LTV renewal application was filed only on March 8, not January, and was therefore invalid.
• Violation of sovereign powers: The Union argued that Justice Bharti’s directive infringed on the Union’s sovereign authority to regulate deportations.
• Judicial overreach: It contended that courts cannot direct the executive to bring back a deported foreign national.

These claims, however, were flatly contradicted by documentary proof:

• An April 26 email from the FRRO confirmed that her visa renewal application was under process.
• A May 9 email stated the application had been escalated to higher authorities.
• Her daughter, Fatima Sheikh, alleged that the March 8 date was fabricated by local police to justify a planned removal. She maintained that the application was in fact submitted in January.

July 3: Division Bench stays repatriation order

On July 3, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal admitted the appeal and issued an interim stay on Justice Bharti’s order. In doing so, it temporarily blocked any attempt to bring Rashid back—even as the facts weighed overwhelmingly in her favour.

The stay order neither addressed the procedural illegality of her deportation nor provided any immediate remedy for her isolation in Pakistan. There was no timeline, no hearing on the merits, and no protection granted to a woman stranded in a country where she has no familial or social ties.

Detailed report may be read here.

Now, a narrow window opens

The Union’s recent reversal, however limited, is a vital first step. By deciding to grant Rakshanda Rashid a visitor visa, it has acknowledged, however tacitly, that her removal was deeply flawed. The decision also opens the door to her pursuing Indian citizenship, a process she began nearly 30 years ago. Importantly, as per the IE report, the Government made clear this is a one-off move, not to be treated as precedent.

While this move may not yet constitute full justice, it allows for something that has been denied since April: reunification, dignity, and the possibility of healing. But if the principle of human rights means anything at all, then the case of Rakshanda Rashid stands as a chilling example of what happens when bureaucracy overrides the Constitution—and a hopeful one, now, of what becomes possible when justice reasserts itself.

Related:

“A Constitutionally Imperative to Ensure Justice”: Supreme Court Orders CBI probe, arrests, and ₹50 Lakh compensation for brutal custodial torture of constable in J&K

Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal

Poonch Court orders FIR against Zee News, News18 for falsely labelling deceased teacher as “Pakistani terrorist” during Operation Sindoor coverage

J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process

The post India to allow return of elderly Pakistani-origin woman wrongfully deported despite decades-long residence in J&K appeared first on SabrangIndia.