Dr Patil was questioned on January 21, 2026 for six hours and this was the third time that he was being interrogated by the authorities after being suddenly and summarily detained on his arrival from the United Kingdom (UK) on January 10, 2026 while on a visit to his family in Erandol, Maharashtra.

He had first been summoned for interrogation on January 16. He participated in the questioning and while, on the same day, he formally requested and appealed for the withdrawal of the LOC, as he was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom on 19 January there was no clear response from the authorities. Thereafter when he arrived at the airport on the scheduled date of departure, he was informed that the LOC had not been quashed. Notably, no prior intimation regarding the continuation of the LOC was provided to him. Dr Patil was accompanied by his wife on his trip to India.

Besides Dr Patil has stated that he has incurred financial loss as he missed his flight and the opportunity cost of working at his destination workplace. The continuation of LOC is a continuation of harassment by way of using the procedure as punishment. In any case, the FIR that has sought to be quashed, the Petition states, “an instance of misuse of criminal law to achieve a political vendetta and suppress any kind of different political view or opinion.[Read more about this on our page]

Single Judge Bench Justice Ashwin Bhobe is hearing Patil’s petition which sought to quash the FIR and cancel the LOC. The next hearing is posted on February 4. Senior Adv Sudeep Pasbola is appearing for the petitioner while Adv general Milind Sathe is appearing for the state.

Details of his detention and the FIR against him including his petition in the High Court challenging both the LOC and FIR may be read here.

Legal Analysis of the case

Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita under which the FIR has been registered provides that:

“Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

For the offence under Section 353(2) to be made out, the following elements must be established:

A] Publication or circulation of false or alarming information

B] Intent or likelihood to promote enmity or hatred;

C] Such enmity must be between identifiable groups based on religion, caste, language, race, or community

Since the original social media post is presently inaccessible, it is not possible to make definitive contentions regarding its contents. The actions taken appear arbitrary and unjust.

This raises a crucial legal question: whether criticism of the existing government, in and of itself, can amount to the circulation of false information within the meaning of the applicable penal provision.

The FIR lodged against Dr. Sangram Patil alleges that his social media post had the potential to generate hatred and friction between individuals who support the BJP and those who do not. It is contended that the post was intended to promote enmity between persons holding differing political ideologies.

Such an allegation, however, raises a serious constitutional concern. Mere expression of political opinion, even if sharply critical, does not by itself amount to the promotion of enmity between legally recognisable groups as contemplated under the penal law. The expression of one’s opinion is protected as an essential facet of personal liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The FIR alleges that Dr Patil made statements against current BJP leaders and attempted to create political friction through his Facebook post. It also vaguely alleges derogatory remarks against an unknown woman, though the content of such statements remains unavailable.

In the words of justice K Subba Rao himself in the judgement in the Satwant Singh case [Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India 1967 SCR (2)] case, “ personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law.” [excerpt from Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on March 12, 2015]

The Constitution of India extends the protection of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, to foreign nationals as well.

As affirmed in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 SCR [2]621, the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to citizens alone but applies to all persons, subject only to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. “Freedom to go abroad incorporates the important function of an ultimum refunium liberatis when other basic freedoms are refused. Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents a basic human right of great significance. It is in fact incorporated as inalienable human right in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spirit of Man is at the root of Art. 21 Absent liberty, other freedoms are frozen. Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre.’ (Para D, Page 336). What is fundamental is life and liberty. What is procedural is the manner of its exercise Fairness.

Dr. Sangram Patil’s prevention from returning to his home country amounts not only to a violation of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also to a breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which India is a signatory. India has supported the UDHR since its drafting and played a significant role in shaping its framework. The principles embodied in the UDHR are also reflected in, and have informed the interpretation of, the Constitution of India.

LOC stands for Lookout circular, it’s a document issued by the government as directive to immigration authorities to restrict and regulate physical movement of a person. This oft-used restrictive step in present times is not governed by any statutes but certain office memorandums which are released from time to time to lay down the rules concerning the same. The latest LOC Consolidated Guidelines were released in the 2021 Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Division.

According to the Guidelines the recourse of LOC’s can be taken by investigating agencies in any cognizable offence under BNS or any other Penal Laws when the accused was deliberately evading arrest or may not be appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warant(NWB) and other coercive measures and there was a likelihood that the accused leaving the country to evade arrest. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued it or can be rescinded by the trial court. The request for issuing an LOC must be invariably issued with the approval of Originating Agency of an officer not below the rank of –

1. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or
2. Joint Secretary in the State Government;or
3. District Magistrate of the Concerned District;or
4. Superitendent of Police of the District concerned;or
5. SP in CBI; or
6. Zonal Director of NCB;or
7. Deputy Commissioner;or
8. Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau;or
9. Deputy Secretary of Research;or
10. SP of NIA;or
11. Chairman/ Managing Director / Chief Executive of PSU’s;or
12. Designated Officer of Interpol;or
13. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate;or

Several judgements, for instance(Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and vs The State Of Madras And Others 1960 AIR 1080) have laid down that any provisions which restraint upon on the liberty of locomotion must take into account processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness,’ bill.

The evaluation of fairness of the restrictions applied upon locomotion of a person are extremely important. The curbing of the right to travel which comes under right to life should not be arbitrary in the words of Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi vs UOI 1978 SCR [2]621

                 “Hearing is obligatory-meaningful hearing, flexible and realistic, according to circumstances’ but not ritualistic and wooden. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an. escape before the hearing begins. “Bolt the stables after the horse has been stolen” is not a command of natural justice. But soon after the provisional seizure, a reasonable hearing must follow, to minimise procedural prejudice. And when a prompt final order is made against the applicant or passport holder the reasons must be disclosed to him almost invariably save in those dangerous cases, where irreparable injury will ensue to the State. A government which revels in secrecy in the field of people’s liberty not only acts against democratic decency but busies itself with its own burial. That is the writing on the wall if history were a teacher, memory our mentor and decline of liberty not our unwitting endeavour. Public power must rarely hide its heart in an open society and system. – maneka gandhi Like stated in miss pillai judgement ‘Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti-national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.” (Para- B, Page 637).

Similarly, the Court, in Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2015 states that,

“Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti

national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.”

Likewise, speaking against a particular ideology or leaders of a particular party cannot be the sole cause to detain anyone let alone detaining a foreign national, it can in no way be considered to be inciting hatred amongst people of different ideologies.”

The court in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621 case has observed that it was only exceptional cases that required the issuance of an LOC.

“Spies, traitors, smugglers, saboteurs of the health, wealth and survival or sovereignty of the nation shall not be passported into hostile soil to work their vicious plan fruitfully. But when applying the Passports Act, Over-breadth, hyper-anxiety, regimentation complex, and political mistrust shall not sub-consciously exaggerate, into morbid or neurotic refusal or unlimited imponding or final revocation of passport, facts which, objectively assessed, may prove tremendous trifles. That is why the provisions have to be read down into constitutionality, tailored to fit the reasonableness test and humanised by natural justice. Whether the holder of the passport was heard ? A passport may be impounded without notice but before any final order is passed, the rule of audi alteram partem, would apply and the holder of the passport will have to be heard.

Maneka Gandhi vs UOI, 1978 SCR [2]621, Purtabpur v. Cane Commissioner, Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 807 and Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to in that case.

Recently Justice N Seshasayee of Madras High Court observed that Look Out Circulars should not end up violating a person’s fundamental right to grow and prosper.

Conclusion

The detention of Dr. Sangram Patil raises grave and interlinked legal concerns, including the questionable invocation of Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the curtailment of his right to travel abroad/or back to his home country, serious procedural irregularities, violations of the principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with India’s international consular obligations toward a foreign national. Taken together, these actions point to a disturbing departure from constitutionally mandated standards of fairness, proportionality, and due process.

At its core, this case exemplifies a troubling trend of criminal law and executive mechanisms being deployed in response to political expression, rather than to address any demonstrable threat to public order or national security. The continued restraint on Dr. Patil’s liberty, despite cooperation with the authorities and the absence of transparent justification,underscores the urgent need for strict judicial scrutiny. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the exercise of state power, particularly where personal liberty is at stake, must remain accountable, reasoned, and firmly tethered to constitutional principles.

As stated by judges in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621

“In Many countries the passport and visa system has been used as a potent paper curtain to inhibit illustrious writers, outstanding statesmen, humanist churchmen and renowned scientists, if they are dissenters, from leaving their national frontiers. Things have changed, global awareness has dawned. The European Convention on Human Rights and bilateral understandings have made headway to widen freedom of travel abroad as integral to liberty of the person. And the universal Declaration of Human Rights has proclaimed in Article 13,”that every one has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.” (Para D, Page 717)

Lord Denning, on the theme of liberty, observed in [Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to]”

“Where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it is not to be done without hearing.

It is a mark of interpretative respect for the higher norms our founding fathers held dear in affecting the dearest rights of life and liberty so to read Art. 21 as to result in a human order lined with human justice. And running right through Arts. 19 and 14 present this principle of reasonable procedure in different shades. A certain normative harmony among the articles is thus attained, and holds Art. 21 bears in its bosom the construction of fair procedure legislatively sanctioned. No Passport Officer shall be mini-Caesar nor Minister incarnate Caesar in a system where the rule of law reigns supreme.”

“Establishment and passport legislation must take processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials, oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness’ bill-subject, of course, to just exceptions an

to just exceptions and critical contexts. This minimum once abandoned, the Police State slowly builds up which saps the finer substance of our constitutional jurisprudence. Not party but principle and policy are the key-stone of our Republic.”

(Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621) (Para B, Page 726)

Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democracy and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to its fundamentals. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication media advance public interest by informing the public of events and developments that take place. Free and critical expression educates citizens, a crucial component of a functional democracy. A citizen who enjoys the fundamentals of free expression also enjoys the right for the free and open propagation of his or her ideas, a right to publicise these in periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media. Any such attempt to thwart or deny the same gravely offends Article 19 (1) (a).

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Natasha Darade)

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR | SabrangIndia

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned | SabrangIndia

Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India and Others | CJP

CJP & PUCL, M’tra release a Citizens Human Rights Manifesto for India 2024, demand a free and just India for all | CJP

Kalicharan delivered speech espousing a hard, right-wing, exclusionist ideology in Maharashtra, CJP urges Maha Police to take action | CJP

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos | SabrangIndia

The post British Citizen of Indian Origin detained in India: A Legal Analysis of Dr Sangram Patil’s Detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Court sought the stand of the petitioner, the request was strongly opposed by Advocate Dr. Ujjwalkumar Chavhan, appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Sangram Patil, a UK-based doctor and YouTuber. Counsel submitted that the petitioner continues to be illegally restrained within India due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) that remains in force, despite no final adjudication on its legality. He further pointed out that during the previous hearing, the February 4 date had been fixed after confirming the availability and convenience of the Advocate General, Mr. Sathe, yet the State had failed to file its reply till date.

Emphasising the grave consequences of delay, Dr. Chavhan informed the Court that the petitioner is an MD in Anaesthetics and is employed in the United Kingdom, and that prolonged pendency of the matter is jeopardising his professional career and livelihood. He argued that continuing to restrain the petitioner’s travel without timely hearing effectively amounts to turning the legal process itself into punishment, a practice that runs contrary to established principles of criminal jurisprudence. In view of these submissions, he urged the Court not to entertain any further adjournment.

Accepting the objections raised by the petitioner, the Bombay High Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, directing that the matter proceed as scheduled.

The case arises from an FIR registered against Patil at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, based on a complaint filed by Nikhil Bhamre, head of the BJP’s Media Cell. The FIR, lodged on December 18, 2025, alleges that Patil shared or amplified “objectionable” content on social media that amounted to “disinformation” against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its senior leaders. The content was allegedly hosted on a Facebook page titled “Shehar Vikas Aghadi.”

Based on the complaint, police invoked Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which penalises acts intended to spread false information so as to incite enmity between groups. The offence is classified as non-bailable.

Patil, a British national of Indian origin, had travelled to Mumbai from London on January 10, where he was detained by Mumbai Police upon arrival at the international airport. Subsequently, on January 19, immigration authorities prevented him from boarding a return flight to the UK, citing the existence of a Look Out Circular. He was eventually permitted to record his statement before the police on January 21, but continues to remain in India due to the travel restrictions.

On January 22, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Ashwin Bhobe, issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on Patil’s plea challenging both the FIR and the LOC. The Court directed the State to file its reply by the next date of hearing.

Patil has approached the High Court through Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Look Out Circular. He has also prayed for interim relief, urging the Court to stay the investigation and restrain the prosecution from taking any coercive steps, including filing a chargesheet, until further orders. Additionally, Patil has sought permission to travel back to the United Kingdom, where he is employed.

The matter is scheduled to be taken up next on February 4, with the High Court having made it clear that no further delay will be entertained.

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned

When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

The post Bombay High Court rejects State’s adjournment plea in Sangram Patil case; hearing to proceed on February 4 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

रतलाम – प्रेम विवाह करने वाले परिवारों का बहिष्कार किया जाएगा,
ना दूध मिलेगा, ना किराना … गांव का कोई शख्स उस परिवार के कार्यक्रम में हिस्सा नहीं लेगा साथ देने वालों का भी सामाजिक बहिष्कार होगा. pic.twitter.com/MLhL30HMnt

— Anurag Dwary (@Anurag_Dwary) January 26, 2026

Reactions from other social media users were sharp: “The decision by a village in Ratlam to socially boycott families over love marriages is a blatant violation of individual autonomy and Constitutional rights. In a democratic society, the right to choose a life partner is a fundamental freedom. Enforcing ‘social excommunication’ by cutting off access to essential goods like milk and groceries is not just regressive; it is a form of harassment that should be met with strict legal intervention.”

Residents have claimed that the social boycott decision was taken after eight couples from the village eloped and got married in the past six months.

The said video showed a man announcing that young men and women who elope and marry for love as well as their families would be socially boycotted and not invited to any event. Even those helping such persons would face the same action, he further stated. Other action, as announced by the man in the video, will include denying employment to such couples as well as daily necessities like milk. The man in the video also announces that “priests, barbers and other service providers will not go to their houses”, and adds that “anyone who helps the couple, shelters them, acts as a witness to the marriage or supports them in any way will also be socially boycotted”.

Following up on reports in NDTV Hindi and the Tribune, quoted the Collector Misha Singh stating on Monday, Republic Day, that the people in the video had been identified and police had been asked to take action in this regard.  “Our probe has revealed the decision against love marriages was taken not by the Gram Sabha, but by the villagers themselves,” she added.

In addition, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural) Vivek Kumar Lal also told the media that these people are being “bound over” (making it legally binding on a person to maintain good conduct and not disturb peace). Further action would also be taken after a detailed investigation, Lal said.

The past six-eight years has seen a mounting hysteria on the issue of inter-community and inter-caste marriages, building up to such an irrational crescendo that, the most conservative and rigid societal tendencies are gaining strength, being emboldened by both this rhetoric and these laws. Nine states led by Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha, Karnataka, Jharkand and Haryana already of these draconian, anti-freedom and anti-personal choice and autonomy laws, nullifying the impact of the existing Special Marriages Act, 1951.

A constitutional challenge to these state laws has been launched by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in) and is pending before the Supreme Court of India since 2020. The next hearing of the case is on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

Related:

Haryana: “Upper castes” booked for social boycott of 150 Dalit families

Haryana govt denies social boycott of Dalits, SC takes tough stand

Triple Talaq Row: Social Boycott as Punishment Is Juvenile; AIMPLB Must Follow Quran and Accept Inevitability of Change

The post MP: Village in Ratlam gives call to ‘socially boycott’ families over love marriages appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Unlike 12 other states and Union Territories where the Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises, Assam is undergoing a Special Revision, as directed by the ECI on November 17, 2025, to the State’s Chief Electoral Officer.

As part of this exercise, door-to-door verification was conducted across Assam between November 22 and December 20, 2025. Crucially, unlike SIR, this process did not involve document verification.

According to ECI Letter No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II), the timeline for the revision is as follows:

• December 27, 2025: Publication of the integrated draft electoral rolls
• December 27, 2025 – January 22, 2026: Period for filing claims and objections
• By February 2, 2026: Disposal of claims and objections
• February 10, 2026: Final publication of electoral rolls

While officially framed as a routine electoral exercise, the SR has become deeply controversial due to the scale and nature of objections filed under Form-7, particularly against Bengali-speaking Muslims.

Allegations of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims

Civil society groups including Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Banchana Birodhi Mancha, Forum for Social Harmony, Asom Mojuri Sramik Union, and the All Assam Minority Students Union, along with several opposition parties, have alleged that the SR is being misused to harass genuine Indian citizens, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, through mass and often false objections filed under Form-7.

Although the Assam Election Department issued a public advisory clarifying that filing a Form-7 objection does not automatically result in deletion of a voter’s name, and that every objection must go through field verification, notice to the voter, and an opportunity of hearing, organisations working on the ground insist that the process itself has become a tool of intimidation.

Despite procedural safeguards on paper, citizens report being summoned, questioned, and threatened with exclusion, leading to widespread fear and uncertainty.

Chief Minister’s remarks deepen the controversy

The situation escalated further after Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made remarks that were widely criticised as communal and inflammatory.

Referring to the SR process, the Chief Minister stated:

“There is no debate over SR. Which Hindu family has received a notice? Which Assamese Muslim household has seen a notice? We have to issue notices to ‘Miyas’ living here. There is nothing to hide. I am troubling them.”

He further remarked:

“We will do some disturbance, but within the ambit of law. We are with the poor and downtrodden, but not those who want to destroy our community.”

Adding to this, he said:

“They have to understand that at some level, people of Assam are resisting them. Otherwise, they will get a walkover. That’s why some will get notices during SR, some for eviction, some from border police.”

These statements were seen by opposition leaders and rights groups as a direct admission that the SR process is being used to target Bengali-speaking Muslims under the guise of legality.

(Translation of headline: “If SR comes to Assam, I will cut off the names of 4.5 lakh Mia. My job is to hurt the Mia. ‘The Chief Minister’s public announcement’

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Assam Talks (@assamtalksofficial)

(Translation: We want to steal a little Mia vote. ‘According to the rules, Mia should not vote in Assam, they should vote in Bangladesh. ‘My job is to hurt the Mia’: CM.)

Misuse of Form-7 and questions over impartiality

At the heart of the controversy is the large-scale filing of allegedly false objections using Form-7, raising serious questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission during the revision process.

Concerns intensified following allegations of interference by BJP workers in the Boko-Chhaygaon area, purported instructions issued by BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, and the Chief Minister’s public endorsement of “disturbance” through administrative means.

While instances of false objections have been reported from several districts, the issue has drawn particular attention in Sribhumi district (formerly Karimganj) in the Barak Valley.

Sribhumi district: Objections against 133 voters

On January 19, 2026, fifteen Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from Sribhumi district were called for a training session as part of the SR process. Among them was Sumana Choudhury, a young schoolteacher from Karimganj serving as a BLO.

During the session, district officials handed her several objection forms challenging the inclusion of 133 voters from her booth in Srimanta Kanishail village, under the Karimganj North Assembly segment.

According to Sumana Choudhury, the objection forms were partly printed and partly handwritten, and all objections had been filed by a single individual, alleging that the voters had either permanently shifted or were enrolled twice. All 133 voters, she stated, were Bengali-speaking Muslims.

She said:

“During the house-to-house enumeration, I found them at their residences and collected their signatures. They have not shifted. They are genuine voters. The Election Commission documents they signed are proof.”

She further noted that the list included people personally known to her:

“Among the names was the headmaster of my school. Some are parents of my students. How could I ask them to come to a hearing to prove they are genuine voters? Who filed the objections?”

In a startling revelation, the list of objected names included the complainant Salim Ahmed himself and his relatives, effectively meaning the complainant had objected to his own name. When contacted by Sumana Choudhury, Salim Ahmed reportedly denied filing any such objections.

Following the circulation of her statements on social media, Sumana Choudhury was served a show-cause notice by departmental authorities, drawing sharp criticism from opposition leaders and rights groups.

Legal opinion: False objections are punishable

Prominent Sribhumi-based lawyer Shishir Dey stated that filing Form-7 objections on false grounds is illegal and punishable.

He explained that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and associated electoral rules, deletion of a voter’s name requires specific, evidence-based reasons.

“If a voter’s name is removed based on false allegations, that voter has the full right to seek legal redress,” Dey said.

He further warned that liability does not stop with the complainant:

“Election officials, including BLOs and EROs, can also face legal action if they accept false complaints without proper verification and exclude names from the voter list.”

Legal notices by affected voters

Another instance of alleged misuse of Form-7 was reported from polling stations 24 and 26 of the Achimganj area under the Patharkandi Assembly constituency in Sribhumi district, where objections were filed against thirty genuine voters.

These voters issued legal notices through senior Karimganj lawyer Subrata Kumar Pal to the District Administrator of Sribhumi, the Sub-Divisional Administrator of Patharkandi, the Election Officer, the concerned BLOs, and eight complainants, alleging a conspiracy to remove their names from the electoral rolls.

Ration dealers, verbal verification, and CJP’s intervention

Separately, reports emerged from districts including Chirang, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Darrang, and Goalpara, where ration dealers allegedly began verbally summoning voters for verification.

In response, CJP teams visited local election offices, intervening to ensure that citizens are not compelled to show documents unless served with formal written notices.

CJP teams continue to assist affected voters through hearings, documentation, and coordination with BLOs on the ground.

CJP Assam legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury stated: “We will provide legal support to voters who wish to take action against those filing false complaints.”

“A repeat of NRC-style harassment”

CJP team has warned that the SR process mirrors the harassment experienced during the NRC exercise.

The organisation noted that:

• Most Form-7 complaints are false
• Many targeted voters are migrant labourers working outside Assam
• BLOs had already verified households before inclusion

CJP asserted that objections filed by outsiders without evidence should be rejected outright.

Opposition parties react

Opposition parties urged the Election Commission to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised during the revision.

• The Indian National Congress (INC) lodged a police complaint in Boko-Chhaygaon against local BJP leaders and officials.
• Left parties—CPI(M), CPI(ML), CPI, SUCI, and Forward Bloc—issued a joint statement alleging that Form-7 is being used to target minorities.
• Raijor Dal leader and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi filed an FIR, citing video footage allegedly showing four individuals unlawfully operating inside the Boko co-district election office.

Earlier, opposition parties also lodged an FIR against BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, alleging instructions to delete anti-BJP votes.

Sushmita Dev’s intervention

On January 25, 2026, TMC MP Sushmita Dev announced at a press conference: “We will file FIRs against those harassing people by misusing Form-7 and send them to jail.”

Condemning the Chief Minister’s remarks, she said: “Such comments from someone holding a constitutional position are very unfortunate.”

She further alleged that Bengali-speaking Hindus were also being misled, stating: “Like NRC, SR and later SIR will exclude more of their names.”

Claiming that 60 per cent of names in the deletion list in the Kathigara constituency are Bengali-speaking Hindus, she also criticised the show-cause notice issued to Sumana Choudhury, stating that it demonstrated the Election Commission’s political subservience.

Joint opposition press conference

On the same day, opposition leaders—including Debabrata Saikia (INC), Manoranjan Talukder (CPI-M), Akhil Gogoi (Raijor Dal), and Lurinjyoti Gogoi (Axom Jatiya Parishad)—held a joint press conference condemning communal polarisation and the conduct of the SR.

They demanded an extension of the February 2 deadline for disposal of claims and objections and accused the BJP government and the Election Commission of undermining democratic processes.

Related:

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Form-7 and the Politics of Exclusion: How Assam’s voter revision has become a battleground appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ‘red flag’ march is being led by leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Kisan Sabha. Just a week back, Adivasi farmers had protested –another 40-50,000 of them, after marching to the Collectorate, outside its office and making their demands plain in Palghar. Reports of that march may be read here.

A video may be seen here below.

आज किसान लॉंग मार्च इगतपुरी से ७ बजे शुरू होगी

The vibrant protest, in which several women also participated, was led by CPI(M) Polit Bureau member and AIKS National President Dr. Ashok Dhawale, former CPI(M) Central Committee member alongside former AIKS State President J.P Gavit, and ex-MLA, CPI(M) Central Committee member, State Secretary and AIKS National Joint Secretary Dr. Ajit Nawale,

Demands related to critical agricultural and labour issues have been raised. The statement released by the CPI (M)-AIKS said, “The march raised the issues related to neglecting the numerous assurances around the Forest Rights Act (FRA)—especially the finalisation of land claims,  and application of PESA, irrigation schemes, filling of thousands of vacancies in Zilla Parishad schools teachers, etc.”

“The second set of issues is centred around pro-corporate policies of the BJP-led Central and State Governments, like the smart meter scheme, undermining of  MNREGA and rural employment, land grab by the government-corporate nexus, the imposition of  four labour codes etc,” the CPI(M)-AIKS statement added.

Related:

50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights

Kisan Long March ends with Fresh Promises to Farmers

The post Sea of red as CPI (M)-AIKS march leaves Nashik towards Mumbai, demands resolution of farmer and Adivasi issues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For a country that saw the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and many such incidents where lack of regulation resulted in massive loss of human life and toll on victims that exists to date, this turnaround is rather surprising. That too, for it to have triggered by a judgement of the Supreme Court, an institution that has been a guardian of environment from the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, where tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country was stopped by an order of the Supreme Court to the Niyamgiri hills case where indigenous Dongria Kondh tribe successfully fought against Vedanta Aluminium’s bauxite mining project, using the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 to assert their cultural and religious rights over the sacred hills.[1]

Background: Tracing the Origins of “Prior” Clearance

To appreciate the magnitude of the conflict between the May 2025 and November 2025 Vanashakti judgments, it is essential to situate the dispute within the broader evolution of environmental constitutionalism in India.

In the wake of the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, India developed a legal regime grounded in the “Precautionary Principle.” Interpreted by the Supreme Court as part of Article 21 (the Right to Life), this principle requires that environmental protection measures must anticipate, prevent, and address sources of environmental degradation before any damage occurs.

The principal mechanism for implementing this principle is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. Introduced in 1994 and updated in 2006, the EIA framework mandates that certain industrial and infrastructure projects must secure “prior” Environmental Clearance (EC) before any construction begins. The underlying rationale is that any environmental harm, such as deforestation or wetland destruction, is often irreversible. If assessments are conducted post-construction, they serve merely as a bureaucratic formality, failing to achieve the goal of sustainable development.

However, a significant gap has emerged between this normative ideal and the realities of India’s rapid industrialization, ready crony land grab. Successive governments, prioritising the “Ease of Doing Business,” began to grant “ex post facto” (retrospective) clearances to projects that had already commenced operations unlawfully. This practice created a moral hazard—companies found it cheaper to violate the law and pay penalties later than to undergo the rigorous and time-consuming process of prior assessment. The Vanashakti litigation originated when the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) attempted to formalize this practice through a 2017 Notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), thereby turning what was intended as amnesty into a standard procedure.

The May 2025 Judgment: The Normative Firewall

On May 16, 2025, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a judgment that aimed to uphold the “Rule of Law” over economic expediency.

Textualist Rigidity and the “Anathema” of Retrospection

The May judgment adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the EIA Notification 2006, holding that the requirement for “prior” EC is mandatory. Relying on precedents such as Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020), the bench emphasised that ex post facto clearances are “completely alien to environmental jurisprudence” and constitute an “anathema” to the EIA framework. Permitting operations without prior assessment, the Court reasoned, effectively condones violations. If EC is eventually denied after construction, the environmental harm is already irreversible; if granted, the “precautionary principle” is rendered meaningless.

The Sanctity of Executive Undertakings

The Court also scrutinised the legal history of the 2017 Notification, which had offered a six-month “amnesty” window for violators. When challenged before the Madras High Court, the Union Government had assured the court that this was a “one-time measure.” The May bench found that the subsequent 2021 OM—which perpetuated the amnesty indefinitely—breached this judicial undertaking. The Court held that the executive cannot renege on its assurance to the court, striking down the 2021 OM as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.[2]

Rejection of Monetary Regularisation

The May judgment explicitly rejected the notion that penalties under the “Polluter Pays Principle” could substitute for prior compliance. It noted that while Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for penalties, it does not authorize the regularization of illegal structures. As a result, the Court held that even if penalties are paid, illegal constructions lacking prior clearance must be halted and demolished. The bench stressed that the “Polluter Pays Principle” cannot be twisted into a license to pollute.[3]

The November 2025 Review: The Pragmatic Recalibration

In a dramatic turnaround just six months later, a three-judge Review Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai (with Justice Bhuyan dissenting) set aside the May judgment.

 The “Per Incuriam” Doctrine and the Battle of Precedents

The Review Bench invoked the doctrine of per incuriam—rendered in ignorance of binding law—to overturn the May judgment. The majority held that the May Bench had failed to consider coordinate bench decisions in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. (2021)[4], Pahwa Plastics (2022)[5], and D. Swamy (2023)[6].

The May Bench had relied on Common Cause and Alembic to assert that ex-post facto EC is illegal. The Review Bench argued that while Alembic described such clearances as “anathema,” it ultimately allowed industries to continue operating after paying fines.

The Review Bench interpreted the relief granted in Alembic (allowing the industry to operate) as the binding principle of law, whereas the May Bench considered the relief as an exceptional measure under Article 142, treating the prohibition on retrospective EC as binding law.

Ultimately, by prioritising Electrosteel—which stated that the Environment Protection Act “does not prohibit” ex post facto clearance—over the strict reading of Common Cause, the Review Bench found the May judgment erroneous for ignoring the more recent “balanced approach” adopted by the Court.[7]

2. The Doctrine of “National Assets” and Sunk Costs

Economic consequences were a decisive factor in the Review Judgment. The Court accepted the Union’s argument that the May judgment would require the demolition of “national assets” valued at over ₹20,000 crore.[8]

The Court cited specific examples such as the AIIMS hospital in Odisha (962 beds) and the greenfield airport in Vijayanagar as projects facing potential demolition.[9]

The Review Bench further argued that demolishing these large-scale projects would cause more environmental damage (from dust and debris) than allowing them to remain operational. The Court rhetorically questioned whether demolishing effluent treatment plants would truly benefit environmental protection.[10] This reasoning, in effect, used environmental concerns to justify non-enforcement of environmental law.

Statutory Flexibility

Contrary to the May judgment, the Review Bench held that Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act does not mandate demolition. The Act, according to the Review Bench, allows for flexibility, and the executive can “amend or modify” notifications as needed.[11] Thus, the 2021 OM was not seen as violating the “one-time” judicial undertaking but as a valid exercise of executive power, especially as it was issued following directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Analytical Critique: The Erosion of Certainty

The rapid shift between the Vanshakti verdicts reveals a deep schism within India’s environmental constitutionalism. While the Review Judgment saved billions in investment, it set a precarious precedent that undermines the rule of law in three key areas.

The Inversion of Stare Decisis (Precedent)

The main issue with the Review Judgment is its handling of precedent. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent pointed out that Electrosteel and Pahwa—relied on by the Review Bench—were two-judge bench decisions, as was Common Cause, which formed the foundation of the May judgment and offered a comprehensive interpretation of the EIA Notification.

The Review Bench declared the May judgment per incuriam for not following Electrosteel, but the dissent argued that Electrosteel itself was per incuriam for disregarding the binding principle established in Common Cause.[12]

The Review Bench’s position—that the relief granted in Alembic (allowing industries to continue) constitutes binding laws jurisprudentially problematic. The Supreme Court often uses its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to grant case-specific relief while maintaining a contrary legal principle. By elevating discretionary relief to binding precedent, the Review Judgment effectively legalises violations, signaling to lower courts that statutory prohibitions on retrospective clearance can be ignored when economic stakes are high.

The Institutionalisation of Fait Accompli

The Review Judgment entrenches the doctrine of Fait Accompli in Indian law, suggesting that violations on a sufficiently large scale become practically irreversible.

By explicitly referencing the ₹20,000 crore investment as a justification for recall, the Court signaled that the “Right to Environment” is subordinate to the “Right to Investment.” This creates a dangerous incentive for developers to proceed with construction and heavy investments before obtaining clearance, believing that courts will hesitate to order the destruction of “national assets.”

Moreover, the reasoning that demolition itself would cause pollution effectively shields all large-scale illegal infrastructure from enforcement. The further along illegal construction is, the more “environmentally damaging” it becomes to remove, thus guaranteeing its persistence. This undermines the “Precautionary Principle,” which is based on prevention rather than after-the-fact remediation.

Simply put, if the municipality of a city refrains from demolishing the encroachment buildings on banks of lakes, the city will be prone to flood and is exposed to more vulnerabilities than before. Vanshakti II judgement fully fails to engage with this very obvious and basic logic.

Conclusion: From Gatekeeper to Toll Collector

The shift from the May judgment to the November Review marks a transformation in the Supreme Court’s role in environmental governance. The May judgment sought to act as a Gatekeeper, upholding the “Prior Clearance” requirement to prevent environmental degradation before it occurs. In contrast, the Review Judgment recasts the Court as a Toll Collector, allowing violations to continue in exchange for fines and remedial actions.

While the Review Judgment provides a practical solution to the immediate issue of “stranded assets” such as the Odisha AIIMS and the Vijayanagar Airport, it causes enduring harm to the credibility of India’s environmental regulatory regime. It endorses the executive’s strategy of “dilution by notification,” where statutory mandates are weakened to accommodate industrial needs. Most significantly, it undermines the finality of Supreme Court judgments, implying that even environmentally protective verdicts can be recalled if the economic arguments are persuasive enough.

For developers, the message is unambiguous: compliance is optional, so long as one can afford the cost of post-facto forgiveness.

Amen.

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

[1] Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest &Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011

[2] Para 30, Vanshakti v. Union of India 2025 INSC 718 (Vanshakti I)

[3] Para 27, Vanshakti I

[4] Electrosteel Steels Limited v. Union of India and Others  (2023) 6 SCC 615

[5] Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Another v. Dastak NGO and Others (2023) 12 SCC 774

[6] D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others (2023) 20 SCC 469

[7] Para 55.1, CREDAI vs. Vankshakti 2025 INSC 1326 (Vanshakti II)

[8] Para 108, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[9] Paras 109, 110, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[10] Para 7 (VIII), Vanshakti II (Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

[11] Para 75, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[12] Para 20, Vanshakti II (Justice Bhuyan)

Related:

Cries for Environmental Justice: India at a low 176/180 countries in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index

June 5: World environment day & the increasing importance of seed conservation by farmers and rural communities

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post The Judicial Ouroboros: The Vanashakti Reversal & Crisis of Environmental Finality in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to police officials, the bodies of the couple were buried behind a temple on the outskirts of the village and were recovered following the confession of the accused. As reported by The Quint, the main accused have been identified as Rinku Saini and Satish Saini, Kajal’s brothers, while a third brother has also been named in the FIR. Two of the accused have been arrested so far.

Arman, aged 27, had reportedly been working in Saudi Arabia and had returned to India a few months ago, during which time he was residing in Moradabad. It was during this period that he met Kajal Saini, 22, and the two entered into a romantic relationship. However, Kajal’s brothers were strongly opposed to the interfaith relationship and had allegedly pressured her to end it, as reported by NDTV.

Approximately three days before the recovery of the bodies, both Arman and Kajal went missing. Arman’s father, Haneef, subsequently lodged a missing persons complaint at Pakwara Police Station. During the investigation, police discovered that Kajal was also untraceable, raising further suspicion.

Upon questioning Kajal’s brothers, police say they confessed to murdering the couple. Based on their disclosure, the accused led investigators to the burial site. The bodies were exhumed in the presence of a magistrate and sent for post-mortem examination, following due legal procedure.

Shockingly, the accused told investigators that they had tied the hands and legs of both victims before hacking them to death, an account that has intensified concerns around premeditated violence driven by notions of family “honour,” as reported by NDTV.

Confirming the developments, Satpal Antil, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, stated:

“During the investigation, it was found that the woman’s brothers murdered both individuals. After they confessed, the bodies were recovered at their instance. The spade used in the crime has also been seized.”

थाना पाकबड़ा क्षेत्रान्तर्गत ग्राम उमरी में एक युवक व युवती की हत्या के प्रकरण में थाना पाकबड़ा पर सुसंगत धाराओं में अभियोग पंजीकृत किया गया है। पुलिस द्वारा त्वरित कार्यवाही करते हुए 02 आरोपी भाईयो को हिरासत में लिया जा चुका है प्रकरण में अन्य आवश्यक विधिक कार्यवाही प्रचलित है। pic.twitter.com/3KVkT2Vp4b

— MORADABAD POLICE (@moradabadpolice) January 21, 2026

Police have registered a case at Pakwara Police Station under Crime Number 18/26, invoking Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), based on a complaint filed by Arman’s family. The incident has sparked outrage and renewed concerns over honour-based violence, particularly targeting interfaith relationships, in Uttar Pradesh and beyond. Further investigation is underway, and police have stated that action will be taken against all those found involved in the crime.

Related:

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

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

Allahabad HC slams overzealous police action, says distributing Bibles or preaching Christianity is not an offence under UP conversion law

A New Silence: The Supreme Court’s turn toward non-interference in hate-speech cases

The post Interfaith couple tied, hacked to death in Moradabad; woman’s brothers arrested in alleged honour killing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In UP’s Sambhal, lawyers protest against the transfer of chief judicial magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer. His transfer is purportedly linked two seperate orders of registration of FIRs against policemen including ASP Anuj Chaudhary. pic.twitter.com/XNVrUYCTGB

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) January 21, 2026

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday, January 20, transferred 14 judicial officers, including the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal Vibhanshu Sudheer.Aditya Singh, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sambhal at Chandausi, has replaced Sudheer.

Sudheer, who has now been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur, had on January 19 ordered Sambhal police to lodge an FIR against then Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Chaudhary and SHO in connection with the shooting of a youth during the November 2024 Sambhal violence. The Sambhal police had stated that they would move the Allahabad High Court against the CJM court’s order.

Sudheer an upright judicial officer transferred several times

A social media user posted how Vidhanshu Sudheer, the chief judicial magistrate in UP’s Sambhal who had ordered an FIR against ASP Anuj Chaudhary and other police officers was transferred for the third time in less than a year!

Vibhanshu Sudheer, the chief judicial magistrate in UP’s Sambhal who ordered registration of FIR against ASP Anuj Chaudhary and other policemen, was transferred for the third time in less than a year. pic.twitter.com/ltASN2jADU

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) January 21, 2026

Attack on judicial independence

Severely criticising this serious slur on judicial independence, social media users likened this action by the higher judiciary to the transfer of Justice Muralidhar (Delhi HC, now retired) in 2020 after his midnight hearing and castigation of hate speech by BJP leaders who had uttered inciteful words like “Goli Maro Saalo ko.”

Muralidhar transferred after Delhi riots order. Justice Sreedharan transferred after order in BJP leader Vijay Shah’s hate speech case. Vibhanshu Sudheer transferred after directing FIR against police officers in Sambhal violence. What does this tell us about judicial…

— Ashish Goel (@ashish_nujs) January 21, 2026

This user even reminder the conscientious public how –in a publicised change of heart –even the Supreme Court Collegium notified the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan to the Allahabad HC and not to Chhattisgarh where he would have been senior most Judge! The Collegium made it public that the action was under the Union Government’s ‘advise’. This became public in October 2025. Earlier last year, Justice Sreedharan had ordered an FIR against BJP minister Vijay Shah for his “scurrilous language” against an Indian Army Officer, Colonel Sofia Quraishi, who was one of the representatives of the Indian army who had briefed the media during Operation Sindoor last May.

Trajectory of Transfer: On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and B.V. Nagarathna, had first recommended the transfer of 14 judges, including Justice Sreedharan, from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court. However, two months later, on October 14, the Supreme Court Collegium withdrew its recommendation to transfer Justice Sreedharan to Chhattisgarh at the request of the Union Government. Instead, the SC decided to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court instead. Followed by this was a much-publicised statement published on the Supreme Court’s website, which stated that the decision to modify the recommendation was made following a “reconsideration sought by the Government.” No reasons were provided for the government-sought reconsideration of the Collegium’s recommendation publicly. This was the first time, the Collegium has publicly acknowledged that it revisited—and changed—its decision at the Government’s request

Fourteen transfers by Allahabad HC

In the transfer order released by Registrar General of Allahabad High Court, January 2026, Harendra Nath, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kannauj, has been made Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Kannauj in the exclusive POCSO case Court, replacing Alaka Yadav, who will be joining as Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gonda.

Special Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gonda, Vikas has been made Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gonda, for trying cases of crime against women.

Urooj Fatima, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur will be joining as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, replacing Anshu Shukla.

Meanwhile, Anshu Shukla has been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur, replacing Gaurav Prakash, who will be taking charge of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. Prakash has replaced Rajendra Kumar Singh, who will be the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

He has replaced Shraddha Bhartiya, who has been made Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kannauj, replacing Jyotsna Yadav, who will now be Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

She has replaced Sneha, who has been made Secretary (Full Time), District Legal Services Authority in Kannauj. Outgoing Sambhal CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer has replaced Alunkrita Shakti Tripathi, who will be Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Sultanpur, replacing Shubham Verma. Verma will be joining as Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur.

Related:

“Sambhal: Anatomy of an Engineered Crisis”- How a peaceful Muslim-majority town was turned into a site of manufactured communal conflict

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony

The post CJM who ordered FIR against police for 2024 Sambhal violence case transferred by Allahabad HC, new trend? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“An FIR against a 14-year-old child is not law enforcement. It is fear,” tweeted Ravi, a LinkedIn influencer, highlighting the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government’s role. Supporters, including parody accounts mimicking political figures, shared clips of Gautam critiquing media bias and religious hypocrisy, drawing parallels to historical figures like Bhagat Singh. One widely shared post contrasted Gautam with a 14-year-old promoted as a “spiritual guru,” lamenting: “One asks questions and gets an FIR; the other gets a throne. That’s the caste difference.” Allegations of targeted anti-Dalit caste bias have also been made.

Another post said, “An FIR against a 14-year-old child is not law enforcement. It is fear. The Yogi government filing an FIR against Ashwamit Gautam , a 14-year-old content creator from Lucknow, is deeply disturbing and shameful. This is not about justice this is about a government that cannot tolerate questions.

Ashwamit is not a criminal.
He does not spread violence.
He does not promote hatred.

His only “crime” is that he asks questions about unemployment, inflation, and government policies questions that millions of Indians are already asking.

A 14-year-old boy who speaks with logic, clarity, and courage, making long analytical videos without scripts, reaching lakhs of youth this should have been celebrated in a democracy. Instead, he is being intimidated with an FIR.

Why?

Because he is young, Dalit, and fearless.

Power is not scared of criminals; it is scared of awareness. It is scared of a generation that refuses to stay silent. Vague FIR language, no clear sections disclosed, no transparency this is nothing but using law as a weapon to spread fear.

The message is loud and clear: “If you question the government, you will be punished even if you are a child.”

This is not just an attack on freedom of expression. It exposes caste and class bias. Would the same action be taken if this child was spreading hate or praising those in power? We all know the answer.

Criticism is not anti-national. Questioning the government is a constitutional right. If a 14-year-old is asking tough questions, the government should reflect not repress.
FIR instead of encouragement.

Fear instead of dialogue.

This is not strength this is insecurity.

History teaches us one thing: governments that silence voices never last. Children who speak the truth may be targeted, but they are never erased.

Stand with Ashwamit Gautam
Silencing a child exposes the weakness of power, not the crime of the child.”

Hero Ashwamit gautham

At just 14, Ashwamit stands tall.
A Dalit boy with courage beyond his years, questioning power and speaking truth to authority. pic.twitter.com/TybtmlhICz

— VoiceOfMadiga-ಮಾದಿಗ ಧ್ವನಿ® (@JaiBhimMadiga) January 19, 2026

Ashwamit Gautam, 14-year-old content creator who was pointing out the need for basic things like education, good roads, clean water, electricity & clean air is NOW facing FIR.

While that superstitious human samosa is getting awards from Union Minister/Ethanol Billionaire. pic.twitter.com/rfsFf7qa3D

— Dr Ranjan (@AAPforNewIndia) January 18, 2026

एक 14 साल के लड़के की आवाज़ से डर गई सरकार FIR तक पहुंच गई,
⁰आश्वामित गौतम लखनऊ का वो क्रांतिकारी बच्चा जो अंबेडकर भगत सिंह और चे ग्वेरा को पढ़ता है l।

इतनी कम उम्र में सरकार और सिस्टम से सवाल पूछता है।
⁰इंस्टाग्राम पर 666K फॉलोवर्स हैं बेहतरीन कंटेंट पोस्ट करते हैं आश्वामित… pic.twitter.com/LlCce5AJvu

— Ankit Yadav (@Ankitydv92) January 14, 2026

FIR

The FIR was reportedly lodged by the Lucknow police citing concerns over Gautam’s online activities. Police authorities have not disclosed the specific legal sections invoked or identified the complainant. Sources familiar with the matter say the case relates to content perceived as critical of the state administration says Deshambhini.

The young 14 year old, Gautam has built a substantial following on social media through long-form analytical videos discussing rising inflation and the cost of living, unemployment among young people, widening social inequality, and issues affecting the Dalit community. His unscripted videos have gained traction among youth audiences across Uttar Pradesh.

The decision of the UP administration to initiate legal action against a minor has drawn sharp criticism from civil society members, digital rights activists, and opposition leaders. Many have questioned the intent behind filing an FIR against a child for political expression, calling it intimidation rather than law enforcement.

Supporters argue that Gautam has neither incited violence nor promoted hatred, and that his content is protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression. They maintain that questioning government policy on employment, inflation, and social justice is a legitimate democratic exercise, not a criminal offence.

Other critics of his content have described his rhetoric as provocative and potentially disruptive to social harmony, a justification rights groups say is increasingly used to silence dissenting voices.

Several activists have also alleged caste and class bias, noting that Gautam belongs to the Dalit community. They have questioned whether similar action would have been taken if the content praised those in power.

The lack of transparency surrounding the FIR has further fuelled concern. “When the state responds to criticism from a child with police action instead of dialogue, it raises serious questions about democratic tolerance,” a digital rights advocate said.

To date, the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government has not issued an official statement on the case.

Related:

The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line

In Contrast: Nehru’s Take on a Young, Dissenting Irfan Habib and the Modi Govt’s Treatment of Mahmudabad

Dissent Under Siege: Police action, suspensions, and the shrinking democratic space at TISS

The post UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin D Bhobe issued notice to the respondents and posted the next hearing to February 4. Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, represented Dr Patil and submitted that there was urgency in the matter. His client had come to India from the UK on his own and was unaware of the FIR registered against him, he added.

Advocate General Milind Sathe, for the state government, said that Patil “seems to be connected with the other (social media) post and he seems to be not cooperating” with the agency. Sathe stated that a reply to the plea, if any, will be filed within a week, which the court accepted.

The Crime Branch of the Mumbai police detained Patil on January 10 on his arrival at the Mumbai international airport. After 15 hours of questioning, he was later prevented, 10 days later, on January 19, from leaving for the UK. On January 21, he recorded his second statement before the police.

Patil has been charged with offences under Section 353 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which provides a maximum three-year punishment for publishing, circulation of statement, false information, rumour leading to feeling of enmity and hatred between communities through electronic means. The social media post that has attracted such frenetic ire from the authorities reportedly related to high BJP functionaries.

The NM Joshi Marg police station in Mumbai registered an FIR based on a complaint by BJP media cell functionary Nikhil Bhamre, who claimed that he came across objectionable content posted on a Facebook page named ‘Shehar Vikas Aghadi’ on December 14 last year, with disinformation on the BJP and its leaders. Dr Patil has maintained that he simply forwarded a post of other leaders like Subramaniam Swamy with a mere content, asking why there has been no action against them.

Petition

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0672/2025 dated 18/12/2025 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, under Section 353(2) BNSS. The petition argues that the impugned FIR is based on alleged posts on Facebook, which constitute statements of fact and expressions of free speech. The FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognisable offence, lacks mens rea, alleges no violence or public disorder, and is manifestly malicious, filed by a political functionary to suppress dissent. Besides, the petition states that the continuation of the investigation amounts to abuse of the process of law and squarely falls within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

In the petition Dr Patil seeks the quashing of both the LOC and the FIR No 0672/2025 registered against him at the NM Joshi Police Station on December 18, 2025.

The Petition also states that the FIR does not allege any incitement to violence, threat to public order, or disturbance of public tranquillity. The complaint or FIR does not specify the group of religious, racial, language or regional groups or Caste or communities in which hatred or ill will is promoted by the post. The FIR does not specify whether the silence of the followers is false information or rumour or alarming news. The FIR does not specify how the feeling of enmity or hatred, or ill will, can be generated or actually generated by stating that blind followers remain silent. Also, the impugned FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts verbatim, nor does it disclose the exact words, context, or content which allegedly constitute an offence under Section 353(2) BNS. The allegations are purely subjective and stem from political disagreement.

The Petition argues that the most subjective part of the FIR is which political leader who is defamed by the post is not mentioned. A vague apprehension is expressed about the senior leaders of the party by the complainant. Thereafter the Petition quotes from the invoked Section 353(2) BNS which states that, “    _

(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false iriformation, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

The Petition states that ‘there are three important ingredients in the impugned section:I) The statement should be false or rumour, or alarming news. 2) the statement should create a feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will, and 3) There should be specific religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities involved. None of these three components is fulfilled in the said post.

Besides, states the Petition, the FIR has been registered after an unexplained delay of several days from the alleged date of posting, despite the content being publicly accessible. Respondent Number 5 is admittedly the social media coordinator of a political party, and the complaint is motivated by political fear “with the sole intention to intimidate and harass and silence the voice of the people. The petitioner is harassed not for any offence but to teach a lesson to other people to set a precedent of deterrence.

Further, the Petition goes on to state that “the Police Inspector of N .M Joshi Marg Police Station, Mr. Vilas Rane, i.e. the Respondent No. 1, has mechanically registered the FIR without any preliminary enquiry or investigation and non-application of mind, thereby acting with malicious intent and in misuse of police powers, at the behest of Respondent No.5.

Seeking the quashing of both the LOC issued by the authorities pursuant to the FIR registered, Dr Patl has alleged that he faced “faced inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and defamation because of the illegal and unnecessary issuance of the LOC.” Besides he states that he has incurred financial loss as he missed his flight and the opportunity cost of working at his destination workplace. The continuation of LOC is a continuation of harassment by way of using the procedure as punishment. In any case, the FIR that has sought to be quashed is, the Petition states, “an instance of misuse of criminal law to achieve a political vendetta and suppress any kind of different political view or opinion.”

The state is expected to file its response within a week and the next hearing is on Tuesday, February 4.

Related:

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned

The post Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.