The reasons are not far to seek.

Over a decade ago, in 2015-2016, barely a year or two into the first term of this regime that has since been viewed nationally and internationally as autocratic and proto-fascist, it was the Ambedkar-Periyar circles in both Hyderabad Central University and Chennai that were the first targets of power and ideological assault. Ministers from the union government weighed in, first to withhold meritoriously earned scholarships/fellowships of Dalit (read Ambedkarite) and left oriented students like Rohith Vemula and others, thereafter to humiliate them by limiting access to libraries and even hostel accommodation. Muslim student scholars like Umar Khalid and Najeeb Ahmed were particular targets. Najeeb “disappeared” from his JNU room on October 15, 2016, after an alleged scuffle involving the RSS-linked Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) the day before. He had been injured in that encounter and doctors, according to a witness, had refused timely treatment. Shockingly, the case assiduously pursued by his mother was “closed” by the Rouse Avenue court in 2025.  Two films, Ammi (2019) and Where is Najeeb? (2022) have preserved a contemporary tragedy this regime would rather have us forget.

Rohith Vemula, talented and bright, part of a vibrant student community that was in the cross hairs of the administration for daring to screen Muzaffarnagar Baqi Hai at HCU was driven to suicide, an act the movement has called “institutional murder” on Sunday January 17, 2026. That very night JNU students protested Rohith’s death and the ripples of the movement surged across India. Mumbai that only sometimes steps out collectively against repression saw tens of thousands students and activists march in Mumbai from Byculla to CSMT (CST) to demand justice for Rohith.

Brute power and authority coupled with the supine behaviour of Vice-Chancellors like Appa Rao Podille (HCU) and M Jagadesh Kumar (JNU) actively enabled violent police entry and involvement in both campuses, behaviour that physically brutalised students and also criminalised dissent. [1] Cases were filed, Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar were jailed for a month and students (35 from the FTII) had to spend precious years battling the vindictiveness the powerful. Payal Kapadia’s A Night of Knowing Nothing (2021) is a film that, in a multi-layered narrative depicts what young Indians have been put through.

2016 then is as significant as 2026 may yet prove to be.

Why then is our public memory so short and our response only episodic? Institutional culpability or even amnesia by our constitutional bodies including courts and a wilful subservience by legacy and traditional commercial media has enabled the irresponsible vilification of student leaders and protesters.

Clearly, the specific targets were young, autonomous students, free in thought and behaviour. Organisations and individuals from Left and Dalit lineages and communities were specific, targets the case(s) made against them more vindictive and pernicious.

Umar was labelled “anti-national” (“desh drohi”) by irresponsible (and unaccountable) “media houses”. Rohith’s unquestionable “merit” was questioned and his caste status “doubted”, his mother hounded as she struggled for justice for her son. Fatima Nafees, Najeeb’s mother proud that her son made it to a central university, regrets that he opted for staying in its hostel! This level of violence and institutional discrimination faced by Dalit and Muslim students has not stemmed before 2016 or since. The deaths of Arman Iqbal Khatri (April 2023) and Darshan Solanki (February 2023) in Mumbai’s Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Payal Tadvi (May 2019) studying to become a doctor at BYL Nair Hospital were all victims of targeted violence. Corrective constitutional institutions like courts have been tardy in offering remedies

Today in 2026, while the “westernised youth” or “desh drohi” (anti-national) are labels still sought to be applied to Gen Z as well, for erudite and clear left-leaning scholars like Umar and Rohith it was relentlessly pinned.

The sustained protests in HCU and JNU —among two dozen other institutions of higher learning –a decade ago were the first effective challenges to a regime determined to control behaviour, thought and ideas. In the months and years that followed this protest spawned multiple campuses across India: Film & Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi Mumbai University, Kashmir, Assam, Puducherry, all saw spirited and sustained protests. Patna University-Bihar, Jadavpur University-West Bengal, National Law School-Bangalore and the Allahabad Central University-Uttar Pradesh saw similar struggles against repression. Nine months after Rohith Vemula’s “institutional murder” on Sunday, January 17, 2026, eight law students from the Babasaheb Ambedkar University Lucknow protested after two of them were target of vindictive administrative action: two of them toppers, who ranked first and second in the PHD entrance examination had been suspended and thereafter expelled without due process because they protested the caste-ist behaviour of both the government and their professors who they claimed were being protected by the administration and the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD).In an article on SabrangIndia, Prathama Banerjee (in 2016) reported that in Gwalior, a meeting organized by the Ambedkar Manch involving an Ambedkarite professor Vivek Kumar from JNU was attacked by ABVP members, who went on to not only fire guns at the gathering but even burn the Indian Constitution, perhaps to avenge Ambedkar’s burning of the Manusmriti half a century ago!

From the ideological slant on syllabi, to the rights of women to dress as they please and eat non-vegetarian (!), to dubious appointments like Gajendra Chauhan as director (FTII), students and youth mobilised first and immediately against the threat to their very existence and autonomy. By end 2016, the Modi 1.0 regime’s assault on public education and taken the form of simply cancelling (read withdrawing) a staggering 20,000 scholarships to central universities; this was soon followed by withdrawal of all minority scholarships instituted by the previous UPA II government.

So while today’s 2026 Gen Z protests come as another breath of fresh air to a battle weary people, our students and youth, backed by some in the academia have been at the forefront of this democratic challenge for a decade.

What if?

What if the political opposition, despite its poor numerical strength had backed and amplified these voices and demands in Parliament? Since and repeatedly since 2016?

Would India have already witnessed a pushback from the seat of power?

In any truly democratic society, it is the university that is the storehouse of young and budding intellectual opinion and often the bedrock of voices of sharp, critical dissent. Since 2014, India has been going through a determined effort towards homogenisation and imposed majoritarianism—whether through the blind acceptance of commercialization or privatization of education, or the imposition of a culturally-homogenous worldview where the Indian state and nation is equated with “one language, one culture,” in effect denying a plurality of existence and citizenship. These trends are not just dangerous but pose a challenge to the very foundation of India as a constitutional republic. Centres of higher learning within India that have become the battleground for the preservation of Indian democracy and all it stands for.

Before 2014, over the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, through a slow and often painful process within these central universities that came into being through key enactments—the University of Hyderabad Act of 1974, the Jawaharlal Nehru Act of 1966 and the North-Eastern Hill University Act of 1973—baby steps toward affirmative action within teachers’ unions and associations first ensured real diversity among students: students from rural, marginalised and discriminated-against backgrounds made it into institutions of higher learning. That is how, our Umars, Najeebs, Rohiths are household names even in bold challenge or sacrifice. Before that it was the moneyed with access that enjoyed entry within.

Under this regime in its third term however, the dual assault of aggressive neoliberal policies that have ensured a cut in scholarships in institutions of learning, accompanied by an ideological assault of a proto-fascist authoritarian character, have rendered campuses in India the focal points of a resurgent democratic movement. Student leaders and associations that do not fall in line with the majoritarian vision face criminal cases, the worst being the law of Sedition (Section 124-A)..[2] Only a few days ago, a former student of previously prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) was denied bail for attending an event in support of academic, now deceased, G.N, Saibaba.

As the monsoon session of Parliament reaches its conclusion, and the union home minister, responsible in the chain of command for the use of pellet guns and nail-tacked lathis on students who protested at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20, refuses to answer charges of accountability or incompetence, there is every chance that the regime may not back off either surveillance or vindictive action.

The Gen Z generation that is rightly euphoric of its success in shaking up the union government, may yet have to give tests of its resilience to persistent punishment by process. If solidarity shown by older Indians and large sections of independent media, not present a decade ago, holds, victory may still be ours. We need to be prepared though.

In this moment of reckoning, this is my humble tribute. To the inspiring decades plus relentless pushback by India’s young.

[1] Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2016 was M. Jagadesh Kumar, who assumed office on January 28, 2016, a month before the assaults and arrests of tudents. He succeeded Sudhir Kumar Sopory and later served until February 2022; Appa Rao Podile former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad was awarded the Millennium Plaques of Honour for his achievements in Life Sciences by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in 2017!

[2] Teesta Setalvad’s KG Kannabiran Memorial Lecture delivered at Madurai. December 11, 2016

Related:

The post August 11, 2026: A decade plus of students challenging a regime that seeks to control thought & ideas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: On the morning of April 17, 2026, Satyam Verma, a Lucknow-based freelance writer and former journalist, put out a post on his Facebook account, related to the massive fire reported two days ago, on April 15, in Vikas Nagar’s slum area. Hours later, he was arrested by the Noida Police in connection with the workers’ protest case.

Verma seemed angry at the uncertain fate of thousands of residents whose shanties were gutted beyond repair as he wrote: “Where exactly is the government that talks about sabka saath, sabka vikas?  Even as others are coming out to help, the presence of the government, it seems, has been reduced to the polythene spread with the face of Narendra Modi stamped on it inside a burnt jhuggi (shanty).”

Social causes were not the only trigger that nudged Verma to express himself on social media platforms. A scan of his digital footprint also reveals another colourful side to his personality – that of a movie buff. The 60-year-old author was at the helm of an informal group referred to as ‘Lucknow Cinephiles’, which would regularly organise screening of movies followed by a discussion over the main theme.

From The Voice of Hind Rajab, a movie that focused on the plight of a six-year-old girl in Gaza whose desperate call for help to Red Crescent volunteers exposed the human cost of the armed offensive carried out by Israel, to the 2015 film Suffragette, starring Meryl Streep which looked at the struggle of women in the United Kingdom in the late 19th century regarding their right to vote, to the 1980 Bengali classic Akaler Sandhane (In Search of a Famine), which dealt with a filmmaker’s quest to document a famine, and, in the process, unravel the harsh realities confronting ordinary people, it seemed that issues related to human suffering were the centrepiece of Verma’s day-to-day conversations.

However, if one were to go by the over 250 pages of documents related to approval for invoking stringent provisions of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against him, submitted by the UP Police to the Noida District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopam, one would be taken aback by conclusive remarks of the police such as:

“Cyber monitoring trail has revealed that this person who comes from an elite and educated background, whose career has been that of association with media news agencies has given ideological contribution in the form of mental aggression among core group members leading to a volatile situation…

“Ideologue of Marxist thought process, Satyam Verma, in order to provide momentum to workers’ protests against labour codes in Noida industrial area activated his core group members, associated with the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper started in 2010 with its headquarters in Lucknow and Jan Chetna publishing house which publishes his articles based on Marxist ideology with such publicity material being dispatched through Rupesh Roy who is member of outfits such as Mazdoor Ekta Sangharsh Samiti Kulesra Noida, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and Mazdoor Bigul Dasta since 2016 so that a foothold can be established among Noida workers.”

A review of annexures and case diaries that form part of the investigation by the Noida Police in the workers’ protest case shows that implicating journalist Satyam Verma is based on hearsay presented as the testimony of a police informant who won’t be answerable before a court of law. The other ‘evidence’ presented is equally unconvincing – like the exchange of messages in a WhatsApp group presented as a trigger for violence in the testimony of another worker named Mangal, who was in fact part of the group in the hope of finding a better job opportunity. Using these, Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam launched a sharp attack on Verma as she gave the go-ahead for NSA charges. Her notes reflect that she seemed to believe this was some kind of thought crime, claiming his association with Mazdoor Bigul newspaper and Jan Chetna publication acted as an “ideological catalyst for violence” which was “indirectly abetted”.

In the second part of our special series based on NSA-related documents in journalist Satyam Verma’s case, The Wire accessed annexures included in the 170-page proposal submitted by the Noida Police to the Noida DM’s office on May 12, 2026, and an 81-page dossier submitted as supplementary evidence on May 28, 2026. Here’s what we found after examining the documents and speaking to Verma’s lawyer, friends and colleagues.

1. The police’s theory regarding Verma’s alleged presence at the spot of incident stems from a viral video in which Verma’s identity is established based on a statement by an unnamed mukhbir (police informer), who himself is neither an eyewitness nor related to the case in any manner.
2. Verma is named again in the police diary, in a statement by a factory worker named Mangal Kumar. However, in a telephonic conversation with The Wire, Kumar denied having witnessed any provocative messages in the WhatsApp group under the police’s scanner.
3. Satyam Verma’s “Marxist ideology “and his professional association with the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper have been portrayed by the UP Police as “being indirectly motivated by the banned organization CPI (Maoist) with such an ideology found to have added a momentum to protests in the industrial area in the form of an ideological catalyst”.

Among the writers whose works Verma translated into Hindi was German playwright and poet, Bertolt Brecht, who fled Nazi Germany in 1933, and whose writings conveyed the brusqueness of an authoritarian regime. In his satirical poem Article One of the Weimar Constitution, Brecht wrote:

“From the People proceeds the power of the State.

– But where does it proceed to?
Yes, where is it proceeding to?
There’s some place it’s proceeding to.
The policeman proceeds through the station gate.

– But where does he proceed to?
etc.”

Annexure 4(a): Statement by a ‘mukhbir’ and a factory worker

In Case Diary no. 10, dated April 18, 2026, Inspector Raghvendra Singh, posted at Noida’s Phase-2 police station and the Investigating Officer (IO) in the workers’ protest case, recorded two statements both of which were included in the NSA-related documents submitted by the police to Noida DM Roopam, who also happens to be the daughter of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

While one such statement had been attributed to a police informer, the second statement was recorded on behalf of a worker named Mangal. Both these statements have been included as Annexure no. 4(a) in the NSA-related documents.

As reported in part one of this series, the Noida Police had included a list of 17 annexures in its report submitted to the Noida DM on May 12, 2026. These annexures have been cited as pieces of evidence by the UP Police justifying why the NSA had to be invoked in this particular case.

Annexure no. 4(a) has been described by the police as ‘सत्यम वर्मा के अभियोग में प्रकाश में आने वाली केस डायरी (Case diary that brings to light the charges against Satyam Verma)’.

“Today, while we were on a lookout for unknown accused persons in Phase-2 police station area, I showed some viral videos to a mukhbir who then told me that the bald guy as seen in one of the videos, and was wearing spectacles is Aditya Anand. And the person seen behind [Aditya Anand], who is not visible clearly is Satyam Verma; his face is not clearly visible. Mukhbir then further added that he knows and can help in identifying persons associated with the WhatsApp group,” Inspector Singh has been quoted as saying in the case diary.

A mukhbir is a police informer whose identity is not disclosed in official records, and usually provides leads to the local police in connection with an ongoing investigation. While the police can use information provided by a mukhbir to build a case, a mukhbir won’t be part of the trial or be ever held accountable for the information provided.

As reported by The Wire earlier, the police have labelled activist Aditya Anand as the prime accused, with his role as the administrator of a WhatsApp group under probe for allegedly “inciting violence during the workers’ protests”. Anand’s family, on the other hand, maintained that he had in fact posted videos in the same group appealing to people to continue with protests in a peaceful manner.

On the relevance of the testimony of an unnamed mukhbir relied upon by the Noida Police, Supreme Court advocate Kawalpreet Kaur, who is among members of the legal team representing the jailed activists, told The Wire, “The evidentiary value of such a statement is extremely limited. At this stage, it is merely a statement recorded by the investigating agency in the case diary. It is not substantive evidence and, by itself, cannot establish the identity or guilt of an accused during trial.”

“The informer in question was admittedly not an eyewitness to the incident. His statement merely claims that he could identify Satyam Verma from a viral video despite acknowledging that the face is ‘not visible clearly.’ Such identification is inherently speculative and would require independent corroboration through admissible evidence. Courts have consistently held that criminal convictions cannot rest upon conjecture or unverified identification. Moreover, Satyam Verma’s own location records, including call detail records and other electronic evidence, reportedly establish that he was not present at the site of the incident,” she added.

Linking statement by a worker with ‘WhatsApp-initiated violence’

Case Diary no. 10 also included a statement by a worker employed at the Richa Global Company, named Mangal.

Richa Global, with multiple garment manufacturing units in Haryana’s Manesar as well as UP’s Noida, was among the clusters of industrial units whose workers had hit the streets in April demanding that their monthly wage be increased to at least Rs 20,000.

“On April 10, 2026, I got a link in my WhatsApp; upon clicking I joined the Richa Global WhatsApp group  which had Aditya and Rupesh Roy as its admins. In this group, messages were being shared which incited workers to resort to protests while they demanded a wage hike. Some videos which incited the workers were also being shared [in the group],” Mangal has been quoted as saying in his statement to the police.

“Aditya Anand also visited the workers in Phase-2 area and had in an aggressive tone made incendiary speeches before the workers while telling them to continue with the protest. From the workers present there, I had heard that as part of a conspiracy someone by the name of Satyam Verma and Himanshu Thakur had also mingled with the workers trying to incite them,” his statement added.

Contrary to his statement recorded by the Noida Police, when The Wire contacted Mangal Kumar, and he was asked whether any provocative message was shared in the group, he told this reporter, “There was no such thing though a lot of unknown persons were also part of the group. I had joined the group thinking that if I’m out of job it might help me in finding work. There were no other issues as such.”

When asked about whether any of the admins or those in-charge of the WhatsApp group had posted any incendiary message in the days leading up to violence, Kumar told The Wire, “I didn’t know anyone by name or who is the admin, who isn’t. I wasn’t familiar with the members of the group at all.”

Responding to the Noida Police relying on another testimony based on the confessional statement of a worker, advocate Kaur told The Wire, “Firstly, it is again a police-recorded statement made during investigation and is not substantive evidence until the witness appears before the trial court and is subjected to cross-examination. Secondly, the portion stating that Mangal ‘heard from group admins’ that Satyam Verma and Himanshu Thakur were trying to incite workers is hearsay and not evidence. Mangal does not claim to have personally seen Satyam Verma post any message or issue any instructions. Rather, he merely repeats what he allegedly heard from unnamed persons. Such hearsay ordinarily has little or no evidentiary value unless it falls within a recognised exception under the law of evidence.”

In fact, as reported earlier by The Wire, on May 23, 2026, Keshaw Anand, Aditya Anand’s brother, moved the Supreme Court with a petition alleging that “officials of the UP Police were part of the workers’ WhatsApp group ‘Richa Global Noida’ and had an active role in inciting violence”. In a detailed video report published on April 23, The Wire’s reporter Vipul Kumar highlighted the fact that “Sub-Inspector Beena Kaur, posted in Sector-142, Noida, was also part of the WhatsApp group ‘Richa Global Noida’.”

Moreover, the legal team representing the jailed activists maintains that Verma was not a member of any such WhatsApp group. “Available records show that he was not a participant or administrator of the groups connected with the Noida protests. Our criminal law requires proof based on legally admissible evidence rather than suspicion or rumor. Mere assertions attributed to unnamed individuals cannot establish criminal liability,” Kaur told The Wire.

Sudden entry of home ministry’s 2009 notification

A curious entry as Annexure no. 3 (a) in Verma’s NSA case diary is a gazette notification issued by the Union home ministry on June 22, 2009, declaring the “Communist Party of India (Maoist) and all its formations and front organisations as a terrorist organisation” under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Two other factions of the CPI (Maoist), namely the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War and formations associated with the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), had already been declared terrorist organisations in the First Schedule of the UAPA.

But what is the link between a banned outfit designated as a terrorist organisation by the Centre and the Noida workers’ protest case, particularly Verma’s NSA case diary?

As reported earlier by The Wire in Part One, Annexure no. 3 in Verma’s NSA case diary – a document titled ‘An overview of multifront agitation engine RWPI’ described by the Noida Police as an ‘article on the structure of RWPI (RWPI का संरचनात्मक आलेख)’, was a verbatim copy of a 21-tweet-long thread by a right-wing X handle, named Chronology.

It was in this Annexure no. 3 that reference was made to the ‘Delhi Pollution Protest: Maoist Signal’, while alluding to the protests in Delhi against air pollution in November 2025, where FIRs were registered after protesters were seen holding posters stating, ‘From Birsa Munda to Madvi Hidma, the struggle of our forests and environment will go on’ along with slogans of ‘Madvi Hidma amar rahe (Long live Madvi Hidma)’.

Hidma was among the top Maoist commanders killed in an encounter in Andhra Pradesh on November 18, 2025.

Annexure no. 3 in the NSA case diary reproduces verbatim a tweet from Chronology’s thread, dated April 14, 2026: “During a Delhi pollution protest, RWPI-linked activists raised slogans of ‘Hidma Zindabad’, a chant honouring Madvi Hidma, a CPI (Maoist) commander killed in an encounter in Andhra Pradesh.”

§

Now here’s where both the Noida Police as well as the right-wing handle Chronology appear to get their facts wrong. In December 2025, 15 days after the Delhi Police arrested 12 students in connection with the anti-pollution protests, a Delhi court, while granting bail to 10 of them, noted that “nothing has been discovered against the accused related to the membership of radical organisations linked to Naxalites”.

As far as the RWPI (Revolutionary Workers’ Party of India) is concerned, after excerpts from the police’ report in connection with the NSA appeared in the online news portal The Print on May 20, 2026, CaRWAN [Campaign for Release of Workers and Activists of Noida] issued a statement on May 24: “We are seeing news reports that are quoting from the Detention Order of Satyam Verma under the NSA, issued by the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar, which has been mechanically formed as a cover-up on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector-in-charge to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is troubling to see reputed outlets like The Print treating this as a genuine source of information and taking its contents at face value, as seen in its 20 May 2026 article: ‘Marxist literature, ‘inciting Gen Z – UP cops’ grounds to detain Noida workers’ protest accused under NSA.’”

“The political commentary, accusing Satyam of subscribing to left ideology, by the UP police is a clear indication that the UP police is not doing any investigation, but acting as a trumpet of the UP government. RWPI is an open legal party which has regularly participated in parliamentary, legislative assembly and municipality elections since 2019. RWPI did not even participate in the protest in Delhi against pollution where slogans in support of Hidma were raised,” the CaRWAN statement added.

Another reference to the banned CPI (Maoist) outfit

A second reference to the banned CPI (Maoist) has also been included in the 13-page police report submitted by Inspector Raghvendra Singh to the Deputy Commissioner of Police at the Gautam Buddh Nagar police commissionerate on May 12, 2026.

Making note of the fact that Satyam Verma has been on friendly terms with Arvind Sinha, Executive Editor of the monthly newspaper Mazdoor Bigul, which the police claimed “provides ideological raw material for inciting dissatisfaction and resistance against labour codes”, the report by the Noida Police further concluded: “The reading material associated with Mazdoor Bigul, while directly seems to be inspired by Marxism, indirectly it seems to have been motivated by ideology of the banned organization CPI(Maoist).”

Do such speculations actually constitute a crime under NSA?

According to Kaur, “The mere possession, circulation or discussion of Marxism or even Maoist literature does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence. Indian courts have repeatedly distinguished holding ideas from participating in criminal activities. In Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), the Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organisation, without incitement to violence or involvement in violent acts, cannot attract criminal liability.  Similarly, in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court stated that possession of books, pamphlets or ideological material, or sympathy for a political ideology, cannot by itself establish offences under the anti-terror law. In that case, the accused were arrested for their links to the banned group CPI (Maoist), yet the Supreme Court held that passive interest in an ideology or books does not amount to active participation in the goals of a banned organisation.”

DM Noida’s conclusion based on ‘psychological’ interpretation

On May 12, 2026, the same day that DM Medha Roopam wrote to the UP home secretary apprising the concerned authorities of her decision to invoke the NSA against Verma, she also informed the detenue, through a nine-page letter, of the grounds for his detention under the law.

This is a mandatory requirement under Section 8 of the NSA Act which states: “When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority…shall as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances…not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the ground on which the order has been made.”

As illustrated in this 2019 piece titled for The Wire by Bhamati Sivapalan and Vidyun Sabhaney, the NSA is popularly known as the law of “no vakil, no appeal, no daleel (no lawyer, no appeal, no argument)”. Since all preventive detention laws “mirror the colonial era 1818 Bengal Regulation in its principles of criminalising dissent”, NSA can also be added to the same list as Defence of India Act, 1962 which “was infamously used against Indians of Chinese ethnicity”.

The reasoning adopted by Noida DM Medha Roopam seems to have taken a cue from Hollywood actor Tom Cruise’s 2002 film, Minority Report, centred around a dystopian set-up in 2054 when a policing unit could foresee a crime and tried to stop it.

At the very outset, Roopam, in her May 12 letter, refers to the nature of involvement as “अप्रत्यक्षतः दुष्प्रेरित किया गया”, which translates to “indirectly abetted” violence during the workers’ protest. The DM’s letter also accuses Verma of “indulging in a form of pseudo writing with undertone of violence on account of being a writer and publisher of the Mazdoor Bigul newspaper”. It continues:

“Since you are among the founding members of RWPI (Revolutionary Workers’ Party of India), a communist who, with the help of books and literature available at the Jan Chetna bookstore acted as an ideological catalyst aimed at preparing a new generation of cadres who are part of such rebel organizations. Both the RWPI as well as Jan Chetna publication have been found to be the main facilitators of violence in Noida as concluded in the investigation.”

The document titled ‘Annexure No. 10’, prepared by the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU) and forming part of Verma’s NSA case diary, lists 138 sites across Noida, Central Noida Zone and Greater Noida where protests took place between April 10 and April 15, 2026. While instances of arson were reported from three such protest sites, the LIU report mentioned 33 sites where properties had been damaged.

For the DM, this appears to have been a red flag warranting preventive action.

According to a profile piece published in July 2025 by The Print, “since her appointment was announced, she [Roopam] has been dubbed Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s choice” with her top priority then being “the Jewar airport and its completion”.

“This violent protest has created circumstances which will adversely impact forthcoming capital investment in the state’s IT and hosiery sectors while at present Gautam Buddh Nagar has more than Rs 1 lakh crore capital investment across its 21,000 industrial units which generate 6 lakh jobs. Such an environment of industrial growth has been impacted negatively because of irrational, obstinate and violent andolanjeevis like yourself, who owing to their vile mentality are involved in planning civil unrest as was seen in Haryana’s Manesar and Noida industrial unrest,” Roopam’s letter cited as one of the grounds why NSA needs to be invoked.

The nine-page letter signed off by the DM, largely in Hindi, abruptly  switches to English to state that  “violent circumstances are deliberately created such that the hearts and minds of industrial labourers are filled with rebellion which amounts to actions against the state’s investment policy”.

“Narrative making through mass communication with [an] aim to provoking labour class and general public by creating anti state, anti-administration thinking with the motive of disturbing public tranquility,” the letter states in English.

It is, however, not specified in the DM’s letter what exactly those means of mass communication reportedly used by Verma were, and how they are linked with the April violence.

The DM’s letter tends to dwell a bit more on the psychological aspect of allegedly influencing workers, hence the earlier analogy to Tom Cruise’s Minority Report – of mentally mapping someone who has allegedly committed a crime.

The letter concludes with the following observation:

“You tend to encourage such activities which on the very outset may seem like part of a non-violent protest but in fact among the age group of 18-25 years among workers, ideologically they [activities] actually make an individual so agitated and angry that they indulge in collective activities related to the disruption of peace.”

This reporter contacted Noida Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh, but the phone calls went unanswered. The Wire has sent a questionnaire to the Commissioner’s official email ID. This story will be updated as and when a response is received.

The Wire also reached out to District Magistrate Medha Roopam for a response. We were told she was busy in a meeting, and that we could send questions. A questionnaire has been sent at the official email ID of DM Gautam Buddh Nagar. This article will be updated when a response is received.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post ID Based on Anonymous Informant, Sudden Reference to 2009 Home Ministry Notification: Why NSA Case Against Satyam Verma Is Unconvincing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The students’ union did not cancel the discussion. Instead, it moved it outside the School of Social Sciences-II building. According to The New Indian Express, students and faculty gathered in substantial numbers despite the change of venue, while the programme was disrupted by protests from members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). The episode has since become about far more than a cancelled auditorium. It has raised questions about who gets to determine what can be discussed inside a university, how far administrative control over campus spaces can extend, and whether a book — even one written by a jailed political figure — can be treated as an object of academic inquiry independently of the controversies surrounding its author.

The cancellation came at the last minute

The JNU administration announced on August 9 that the booking of the SSS-I auditorium had been cancelled. Its explanation was brief. In a post on its official X account, the university said that JNU was a “democratic and decentralised institution” and that the permission had originally been granted by the Dean of the School of Social Sciences. It then said the booking stood cancelled because of the “non-disclosure of the full facts” concerning the programme scheduled for August 10. But the administration did not publicly specify what information had allegedly been withheld.

That omission lies at the heart of the controversy. Documents relating to the booking showed that the programme had gone through the formal process. The requisition described it as a “Public Talk for Adivasi Diwas (Book Discussion)” and identified the date, time and auditorium. The booking was subsequently approved by the Dean of the School of Social Sciences on August 7.

The organisers therefore questioned why an event that had gone through the university’s own booking procedure could be cancelled two days later on the ground that its “full facts” had not been disclosed.

Professor Avinash Kumar, who had submitted the requisition for the auditorium, was particularly categorical. “The stated reason for the cancellation of the booking of the SSS auditorium is false,” he said, according to Hindustan Times report. Kumar maintained that the Dean had been fully informed that the event was going to discuss Khalid’s book and that the requisition had been prepared in the format suggested by the Dean himself.

His question was simple: if the university did not know what the event was about, why was the auditorium booking approved in the first place?

Kumar also challenged the administration to disclose the actual rule under which the booking had been unilaterally withdrawn. He pointed out that the book itself emerged from Khalid’s doctoral research at JNU and asked why the university could not permit a discussion of a thesis for which it had itself awarded him a PhD.

‘They cancelled the room, not the discussion’

The JNUSU saw the cancellation as something much larger than a dispute over paperwork. In a statement, the union called the decision “arbitrary and authoritarian” and accused the administration of attempting to suppress academic discussion and dissent, according to Indian Express report.

Its argument was that book discussions are not merely social events; they are a basic part of academic life. A university, the union maintained, should be a space where students can encounter controversial arguments, question them, disagree with them and debate them — rather than one where subjects are removed from discussion because of the identity or political status of their author.

The union was particularly scathing about the administration’s explanation that “full details” had not been disclosed. According to the JNUSU, the Dean himself had instructed the organisers on how the auditorium requisition should be made. It therefore described the stated reason as a pretext for what it considered censorship. The union’s position was summed up in its response: “cancelling a room does not cancel a conversation.” And that is precisely what happened.

Gopika Babu, vice-president of the JNUSU, said the large turnout was a response to what she described as pressure from the administration and the ABVP. “Despite all threats of the admin-ABVP nexus, the students gathered in large numbers to assert campus democracy,” she said, reported The New Indian Express.

Babu described debate, dissent and discussion as central to JNU’s institutional character, arguing that the outdoor gathering demonstrated that “JNU stays alive in this spirit”. She also framed the event as an expression of solidarity with Umar Khalid and other political prisoners awaiting trial, while accusing the university administration of pursuing what she described as a “casteist” agenda.

“JNU stood in solidarity with Umar Khalid today, and through him, in solidarity with umpteen other political prisoners languishing in jail without trial,” Babu said. She further described the gathering as a response to what she called the “empty threats” of ABVP members.

JNUSU president Aditi also criticised the administration’s decision, saying, “I condemn the way the administration tried stealing our classrooms. We’ll continue to have such events on the campus.”

The statements underline how the cancellation transformed the character of the event. What began as an academic discussion around Fractured Communities became, after the auditorium was withdrawn, a visible contest over who controls the university’s physical and intellectual spaces. The administration had cancelled the venue. The students’ response was to occupy another space and continue the discussion. In that sense, the outdoor gathering became a message of its own: the withdrawal of institutional permission could change where the conversation happened, but it could not determine whether the conversation happened at all.

The discussion goes ahead — outside

On Monday afternoon, the organisers gathered outside the SSS-II building. The event began around the scheduled time and attracted students, teachers and visitors from outside JNU. The New Indian Express reported that the discussion proceeded despite the cancellation, while Rediff reported that students and teachers attended the outdoor programme from around 3 pm.

The weather itself became almost symbolic. Students gathered in the open despite the rain, listening to speakers discuss the book, its methodology and the history it attempts to recover.

The panel included historian Uma Chakravarti, Professor Prabhu Mahapatra, writer and journalist Shuddhabrata Sengupta, and scholar Banojyotsana Lahiri. The discussion focused on Fractured Communities, rather than turning exclusively into a political meeting about Khalid’s incarceration. Panellists discussed the book’s academic method and its treatment of Adivasi history, while copies of the book were also sold at the venue.

For some students, the fact that the book was written by Khalid was itself a reason to read it rather than a reason to prevent its discussion. JNU student Aniket, who bought a copy at the event, told The Hindu that he wanted to read the thesis to understand how Khalid viewed the world and, importantly, to study how an academic thesis was written. He contrasted that with what he described as a contemporary academic environment increasingly affected by plagiarism and AI-generated material. The sentiment captures an important distinction in the controversy: reading a book is not the same thing as endorsing its author. A university’s academic culture depends precisely on the ability to examine arguments without requiring prior agreement with the person who made them.

Then came the slogans

The outdoor discussion was not free from confrontation. ABVP members protested the programme and raised slogans against Khalid. The New Indian Express reported slogans including “Umar Khalid ko fansi do”, while The Times of India also reported that the event was disrupted by ABVP members who entered the gathering and raised slogans.

The protests reflected the political fault line surrounding Khalid himself. Khalid has been in custody since September 2020 in connection with the case concerning the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) among other provisions and continues to contest the allegations against him. The trial against him has not started since the past 6 years.

The case against him highlights both the prolonged incarceration and the continuing litigation over bail. In July 2026, a Delhi court rejected fresh bail applications by Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, saying it was bound by an earlier Supreme Court order. The question of his imprisonment therefore inevitably hangs over any public discussion of his work. But that also makes the distinction between the author and the academic work more significant.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Harsh (@kahaniistaan)

What exactly is Fractured Communities?

The controversy risks obscuring what the event was actually supposed to discuss. Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power is based on Khalid’s doctoral thesis, submitted to JNU’s Centre for Historical Studies in July 2018. He was subsequently awarded his PhD.

The book examines Adivasi societies in the Singhbhum region of present-day Jharkhand under British rule, including questions of indigenous agency, local governance, resistance and the politics of colonial power. Khalid himself wrote in The Indian Express in July that the thesis had been written years before its publication as a book and that he had never expected the work to acquire the political significance it now carries. He described the thesis as an engagement with history, propaganda and the use of power in shaping narratives.

The book’s publisher, Juggernaut, describes it as an archival study of Singhbhum’s tribal societies and a critique of historical accounts that flatten differences within communities. Its subject, therefore, is not the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid’s UAPA case or contemporary electoral politics. It is a work of history. That distinction matters.

The irony of JNU cancelling a discussion on a JNU-approved thesis

Perhaps the sharpest contradiction in the episode lies here. The book at the centre of the dispute is not an anonymous political pamphlet being brought onto campus without institutional connection. It is derived from a doctoral thesis that Khalid submitted to JNU. The university examined that research. Academic processes assessed it. He was awarded a PhD.

And now, the university found itself cancelling the venue for a public discussion of the work. That does not automatically establish that the cancellation was censorship. JNU is entitled to regulate the use of its buildings and to require organisers to comply with institutional procedures. Its stated position is that the organisers failed to disclose complete information about the programme.

But the administration has not publicly identified what those allegedly undisclosed facts were. And that is where the explanation becomes difficult to assess. If the problem was procedural, the university could have identified the missing information and explained why it warranted cancellation rather than correction. Instead, the auditorium was cancelled immediately before the programme. That left the organisers, and the wider university community, to infer the reason.

Students question the double standard

The controversy has also acquired another layer because of a separate dispute involving an ISKCON programme at JNU. The JNUSU had previously objected to a programme involving an ISKCON representative at the university’s Central Library, titled “Empowering Youth for a Brighter Future”. The union had questioned the permission granted for religious programming on campus.

After the Umar Khalid book discussion was cancelled, the union revived the comparison, accusing the administration of adopting different standards for different events. That comparison remains contested, but it raises a broader question: what should the standard for campus events actually be?

If the concern is procedural compliance, the same rules should apply regardless of whether an event features a religious organisation, a political speaker, a controversial academic or a jailed activist. If the concern is the content of an event, the university should say so openly and identify the applicable rule. What becomes dangerous for an academic institution is a system in which apparently neutral procedural requirements can be invoked selectively, without clearly explaining what triggered their application.

Not everyone attending supported the event uncritically

The outdoor discussion also exposed an important criticism from within the student movement itself. Kranthi Kumar, president of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association, told The Hindu that while his organisation opposed the incarceration of political prisoners and the suppression of dissent, it also agreed with concerns about the composition of the panel. The criticism was that a discussion centred on Adivasi histories did not include members of Adivasi communities on the panel.

That objection complicates the binary framing of the controversy. It is entirely possible to oppose the cancellation of a discussion while simultaneously questioning who gets to speak about Adivasi history. In fact, that is precisely the kind of disagreement a university ought to be capable of accommodating.

The larger question: what is a university for?

The most consequential aspect of the JNU episode may therefore not be Umar Khalid at all. It is the question of whether universities can remain spaces where controversial scholarship is examined without the discussion itself being treated as an endorsement. There is a fundamental difference between giving someone a platform to promote a political position and allowing students to read and debate a published academic work.

There is also a difference between disagreeing with a thesis and preventing people from discussing it. A university does not become democratic because its administration describes it as one. It becomes democratic when disagreement can occur without the institution deciding in advance which questions are legitimate.

JNU’s own explanation invokes its character as a “democratic and decentralised institution”. But democracy on a university campus cannot simply mean administrative discretion. It must also include intellectual pluralism, transparency in decision-making and the ability of students and faculty to question institutional decisions. In this case, the administration cancelled the auditorium.

The students responded by taking the discussion outside. They were joined by faculty members, students from other institutions and others who wanted to hear the debate. The rain did not stop the event. Neither did the cancellation. And that may be the most telling image from the entire episode: a university discussion that the administration could remove from a room, but could not remove from the campus. Because once a university begins treating the discussion of a controversial scholar’s work as something that must be administratively contained, the question is no longer merely what Umar Khalid wrote. It becomes who gets to decide what students are allowed to read, discuss and question.

Related:

July 2026: A dissent that was brutally put down, a crackdown after the protest ended

Permission to Protest? Why the right to dissent needs no licence

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed

UGC Guidelines 2026: AISA Protest at Delhi University followed by sexual abuse allegations amid police presence

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The post JNU Cancels Venue, Not the Conversation: Umar Khalid’s book discussion moves outdoors amid protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)-led protests concluded, several women protesters alleged that they became targets of coordinated online harassment, rape threats, doxing campaigns, morphed images, character attacks and demands for their arrest. What began as a debate over slogans raised during demonstrations transformed into a larger controversy over whether women participating in public dissent were being punished not only for their political expression but also for refusing traditional expectations of silence and conformity.

The aftermath of the protests saw several women participants alleging that their visibility as protesters made them targets of coordinated online attacks, with personal information being circulated, threats issued and attempts made to undermine their credibility and character.  The developments that followed also brought several legal questions before the Supreme Court, with petitions challenging alleged police excesses during the protests, seeking clarity on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, raising concerns over surveillance practices and demanding accountability for the use of force against demonstrators.

Detailed reports on the withdrawal of FIRs may be read here, here and here.

The protests that triggered a national confrontation

The NEET-UG 2026 protests began after allegations of a question paper leak and irregularities in the medical entrance examination created widespread anger among students. The movement, initially amplified through social media under the banner of the satirical Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), eventually grew into a nationwide student mobilisation.

The protests gained momentum after three student activists associated with the All India Students’ Association (AISA), namely Neha, Manish and Aameen and activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and observed a prolonged hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Student organisations and youth groups demanded accountability, reforms in examination systems and action against those responsible for compromising the integrity of competitive examinations.

The movement reached its peak during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march, when clashes broke out between protesters and police in New Delhi. Student groups and civil liberties advocates alleged that security forces responded with excessive force, including the use of tear gas, pellet guns and repeated baton charges to disperse demonstrators. Petitioners before the Supreme Court alleged that several students suffered pellet injuries, while videos circulating on social media appeared to show protesters with bleeding head wounds allegedly caused by lathi blows. Protesters also alleged that some batons used during the operation had metal nails or studs attached, an allegation that has since been raised before the Supreme Court and is part of the ongoing proceedings. Similar allegations emerged from Bihar, where student activists claimed that police resorted to firing during demonstrations. One incident in Siwan drew particular attention after a police constable allegedly fired an AK-47 rifle towards protesters; the constable was subsequently suspended, although protesters have continued to demand accountability from senior officers. Police authorities have maintained that force was used only after demonstrators attempted to breach security arrangements and denied allegations of unlawful or excessive action.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

The agitation eventually concluded after the Union government accepted several key demands, including the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on July 25. The government also announced that criminal cases registered against many student protesters during the demonstrations would be reviewed, with FIRs against students who had not been accused of serious acts of violence proposed to be withdrawn. However, the selective withdrawal of cases became another point of contention, with petitioners arguing that the criminal process had been used to deter participation in the protests and demanding greater transparency and accountability in the registration and withdrawal of FIRs.

Meanwhile, the end of the protest did not end the controversy. Instead, a new battle emerged — over the treatment of protesters after the demonstrations.

Women protesters become the centre of backlash

One of the most striking features of the aftermath was the disproportionate targeting of women who had participated in the protests. Several women who became recognisable faces of the movement alleged that they were subjected to misogynistic attacks, including rape threats, sexualised comments, fabricated allegations and attempts to publicly shame them.

A report by ThePrint noted that women protesters across Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata became targets of social media campaigns after the protests ended. Images of women were allegedly cropped, altered or circulated with calls to identify them and take action against them. The report highlighted that although protesters of different genders participated in raising slogans during demonstrations, women were specifically singled out afterwards.

The pattern, activists argued, reflected a familiar method of discrediting women in public movements — shifting attention from their political arguments to their appearance, morality, personal lives and character. Women protesters said that rather than addressing the issues raised by the movement, online campaigns focused on portraying them as irresponsible, immoral or deserving of punishment.

Rhiya Ahir: From protest symbol to target of online attacks

One of the most visible examples was Rhiya Ahir, a Mumbai-based actor and model whose image of standing in front of a police vehicle carrying detained protesters went viral during the demonstrations. The photograph turned her into one of the recognisable faces of the movement. However, according to Rhiya, the public attention soon transformed into online abuse.

Speaking to ANI, as reported by LiveMint, Rhiya said she approached the Maharashtra Police cyber cell after allegedly facing harassment and defamatory content online. She stated that while criticism was part of democratic expression, attacks targeting her dignity and personal reputation crossed the line.

“Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but no one has the right to degrade someone, malign their reputation, attack their dignity publicly, or make statements suggesting that a person does not have the right to live,” she said.

Rhiya also clarified that the movement was not organised for any political party, religion or individual but was about issues affecting students.

A detailed report by ThePrint described how women protesters became targets of online campaigns involving alleged fake images, sexualised misinformation and calls for police action. The report quoted Rhiya alleging that fabricated images of her were circulated along with false claims about her personal life and profession. She argued that when critics could not challenge the substance of the protest, they shifted towards attacking the character of women participants.

“If you cannot attack the cause, attack the character”

The backlash against women protesters was described by many activists as part of a broader pattern seen during previous movements, including the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the farmers’ agitation. Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, speaking to ThePrint, pointed out that similar tactics had been used earlier — including spreading misleading videos, manipulated images and personal attacks to delegitimise protesters.

The focus on women, activists argued, was not accidental. Women participating in political protests often face a different form of scrutiny. Their clothing, language, relationships and personal choices become subjects of public debate in ways that male protesters frequently do not experience.

A protester quoted by ThePrint said: “Patriarchy becomes a rather perfect tool when it comes to attacking women, because if you cannot attack the cause, you attack the character.”

This raised a larger question: whether women’s participation in democratic protest continues to be judged through expectations of “acceptable” behaviour rather than constitutional rights.

The apology controversy: A minor protester caught between forgiveness and criminal action

The moral policing and attacks on women for using abusive slogans against Prime Minister Narendra Modi further intensified the backlash against women protesters. On July 31, Prime Minister Modi posted a video message saying he had forgiven students who had used abusive language against him during the protests. He described them as “misled children” and said the focus should be on guiding them rather than punishing them.

The Prime Minister’s remarks also betrayed a deeply paternalistic view of women’s place in political protest. Declaring that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, Narendra Modi nevertheless singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that they had used abusive language. The outrage, then, was not directed at the abuse itself but at the fact that women had dared to express anger in a manner that defied conventional expectations of femininity. Such framing reduces women protesters to custodians of culture, holding them to standards of civility and respectability that are rarely imposed on men. Rather than confronting the grievances that drove thousands of students to the streets, the remarks shifted the conversation to whether women had behaved as society expects them to. That distinction is not incidental—it reflects the persistence of gendered expectations in India’s political discourse, where women are often judged less for what they demand than for how they choose to demand it. Predictably, according to The News Minute, several women protesters said that online abuse against them continued despite the Prime Minister’s message.

The case of the 15-year-old protester who was accused of using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi became one of the most distasteful examples. During the protest, a video surfaced showing the teenager at the protest site shouting and repeating vulgar profanities directed at PM Modi while expressing her frustration. Once it went viral, the video took a life of its own.

A Zero FIR against her was initially registered in Noida and later transferred to Delhi. The allegations invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections relating to intentional insult, statements allegedly causing public mischief and defamation.

Even after there came a video of the teenager apologising publicly went viral after Prime Minister Modi’s remarks urging society to forgive young protesters. In the video, the girl expressed regret for her comments, said she had been influenced by the atmosphere around her and described the incident as her “first and last mistake”.

Only a 15-year-old minor girl, she said that she continued receiving rape threats and sexually explicit messages from unknown accounts and phone numbers. The teenager told IANS that people threatened her with rape and continued targeting her even after her apology. She also alleged that police continued searching for her despite the apology. However, the controversy did not end with her apology.

According to The News Minute, the teenager alleged that she continued receiving rape threats and abusive messages despite publicly apologising. She said unknown accounts sent sexually explicit material and threatened violence against her. As per the report of The Print, the child had to stop going to school, and had to shift out of her house along with her single mother.

The episode highlighted a contradiction at the centre of the debate: while public discussions focused heavily on the language used by protesters, there was comparatively less attention on the gendered abuse directed towards young women who participated in the movement.

On August 5, Hindustan Times reported that the complainant in the case against the teenager withdrew the complaint, stating that she no longer wished to pursue the matter after the Prime Minister had forgiven the protesters. Lawyer Smriti Singh, who had filed the complaint, said that the FIR was initially registered against multiple girls and that she decided not to continue the matter.

When gender meets religion

Beyond the cases involving slogans and online criticism, several women activists alleged that their participation itself had triggered police scrutiny. One such case involved JNU Students’ Union leader Danish Ali.

According to Maktoob Media, Danish alleged that Madhya Pradesh Police visited her family home after her participation in the NEET protests and questioned her relatives despite no FIR being registered against her. She said police contacted her father and advised him to ask her to focus on studies instead of activism. Danish alleged that she was singled out because of her Muslim identity.

“Coming from a Muslim community, with the peak Islamophobia in the country, my family is concerned,” she told Maktoob. She questioned why police action was directed towards her when several other activists had participated in the same protest.

A similar concern was raised by Amreen Shaikh, an organiser of the NEET protest in Goa. According to Maktoob Media, Shaikh was summoned by Goa Police for questioning after helping organise a demonstration that had received official permission. She alleged that during questioning, police asked whether she would take responsibility if a “bomb blast” occurred during the protest.

She said officers also questioned her about her father, his business and foreign travel history. Shaikh said she struggled to understand why questions unrelated to the education protest were raised. She alleged that her identity as a Muslim woman had contributed to the scrutiny she faced.

Although she was not named as an accused, she said the police action and online harassment caused significant mental distress. The FIRs associated with the protest invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to unlawful assembly and related offences.

Vismaya Mohanlal and dissent

The backlash against protesters also extended to celebrities and public figures who expressed support for student demonstrators. Actor Vismaya Mohanlal, daughter of Malayalam superstar Mohanlal, faced online criticism after expressing support for students protesting over the NEET paper leak. According to Indulge Express, Vismaya responded to criticism by saying she stood by her views and believed democracy required citizens to question those in power.

She stated: “We should always be allowed to question and be heard. We should always have dialogue instead of force, and I don’t think your politics should ever supersede your humanity.”

She clarified that her position was not aligned with any political party and that her concern was based on humanitarian principles. Her comments triggered online backlash, with some social media users calling for a boycott of her debut film. Filmmaker Major Ravi defended her position, saying her comments reflected concern for students rather than political affiliation.

Shradha Singh: Online misogyny after becoming a face of the movement

Another woman who became a target after the protests was content creator Shradha Singh. According to The News Minute, Singh’s seven-second Instagram video recorded alongside Rapid Action Force personnel became a subject of controversy after it was amplified by television channels and social media accounts.

She alleged that she was invited to participate in a television discussion under the impression that she would be allowed to explain her position, but instead found herself in a confrontational debate where she faced criticism. Speaking to BBC Hindi, as reported by TNM, Singh said she felt humiliated during the programme but chose not to react emotionally because millions of people were watching. She later spoke about the sexualised abuse directed at her online.

She said comments under her social media posts included degrading remarks targeting her dignity and character. Singh contrasted this experience with her time at the protest site, saying she had stood among hundreds of men without facing harassment but had experienced severe abuse from people online. She appealed for greater attention towards misogynistic online attacks against women protesters.

Gendered backlash: When women become the issue

If the protests challenged the government’s handling of the NEET crisis, the backlash exposed the deeply gendered nature of political dissent in India. Women who stood at the forefront of the movement were not merely criticised for their politics—they were punished for their visibility. Instead of engaging with their demands, detractors sought to discredit them through misogyny. Their clothing was dissected, their professions questioned, their morality policed, sexual rumours manufactured, morphed images circulated, rape threats issued and calls made for their arrest. The objective was unmistakable: to shift the conversation from what women were saying to whether they deserved to be heard at all.

This is a familiar script in Indian protest politics. When a movement proves difficult to defeat on its merits, its women are turned into the battleground. Their political agency is recast as moral transgression; their dissent reduced to questions of character and respectability. The message is clear—women may participate in public life, but only so long as they remain within the boundaries of acceptable femininity. The moment they speak too loudly, lead too visibly or challenge authority too forcefully, they cease to be citizens exercising constitutional rights and become subjects of public moral scrutiny.

The outrage over abusive slogans exemplified this selective moralism. For weeks, public debate fixated on the language used by a handful of protesters, while allegations of excessive police force—including pellet guns fired at students, lathi blows to the heads of demonstrators, and reports of live ammunition being used against protesters in Bihar—struggled to command comparable attention. The disproportionate focus on slogans effectively displaced the central questions the movement had raised: whether the state had responded lawfully and proportionately, and whether those responsible for violence against students would ever be held accountable.

The Prime Minister’s response only reinforced that imbalance. While PM Modi declared that he could forgive youngsters for abusing him, he singled out women, saying it was a “culture shock” that women had used abusive language. The implication was difficult to ignore. Abuse itself was not the singular concern; it became uniquely shocking when it came from women. By holding women protesters to a higher standard of civility than men, the remarks echoed a deeply paternalistic expectation that women must remain composed, respectful and restrained—even when confronting injustice. In doing so, the country’s highest political office did not simply comment on the protests; it reinforced the patriarchal logic that women in politics are judged less by the legitimacy of their demands than by whether they conform to society’s expectations of femininity. In the end, the conduct of women became a bigger controversy than the conduct of the state.

From online abuse to institutional response: Legal aid emerges as protesters seek protection

As allegations of harassment, intimidation and threats against student protesters continued to emerge, political organisations and civil society groups began creating support mechanisms for those facing legal and online challenges.

The Indian Youth Congress (IYC)v launched a nationwide legal helpline under its “Chhatron Ki Goonj” campaign to assist students who claimed they were facing threats, intimidation and online abuse following their participation in the NEET protests. According to The New Indian Express, the helpline was created to receive complaints from students alleging harassment connected with their participation in demonstrations. The organisation said complaints would be reviewed and that legal and organisational assistance would be provided wherever required.

IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib said young Indians had a constitutional right to question the government and raise their voices without fear. The organisation specifically referred to cases involving women protesters, including Rhiya Yadav and Shradha Singh, who had spoken publicly about online abuse. The launch of the helpline highlighted a growing concern: that the consequences of participating in a public protest were extending beyond the protest sites into private lives, families and digital spaces.

A broader crackdown narrative: arrests, FIRs and continuing protests

While the Jantar Mantar protest ended after assurances from the government, several state-level demonstrations continued. In Bihar, students returned to the streets demanding the release of protesters arrested during earlier demonstrations.

According to The Times of India, hundreds of students and youth activists gathered in Patna demanding that the government honour its promise to withdraw cases and release detained students. The protesters alleged that many students had not returned home despite government assurances.

They demanded:

• a verified list of released and detained protesters;
• withdrawal of criminal cases;
• accountability for alleged police excesses.

The demonstrations were dispersed by police using water cannons after protesters attempted to march towards the Chief Minister’s residence. The police maintained that action was taken only after protesters attempted to enter restricted areas.

Supreme Court intervenes: FIRs, surveillance and police action under scrutiny

The aftermath of the NEET protests reached the Supreme Court, where multiple petitions challenged alleged police excesses during the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march and subsequent demonstrations.

The petitions raised serious allegations, including:

• use of excessive force against protesters;
• alleged use of pellet guns;
• baton charges;
• injuries suffered by students;
• alleged assault of journalists and lawyers;
• detention of minors;
• surveillance and collection of protesters’ personal data.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana clarified that States were free to withdraw FIRs against student protesters if permitted under law. The clarification came after petitioners pointed out that the Court’s earlier order allowing investigations to continue could affect the government’s commitment to withdraw cases against protesters.

The Court also clarified that the phrase “criminal antecedents” used in its earlier order would refer only to serious and heinous offences, after concerns were raised that students with minor cases could face difficulties. According to LiveLaw, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the government remained committed to addressing cases against student protesters but that criminal law procedures did not provide a simple mechanism for “withdrawing FIRs”.

Possible legal routes included filing closure reports, seeking withdrawal of prosecution or approaching courts for quashing proceedings. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that withdrawing cases individually would be complicated, particularly where FIRs involved large numbers of unidentified persons. One Patna FIR, she pointed out, named thousands of unidentified individuals, raising concerns that such broad FIRs could potentially be used against students.

The Supreme Court also examined allegations of excessive police action during the protests. Petitioners alleged that security forces used disproportionate force against demonstrators, including pellet guns and other crowd-control measures.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that accountability must extend to senior officials responsible for authorising police action. He urged the Court to examine how security forces were permitted to use such methods against civilian protesters.

The petitioners also alleged the use of:

• pellet guns;
• shock batons;
• sticks with nails;
• force against women protesters;
• detention of minors.

The Court directed authorities to preserve relevant evidence, including:

• CCTV footage;
• drone recordings;
• body camera footage;
• videography;
• wireless communication records;
• PCR logs.

The Court also directed authorities not to disclose protesters’ personal information and digital data while the matter remained under consideration. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that police officers responsible for excessive force should not receive undue protection. At the same time, the Court noted that genuine criminal acts committed during protests could not be ignored merely because they occurred in the context of demonstrations. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 18.

Detailed report on the proceedings before the Supreme Court may be read here.

Tamil Nadu keeps the anti-NEET movement alive

Although the nationwide agitation lost momentum after the resignation of the Union Education Minister, resistance to NEET remained alive in Tamil Nadu, where opposition to the examination has long been rooted in questions of social justice and federalism rather than administrative reform alone. As reported by The News Minute, Members of the Ban NEET Movement under the Anti-NEET Federation launched an indefinite hunger strike in Chennai, demanding the complete abolition of the examination. Protesters argued that NEET continues to privilege students with access to costly coaching while placing first-generation learners, rural students and those from economically weaker backgrounds at a structural disadvantage. They also renewed demands for education to be shifted from the Concurrent List to the State List, contending that states should have greater autonomy over admissions and education policy. The movement once again invoked the memory of S. Anitha, whose death in 2017 transformed the anti-NEET campaign into a larger struggle against educational inequality and the centralisation of policy.

Beyond NEET: The democratic questions remain

What began as a demand for accountability over an examination leak ultimately evolved into a far broader test of India’s democratic institutions. The movement forced difficult questions that remain unanswered: How far can the state go in policing dissent? When does crowd control become excessive force? Can criminal law be used to discourage political participation? Why are women who protest subjected to uniquely gendered abuse? And who is held accountable when constitutional rights are allegedly violated in the name of maintaining public order?

The legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of police action, FIRs, surveillance and the preservation of evidence signal that the questions raised by the protests have outlived the demonstrations themselves. Whether those proceedings result in meaningful accountability will shape not only the legacy of the NEET movement but also the boundaries of the right to protest in the New India.

Equally enduring is the lesson the protests offered about gender and dissent. For many women, participation in the movement meant confronting not only the coercive power of the state but also orchestrated campaigns of misogyny, intimidation and character assassination. Their experiences underscored a troubling reality: in India, women who claim political space are still expected to defend their morality before their message is heard.

The NEET protests may have ended, but the questions they raised continue to reverberate. The movement is no longer only about a competitive examination or an alleged paper leak. It has become a referendum on the state’s response to dissent, the shrinking space for democratic protest, and whether young citizens can challenge authority without being met with criminal prosecution, excessive force or targeted harassment.

Related:

#STOPKILLINGUS Protest at Jantar Mantar on August 4 against GOI’s “cover-up” of Manual Scavenging deaths

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown

Permission to Protest? Why the right to dissent needs no licence

Ken-Betwa protest exposes the cost of state-led displacement

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

The post After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement issued on Sunday, August 9, the organisations said that the Committee has been entrusted with examining the overall ecology of the Aravalli region, its impact on people’s lives, social and economic conditions, water resources and groundwater, mining, employment, animal husbandry and other related issues.

Such an assessment is simply not possible through what amounts to a token tour of nine districts in just four days, the organisations said.

Only One Hour for the Ajmer Hearing

The organisations also questioned the decision to allot only one hour for the Ajmer public hearing. People were invited from different districts, but were asked to make their submissions within just two minutes. This, they said, clearly demonstrates that the Committee is not serious about hearing the concerns and experiences of different sections of the population.

The organisations had submitted the names of 11 representatives from Ajmer, Jaipur, Beawar, Bhim and Bhilwara to represent the people. However, only a few were actually given an opportunity to speak.

The organisations strongly condemned the systematic hijacking of today’s Ajmer public hearing by the mining lobby, with large numbers of mining operators and other stakeholders reportedly brought in from Nagaur and Makrana.

The presence of hundreds of people associated with the mining business, who repeatedly raised their hands in a show of strength during the proceedings, raises serious questions about the role of the administration and suggests possible administrative complicity, the organisations said.

No Genuine Effort to Involve the Public

There was no meaningful effort by the administration to inform or involve ordinary people in the public hearing. No public notice was issued in newspapers and no adequate publicity was undertaken. As a result, there was very little participation from rural areas.

Instead, the gathering of government officials from different departments and large numbers of business representatives appeared to be an attempt to create the appearance of a public hearing, the organisations alleged.

When representatives of people’s organisations objected to the manner in which the hearing was being conducted, attempts were made to silence them, and several sections were denied an opportunity to put forward their views.

Aravalli Cannot Be Discussed Without Those Who Live and Work There

The organisations emphasised that any meaningful discussion on the Aravallis remains incomplete without the participation of rural communities, farmers, pastoralists, environmental activists, scientists, geologists and experts on water and groundwater resources.

The Committee must travel to rural areas and mining-affected regions and directly examine the ground realities faced by local communities, they said. It must also meet and directly assess the condition of silicosis patients whose lives have been devastated by mining.

Concerns over the Composition of the High-Level Committee

The organisations also termed the composition of the High powered Committee inappropriate and demanded representation for all relevant stakeholders.

They pointed out that it is deeply problematic that the Chairperson and two members of the Committee are representatives of the very department that had earlier recommended that only hills rising more than 100 metres should be considered part of the Aravallis.

The exclusion of even a single environmental activist from the Committee is equally alarming and indicates, the organisations said, that the government continues to pursue a policy of protecting the interests responsible for the destruction of the Aravallis, rather than protecting the range itself.

“Mining Lobby Creates an Unsafe Atmosphere”

The most disturbing development, the organisations said, was the aggressive behaviour and threatening and violent language used by persons associated with the mining lobby during the public hearing.

Representatives of people’s organisations were specifically targeted. After the hearing, some of the mining lobby representatives confronted them outside the venue, engaged in heated arguments, hurled abuses and issued threats, creating an atmosphere of considerable insecurity.

The organisations said that such intimidation is completely unacceptable in a process that is supposed to provide a safe and democratic space for citizens to express their concerns.

Demands for a Genuine and Comprehensive Process were made

Representatives of the people’s organisations, including Kavita Srivastava, Bhanwar Meghwanshi, Anant Bhatnagar, Indira Pancholi, Shankar Singh, Komal Srivastava, Tarachand Verma, Dhiresh Kumar Jain, Shashi Meena, Prashant Patni, Mary Reen, Rajkumar Nahar, Suresh Mathur, Jyoti Prakash Bhati, Kuldeep Gehlot and Neelam Ahluwalia, have demanded:

(i) Extension of the tenure of the High-Level Committee

(ii) A transparent and meaningful process to ensure participation of the general public;

(iii) Adequate opportunity for all affected sections and stakeholders to present their views;

(iv) A comprehensive study covering all districts falling within the Aravalli region;

(v)Field visits to rural and mining-affected areas;

(vi) Direct assessment of the impact of mining on communities, including the condition of silicosis-affected workers and families; and

(vii) A comprehensive ecological, social, economic and hydrological assessment of the Aravalli region before any final conclusions are drawn.

The People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Save Aravalli, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Save Dol Ka Badh Movement, Shahabad Valley Sangharsh Samiti, Climate Action for Youth, Jaldhara, People for Aravalli, and other organisations said that if the Committee fails to make the process genuinely participatory and inclusive, people’s organisations will organise their own genuine public hearings at different locations across the Aravalli region.

Related:

In North Gujarat’s Granite-Rich Idar, Locals Fearful About Aravalli Mountains’ Future

Say No to ‘Toxic Governance’: Arrest air pollution, not activists and protesters: NACEJ

Whose ‘ENVIRONMENT’ is it, anyway?

The post As mining lobby “hijacks” Ajmer public hearing, “tokenism” on Aravallis condemned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His life story is full of contradictions. He emerged from Delhi’s politically charged theatre culture and was associated with the Left, but later developed an intense hostility towards leftists. He has himself described his decision to play a part in the politically controversial Jahangir National University as being driven by resentment rather than conviction and subsequently apologised for it.[1]

There is a similar contradiction in the way he talks about relationships, women and responsibility. Mishra has publicly admitted to cheating on his wife and has spoken about being emotionally absent and irresponsible during the early years of his marriage. He has also spoken about making obscene calls to women while drunk and acknowledged behaviour that he himself considered deeply inappropriate.

The point isn’t that a person’s private mistakes automatically invalidate their political opinions. They don’t. People can change, grow and genuinely repent.

The problem begins when someone turns their own personal journey into a source of moral authority over society, while refusing to interrogate the power structures, prejudices and contradictions embedded in their worldview.

And yet, somewhere along the way, Piyush Mishra has become something of a sweetheart of the young, progressive podcast circuit. He is presented as the rebellious, uncompromising, revolutionary intellectual, the older, irreverent voice who supposedly says what others are afraid to say. In the process, his history of misogynistic behaviour and his increasingly right-leaning political positions often seem to disappear from the conversation. The rebel is celebrated; the contradictions are merely a side note. There is also something deeply uncomfortable about the cultural archetype he represents: the brilliant, troubled, self-confessional male artist whose excesses are romanticised as evidence of his genius, while women are expected to absorb the consequences of those excesses with patience, forgiveness and understanding.

Mishra’s artistic talent is real. His self-awareness about some of his failures may also be real. But self-confession isn’t the same thing as political introspection.

And then comes Jharkhand.

This contradiction becomes particularly visible when Piyush Mishra enters the Jharkhand student protest.

A student movement is, at its core, about young people demanding accountability, dignity, opportunity and a future that isn’t determined by the whims of those in power. It is about challenging structures, not surrendering to personalities.

So his presence in the Jharkhand protest raises an uncomfortable question: what exactly does he represent there? If the movement claims inter-sectionality, shouldn’t that lens apply to the men it celebrates too?

If the protest is about challenging patriarchy, hierarchy, privilege and the normalisation of power without accountability, then elevating a celebrity whose own public narrative is marked by admitted infidelity, misogynistic behaviour and ideological contradictions sits uneasily with the politics of the movement.

The issue isn’t whether Piyush Mishra is allowed to speak. Of course he is. The issue is what his presence symbolises.

There is an additional question worth asking here. Mishra did publicly support the Jantar Mantar student protest, condemning the violence and saying that the government should have opened a dialogue with the students earlier. But he was not physically present at Jantar Mantar, where the violence against students was severe enough to move an empathetic heart to action. In Jharkhand, by contrast, he travelled to Ranchi, joined the students in person and sang Aarambh Hai Prachand at the protest site. He has said that watching interviews with the students and seeing their pain moved him to join them.

So the question is I’d keep it as an open-ended question rather than implying an answer:

So the question is: what made his solidarity more visible in Jharkhand? Does the difference in the governments being confronted have anything to do with it?

And perhaps the sharper question is for the progressive men, at least those who celebrate his presence at the protest: can a movement that seeks to challenge hierarchy and privilege afford to simultaneously romanticise the very contradictions it claims to resist? And why are those same contradictions disqualifying when they belong to people they oppose, but fascinating, forgivable or even revolutionary when they belong to a man they admire?

Perhaps the real test of progressive politics is whether we are willing to apply the same scrutiny to ourselves and the people we admire as we do to those we oppose.

(The author, is a branding and design strategist with over 25 years of experience across leading advertising agencies. She has worked with the Congress Party for the past six years)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

[1] Piyush Mishra played the character of “Guru Ji” and sang the promotional track “Main Nahi Manta” for the controversial political drama film Jahangir National University (JNU), which was released on June 21, 2024. Following the film’s release, Mishra publicly offered an unconditional apology for taking on the role, admitting that signing the project without reading the complete script stemmed from his past opposition to communist ideologies

Related:

moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Law fraternity rallies behind student protesters, condemns Delhi police crackdown

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India

The post Piyush Mishra, Jharkhand and the Blind Spot of Progressive Men appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 4, hundreds of safai karmacharis (sanitation workers), families of those who died cleaning sewers and septic tanks, Members of Parliament, students, writers and civil society groups assembled at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi under the banner of the Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA). Their demand was strikingly simple: that Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly acknowledge the government’s failure to stop these deaths, apologise to the country, and end what they described as a continuing cycle of preventable killings.

The demonstration, organised under the slogan #STOPKILLINGUS, was not merely another protest against unsafe labour conditions. It was an indictment of a system that activists argue has normalised caste-based hazardous labour while simultaneously understating its human cost. As reported by Newsreel Asia, Protesters carried placards reading “Stop Killing Us! Stop Hiding Our Deaths!” and “PM Break Your Silence!” while submitting a memorandum accusing the Union government of concealing the true scale of sewer and septic tank deaths.

The missing dead

At the centre of the protest lies a stark dispute over numbers. According to documentation compiled by the Safai Karmachari Andolan, 593 people died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks between January 2021 and July 2026. However, the Union government’s response in Parliament acknowledged only 332 deaths during roughly the same period. That leaves 261 deaths unaccounted for, according to SKA.

The memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister posed a direct question:

“How did 593 deaths become 332? Where have you hidden the remaining 261 persons who were killed?”

According to the organisation’s records:

• 2021: 47 deaths
• 2022: 93 deaths
• 2023: 102 deaths
• 2024: 117 deaths
• 2025: 121 deaths
• January–July 2026: 113 deaths, including 15 in July alone

The trend demonstrates not improvement but escalation. SKA National Convenor Bezwada Wilson said that despite more than four decades of campaigning against manual scavenging, sanitation workers continue to be sent into sewers and septic tanks in violation of law, reported Newsreel Asia.

“If the government does not immediately stop these killings,” he warned, “the community will have no option but to organise a nationwide chakka jam.”

Not accidents, but illegal deaths

The language used by the movement is deliberate. The memorandum repeatedly rejects the official description of these incidents as workplace accidents. “These deaths are not accidents. They are caused by illegally employing and forcing workers to get inside septic tanks and underground sewer drains.”

The organisation argues that every such death violates Articles 14, 17 and 21 of the Constitution—equality before law, abolition of untouchability and the right to life. SKA National Leader Deepthi Sukumar argued that the persistence of these deaths reflects not only administrative negligence but the continuing reality of caste discrimination. “Because those dying are Dalits, the government does not seem to care,” she said, reported The Hindustan Gazette.

Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha described the deaths as “a matter of national shame“, while CPI(ML) MP Sudhama Prasad criticised the Modi government’s “Manuvadi mindset,” accused the government of attempting to hide fatalities instead of preventing them, reported The Hindustan Gazette. Congress MP Karamveer Baudh assured protesters that the issue would be raised in Parliament.

The human cost behind the statistics

Behind every disputed statistic is a family still waiting for accountability. Forty-two-year-old Satyawati travelled to Jantar Mantar carrying memories dating back to March 20, 2009. Her brother-in-law, Ashok Kumar, worked for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi collecting garbage. “He left home for work but never returned,” she recalled, reported Hindustan Times.

According to Satyawati, the family later received a phone call informing them that Ashok had been sent to clean a septic tank in Delhi’s Narela and died inside it. Seventeen years later, she says, nothing has changed. Her family’s story mirrors hundreds of others represented at the protest—families for whom compensation has often remained inadequate, prosecutions rare, and justice elusive.

The report by Hindustan Times also shared the story of another participant, Paleram, a 60-year-old daily wage worker from Rohini who migrated from Haryana, described entering septic tanks for nearly twenty-five years with almost no training or protective equipment. He began as a sweeper earning ₹50 a day before switching to septic tank cleaning because it paid marginally more.

“The only training I received was being told to climb down the slippery iron handles and clean,” he said, reported Hindustan Times. After recently fracturing his leg while slipping inside a septic tank, he continues working because there are few alternatives. “Sometimes NGOs give us gloves. Otherwise we go inside wearing almost nothing.”

These accounts expose the gap between official claims of mechanisation and the everyday realities faced by sanitation workers.

The caste system beneath the sewer

The protest repeatedly foregrounded what scholars and activists have argued for decades: manual scavenging is not merely an occupational hazard but a caste-based institution. A doctoral researcher studying caste and occupation at Ambedkar University observed that while governments celebrate cleanliness campaigns, the workers responsible for maintaining sanitation infrastructure remain among the least protected.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, who joined the demonstration, remarked that sanitation workers remain invisible both in life and in death. “They are invisible when they are alive, and when they die, the government behaves as though they never existed,” reported Hindustan Times.

Manoj Kumar Jha similarly argued that the overwhelming concentration of Dalits in sanitation work reflects centuries of structural exclusion rather than individual occupational choice.

NAMASTE and the mechanisation gap

India has formally attempted to abolish manual scavenging for decades. The first national legislation prohibiting manual scavenging came in 1993. It was replaced by the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which criminalised the employment of manual scavengers, prohibited hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without adequate safeguards, and promised rehabilitation. Yet enforcement has remained weak.

No meaningful record of widespread prosecutions exists under the earlier legislation. The 2013 law itself has been criticised for leaving significant ambiguities, including failing to clearly define what constitutes adequate protective equipment and allowing hazardous sewer work under certain conditions. Government data has also remained contested.

The 2011 Census recorded more than 2.6 million dry latrines, while the Socio-Economic Caste Census identified over 180,000 households dependent on manual scavenging as a livelihood. The Safai Karmachari Andolan has consistently argued that the real number of manual scavengers exceeds one million. They have also repeatedly identified the Indian Railways as one of the country’s largest employers of sanitation workers engaged in manual cleaning through contractual arrangements.

Detailed report on how employement of sanitary workers in Indian Railway tracks is a problem may be read here.

In July 2023, the Union government launched the National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem (NAMASTE), promising to eliminate hazardous manual sewer cleaning through mechanisation. According to government announcements, the programme was allocated ₹349.73 crore. Three years later, SKA argues that sanitation work remains overwhelmingly dependent on human entry into septic tanks and sewers. The organisation therefore describes the scheme as having failed to achieve its primary objective. Its memorandum asks the government to officially acknowledge this failure and fundamentally redesign the programme.

The Supreme Court’s growing frustration

On July 27, the Supreme Court sharply criticised state governments for failing to prevent sewer deaths despite repeated judicial directions. Hearing the long-pending public interest litigation filed by Dr Balram concerning manual scavenging and sewer cleaning, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi expressed serious concern over continuing fatalities.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing as amicus curiae, informed the Court that deaths had continued despite its landmark 2023 judgment and subsequent monitoring orders. Referring to data placed before Parliament, he submitted that 54 sewer deaths were officially recorded in 2024 and 46 deaths in 2025, with Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh among the affected states.

Detailed reports on the judgments may be read here, here and here.

The Court responded by issuing show-cause notices to the Chief Secretaries of five states, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for failing to comply with its earlier directions.

As reported by LiveLaw, Justice Aravind Kumar made the Court’s frustration unmistakably clear: “If deaths have occurred subsequent to our orders, we are going to summon your Chief Secretaries… We are making it very clear that we are going to initiate suo motu contempt… This can’t go on… We will fix the responsibility. Somewhere it has to stop.”

The Bench noted that despite repeated directions issued since October 2023, including enhanced compensation of ₹30 lakh for sewer deaths and the January 2025 ban on manual sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities, fatalities continued “in larger numbers”, indicating that the Court’s orders had failed to translate into administrative action.

A detailed look into the jurisprudence governing manual scavenging, researched consistently by Citizens for Justice and Peace, can be accessed here.

A demand for political accountability

The memorandum submitted by SKA asks for more than compensation. It demands:

• A national apology from the Prime Minister.
• Disclosure of the actual number of sewer and septic tank deaths.
• Immediate elimination of manual entry into sewers.
• A Parliamentary Standing Committee to investigate continuing fatalities.
• A time-bound national plan to eliminate sewer and septic tank deaths.

The memorandum also notes that similar representations were submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office in March 2025 and March 2026, yet received no response.

The memorandum to the PM is attached below:

An old practice the law still has not ended

The protest at Jantar Mantar exposed more than the continuing existence of manual scavenging. It highlighted the widening gap between constitutional guarantees, legislative promises, judicial directives and everyday governance.

Every sewer death occurring after the 2013 Act, after the launch of the NAMASTE Scheme, and after repeated Supreme Court orders raises difficult questions about implementation rather than legislative intent. When governments continue to describe these fatalities as isolated workplace accidents while workers are illegally sent into toxic pits without adequate protection, accountability shifts from individual contractors to the institutions responsible for regulation and enforcement.

For families like Satyawati’s, whose wait for justice has stretched across seventeen years, the demand is no longer simply for compensation. It is for official acknowledgement that these deaths are neither inevitable nor accidental, but the foreseeable consequence of a system that continues to rely on caste-based labour despite laws enacted to abolish it. Until that acknowledgement is matched by enforcement, mechanisation and prosecution, every new sewer death will remain not only a labour rights failure but also a constitutional one.

Related:

Supreme Court bans manual scavenging in metro cities

Breaking the cruel cycle of oppression: one more judgment against manual scavenging in India

SC asks Union, state to eradicate manual scavenging completely, ensure compensation, rehabilitation and education

Manual Scavenging: Why the gov’t’s conscience is not clean about the Swachh Bharat Mission

Caste-based prison work is authoritarian, colonial said SC striking down discriminatory State Prison Manuals

Manual scavenger deaths: How effective is the law in preventing them?

Everyday Atrocity: Mapping the normalisation of violence against Dalits and Adivasis in 2025

The post One Death Every Few Days, Zero Accountability: Sanitation workers protest at Jantar Mantar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The affidavit filed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on July 31, 2026 in Rajubala Das v. Union of India marks an important intervention in that debate. Filed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated March 21, 2025, the affidavit seeks to explain the legal and administrative framework governing deportation where the nationality of a declared foreigner remains unknown or unverified. In doing so, the Union makes one of its clearest judicial admissions to date: deportation cannot even be initiated unless the individual’s nationality has first been verified by the receiving State, appropriate travel documents have been obtained, and the receiving country has agreed to accept the individual. This is no ordinary procedural clarification.

The affidavit fundamentally distinguishes between being declared a foreigner and being legally deportable. While a declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal may settle a person’s legal status within India, it does not, the Union now accepts, authorise the State to physically remove that individual from Indian territory. Deportation remains contingent upon a separate process involving diplomatic engagement, nationality verification, issuance of travel documents and, most importantly, the consent of another sovereign State. In other words, the executive cannot unilaterally deport a person merely because Indian authorities believe them to be a foreign national. That proposition carries consequences far beyond the Rajubala case.

For months, instances of forced deportations and illegal pushbacks have surfaced from Assam, West Bengal, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Delhi of individuals “suspected” of being Bangladeshi nationals. In many of these cases, the family of those deported have approached the courts alleging that the removals were carried out without any disclosed nationality verification, without travel documents, and without Bangladesh formally acknowledging or accepting the individuals concerned.

Detailed reports may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Against this backdrop, the Union’s affidavit assumes a significance that extends well beyond the immediate dispute before the Court. By placing on record the legal prerequisites for deportation, the Government has simultaneously articulated a benchmark against which its own recent executive actions may now be tested. If nationality verification and acceptance by the receiving State are indeed indispensable legal requirements, as the affidavit repeatedly states, the obvious constitutional question is whether recent deportations and border removals have consistently adhered to those very standards.

The case of Rajubala Das

What began in 2020 as a challenge to the continued detention of one individual has gradually transformed into the Supreme Court’s most comprehensive examination of India’s detention and deportation regime. The litigation traces its origins to Rajendra Das, who was declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Morigaon, Assam, in 2011 under the Foreigners Act, 1946, on the allegation that he was a Bangladeshi national. Following that declaration, he was eventually detained in 2018 and remained incarcerated for years despite there being little indication that his deportation was imminent. His wife, Rajubala Das, approached the Supreme Court through the present Writ Petition, arguing that the State’s inability to deport him could not constitutionally justify his indefinite detention. The petition did not primarily dispute the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration. Instead, it raised a deeper constitutional challenge. If deportation was not realistically possible because nationality remained disputed, travel documents were unavailable, or Bangladesh had not accepted the individual, could the State continue to deprive a person of liberty indefinitely? That question went to the heart of Article 21. For several years, the proceedings remained relatively limited. However, from 2024 onwards, the litigation underwent a remarkable transformation.

2024: The scrutiny of Matia Detention Centre- The case assumed far greater constitutional significance in 2024 when the Supreme Court considered reports of deplorable conditions inside Assam’s Matia detention centre. A report submitted by the Assam State Legal Services Authority documented severe shortages of drinking water, poor sanitation and prolonged detention of hundreds of individuals in conditions raising serious Article 21 concerns.

The Court’s inquiry consequently expanded beyond Rajendra Das’ detention to the functioning of the entire deportation regime. It directed the Assam Government to disclose the legal basis of every detainee’s incarceration, the documents supporting their detention and, crucially, the concrete steps taken towards their deportation. The Court was no longer prepared to accept broad assertions that deportation was “under process.” It demanded documentary proof that deportation was legally and practically feasible.

January–March 2025: Contradictions exposed- The affidavits filed by Assam only deepened the Court’s concerns. The State failed to explain the continued detention of nearly 270 individuals, many of whom had spent close to a decade in detention, while offering little evidence of meaningful diplomatic efforts to secure their deportation. The absence of information regarding nationality verification, travel documents and communication with Bangladesh prompted the Court to observe on January 22, 2025 that prolonged detention without any demonstrable prospect of deportation raised serious concerns under Article 21.

When the matter was heard again on February 4, 2025, Assam attributed the delays to the inability to ascertain addresses in Bangladesh. The Supreme Court was unconvinced. It directed the State to produce complete records of every detainee, explain the absence of a deportation roadmap and required the Chief Secretary to personally oversee compliance.

The contradictions became even more apparent in March 2025. Although Assam informed the Court that thirteen individuals had been deported after nationality verification through Nationality Verification Requests (NVRs), the same affidavit disclosed that 33 of the 63 persons earlier identified for deportation were simultaneously challenging the Foreigners Tribunal orders against them before the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court. One such detainee, Ajabha Khatun, had already secured protection against deportation from the Gauhati High Court. Even more strikingly, the thirteen persons ultimately deported were reportedly not from the original list of sixty-three individuals the State had earlier claimed were awaiting deportation. These contradictions exposed the absence of a coherent and transparent deportation framework and significantly undermined the State’s earlier assertions.

Detailed report may be read here and here.

CJP’s legal intervention in Ajabha Khatun’s matter may be read here.

The March 21, 2025 order- Faced with these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court shifted its focus from Assam to the Union Government. Recognising that deportation ultimately depends upon diplomatic engagement through the Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs, the Court, by its order dated March 21, 2025, directed the Union to explain the legal procedure applicable where a declared foreigner’s nationality remains unknown or unverified. The July 31, 2026 affidavit is the Union’s response to that direction.

Detailed report may be read here.

The Union’s Affidavit: A judicial admission that deportation cannot occur without nationality verification

If the earlier phases of the Rajubala Das litigation exposed the constitutional deficiencies of India’s detention regime, the Union Government’s affidavit dated July 31, 2026 seeks to explain the legal framework governing deportation itself. Filed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order of March 21, 2025, the affidavit is, on its face, an attempt to answer a seemingly straightforward question: what happens when a person has been declared a foreigner but their nationality cannot be verified?

The answer offered by the Union is strikingly clear. According to the affidavit, such a person cannot be deported. More importantly, the Union goes a step further and states that the deportation process itself cannot even be initiated until nationality verification is complete. This is perhaps the single most important legal proposition emerging from the affidavit. It is also one that may have consequences extending far beyond the Rajubala case and Assam.

Deportation is not a unilateral exercise of sovereign power: Public discourse often treats deportation as though it were entirely within the executive’s control—that once Indian authorities conclude that someone is a foreign national, they may simply escort that individual across the international border. The Union’s own affidavit rejects that understanding. Instead, it recognises that deportation is an exercise involving two sovereign States, not one.

The affidavit explains that where a foreign national possesses valid travel documents, the concerned State Government, Union Territory Administration or the Foreigners Regional Registration Office may proceed with deportation after criminal proceedings conclude and provided no other criminal case remains pending. However, the affidavit makes it equally clear that this represents only one category of cases.

A much larger legal problem arises where the individual possesses no passport, travel document or proof of nationality. In such situations, deportation cannot simply proceed on the basis of India’s unilateral determination. Instead, the receiving State must first verify that the individual is indeed its national, and only thereafter can travel documents be issued and deportation can legally occur.

A declaration by a Foreigners Tribunal answer only one question—whether, under Indian law, the person has established lawful citizenship or lawful residence. It does not determine whether another sovereign country recognises that individual as its citizen. That determination belongs exclusively to the receiving State.

The three preconditions the Union says are indispensable: Coming to the legal prerequisites for deportation, the affidavit effectively recognises three cumulative conditions.

• First, the individual’s nationality must be verified.
• Secondly, the concerned foreign government must issue or facilitate the issuance of appropriate travel documents.
• Thirdly, the receiving country must agree to receive that person.

The Union leaves little ambiguity. It states:

“ That, a foreign national whose nationality is unknown/unverified can be deported to their home country only upon confirmation of their nationality/possession of a valid travel document/ acceptance by the home country concerned. The deportation procedure cannot be initiated without nationality verification.” (Point 10)

The Union’s formulation is significant because it elevates nationality verification from a mere procedural formality to a legal precondition for deportation. By stating that the deportation process “cannot be initiated” without nationality verification, the affidavit makes clear that verification is not simply one step in the process but the foundation upon which any lawful deportation rests. In effect, the Union acknowledges that, until nationality is confirmed and the receiving State agrees to accept the individual, there is no legally valid deportation process that can commence.

The Ministry of External Affairs emerges as the central actor: The affidavit also clarifies an aspect of deportation that has often remained opaque in public discourse. It explains that nationality verification is not undertaken directly by State Governments. Instead, once an individual is apprehended—or, in certain cases, once an FIR is registered—the concerned State Government or Foreigners Regional Registration Office is required to immediately forward the individual’s particulars, including photographs, to the Ministry of External Affairs.

The Ministry of External Affairs then engages with the Embassy or High Commission of the country believed to be the person’s home State. Only after the foreign government examines the material, verifies nationality and agrees to issue travel documents can the deportation process move forward. This explanation is legally significant because it reveals that deportation is not merely an exercise under the Foreigners Act; it is simultaneously an exercise in diplomacy.

“That, in case the foreigner does not have a valid travel document/passport, it is necessary to obtain the requisite travel document from the Embassy/High Commission ofthe country concerned through the process of nationality verification before he/she can be deported in accordance with Clause 12(4) of the Immigration & Foreigners Order, 2025.” (Point 8)

“That, in such cases, the State Government/UT Administration/FRRO/FRO concerned may take up the matter regarding issuance of travel document in favour of the foreigner with the Ministry of External Affairs (Consular Division), with detailed particulars and photograph of the said foreigner immediately on arrest of the foreign national or on filing of FIR, whichever is earlier.” (Point 9)

The affidavit acknowledges the limits of Indian sovereignty: The Union expressly states that no time limit can ever be prescribed for nationality verification because the process is entirely within the domain of the foreign government. This is a significant concession as it amounts to an acknowledgment that India cannot compel another sovereign State to decide whether a particular individual is its citizen. Nor can India dictate the speed with which that determination must be made.

“That, since verification of nationality is a sovereign function of the foreign government, no time limit can be fixed for completion of the process of nationality verification. Consequently, until such time as nationality is duly verified and deportation is effected, the movement of the illegal migrant, must remain restricted within a designated holding centre to ensure his/her physical availability for deportation.” (Point 12)

Yet this admission also exposes a constitutional dilemma. The affidavit acknowledges that nationality verification is entirely dependent on the receiving State, over which India has no control, and that no timeline can be prescribed for its completion. If so, on what constitutional basis can the State continue to detain a person for an indeterminate period while awaiting a process whose duration is uncertain and potentially indefinite? The affidavit offers no limiting principle. It merely states that such individuals should remain in holding centres until verification is completed, without addressing what Article 21 requires if that process takes years—or never concludes at all.

The affidavit attempts to justify continued detention: To address this obvious constitutional concern, the Union argues that persons awaiting nationality verification should remain in designated holding centres. According to the affidavit, restricting their movement is necessary to prevent absconding, protect national security and ensure that deportation can be carried out once nationality is verified. While these are familiar justifications for immigration detention, they do not fully answer the concerns raised by the Supreme Court in Rajubala. Article 21 may permit temporary restrictions on liberty, but it does not sanction detention for an indefinite period. The affidavit assumes that detention can continue until nationality verification is complete, without addressing the constitutional question of how long such detention can remain lawful if deportation continues to be uncertain or remote. The Court’s concern has consistently been not merely whether deportation is pending, but whether continued detention remains proportionate when there is no foreseeable prospect of removal.

“That, in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 28.02.2012 in the matter of Bhim Singh vs Union of India & Ors. the Ministry has advised State Govt/UT Administrations to ensure that all foreign nationals who have completed their sentence but whose deportation/repatriation is awaited due to nonconfirmation of nationality/issue of travel documents by the country concerned may  be réleased from jails immediately and may be kept at appropriate place outside the 4 jail premises with restricted movements pending their repatriation. State Govts/UT Administrations have also been advised to ensure that the places where such foreign nationals are being kept must have basic facilities of electricity, water and hygiene.” (Point 13)

The reliance on Bhim Singh is both important and incomplete: To support its position, the Union relies upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhim Singh v. Union of India. The affidavit notes that, following that judgment, the Ministry of Home Affairs advised States and Union Territories that persons who had completed their criminal sentence but whose deportation remained delayed due to non-confirmation of nationality or non-issuance of travel documents should ordinarily not continue inside prisons. Instead, they could be accommodated in designated places outside prison premises where their movement could remain restricted pending deportation. The Union cites this advisory as demonstrating that the present practice of housing such individuals in detention or holding centres has judicial support. That reliance is only partly persuasive.

The Bhim Singh framework sought to distinguish immigration detention from ordinary criminal incarceration. It recognised that individuals who had completed their sentences should not continue to be treated as convicted prisoners merely because deportation had become difficult. However, Bhim Singh did not answer the larger constitutional question now arising in Rajubal, which is how long can a person remain in such a holding centre before the detention itself becomes arbitrary?

The July 31 affidavit reproduces the administrative framework flowing from Bhim Singh, but it does not confront its constitutional limits. That omission becomes especially significant given the Supreme Court’s repeated observations since 2024 that Article 21 cannot permit indefinite executive detention unsupported by a realistic prospect of deportation.

The affidavit and the question of recent deportation practices

The Union’s affidavit is notable not only for the legal framework it sets out, but also for what it does not address. It repeatedly states that deportation is contingent upon three conditions: verification of nationality by the receiving State, issuance of travel documents, and acceptance by that State. Yet, it is silent on how these requirements align with the recent allegations of “push back” operations reported from Assam and other States, where individuals were allegedly taken across the border without any publicly disclosed process of nationality verification or acceptance by the receiving country.

This omission is significant because the affidavit is a sworn statement before the Supreme Court, setting out the Union’s own understanding of the law. The Government does not describe nationality verification as a matter of administrative convenience; it states in categorical terms that the deportation process “cannot be initiated” without it. The affidavit also recognises that verification is a sovereign function of the receiving country and that deportation is possible only after that country confirms the individual’s nationality and agrees to accept them. These are presented as legal prerequisites, not procedural formalities.

Against this backdrop, the affidavit inevitably invites comparison with recent events. The Supreme Court is already seized of petitions alleging that several persons from West Bengal were forcibly pushed into Bangladesh without due process. One such case came to forefront in November 2025, wherein Sunali and her husband, Danish Sheikh, along with their son, were apprehended in Delhi’s K.N. Katju Marg in June, labelled as illegal immigrants. Their deportation was ordered by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and executed despite Sunali’s family presenting Aadhaar and PAN documents. The petitioners further argued that the authorities had ignored the Ministry of Home Affairs’ own guidelines dated May 2, 2025, which required verification from the individual’s home State before deportation. They contended that no meaningful opportunity of hearing had been provided and that the deportations violated both statutory procedure and the constitutional guarantee of fairness. In the case of Bhodu Sheikh v. Union of India, the Union ultimately was made to undertake the decision of bringing these six people back, on humanitarian grounds, after they had allegedly been pushed across the border.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Similarly, in the Rajubala proceedings themselves, the Court has repeatedly insisted that deportation must follow nationality verification through Nationality Verification Requests (NVRs), issuance of travel permits and other documented procedures. The affidavit, however, does not explain whether these safeguards were followed in the recent removals that have become the subject of litigation.

The affidavit also has significant implications for how constitutional courts scrutinise deportation cases. Once the Union itself has stated on oath that deportation cannot even be initiated without nationality verification, travel documents and acceptance by the receiving State, courts can no longer be satisfied with bare assertions that an individual has been “deported” or “repatriated”. The legality of deportation necessarily turns on whether these mandatory procedural steps were actually followed.

This issue was focussed on by the CJP legal team in Gauhati Court after the illegal deportation of Doyjan Bibi in May 2025. CJP’s legal intervention in Doyjan’s case may be read here, here and here.

This shifts the focus of judicial review. It will no longer be sufficient for the State to merely state that a person has been deported. Courts will increasingly have to insist on the underlying record: when the Nationality Verification Request (NVR) was sent, whether the receiving country confirmed the person’s nationality, whether travel documents were issued, whether the receiving State formally agreed to accept the individual, and whether the deportation was carried out pursuant to a lawful order after the individual had exhausted or waived available legal remedies.

Indeed, this is precisely the direction in which the Rajubala litigation has already moved. Dissatisfied with vague assertions of impending deportation, the Supreme Court repeatedly sought detailed data from the Assam Government on detainees, nationality verification, pending litigation and the actual steps taken towards deportation. The Union’s July 31 affidavit reinforces that approach. If compliance with these procedural safeguards is what makes a deportation lawful, then those safeguards cannot remain matters of executive assertion—they must be demonstrated through documentary evidence capable of judicial verification.

In that sense, the affidavit has implications beyond the immediate case. It raises the evidentiary threshold for the State in future deportation litigation. Courts will have to examine not only whether a person was deported, but how the deportation was carried out and whether it conformed to the legal framework that the Union itself has now placed before the Supreme Court.

The affidavit leaves little room for informal “push back” operations

Perhaps the most significant implication of the affidavit lies in what it suggests about the legality of the recent “push back” operations reported from Assam and other States. Over the past few months, multiple petitions before the Supreme Court and High Courts have alleged that persons suspected of being Bangladeshi nationals were taken across the international border without any publicly disclosed deportation process. In several cases, families have alleged that individuals were picked up without prior notice, denied access to lawyers or relatives, and removed without any disclosed deportation order or travel documents.

Detailed report may be read here, here, here and here.

The Union’s affidavit describes only one legally recognised route to deportation. According to it, removal can take place only after the receiving country verifies the individual’s nationality, issues the necessary travel documents and agrees to accept them. Significantly, the affidavit states that the deportation process itself cannot be initiated before nationality verification. It does not recognise any separate category of “push back” operations or explain the legal basis on which such removals could take place outside this framework.

That omission is important. If “push back” is treated as a form of deportation, it would necessarily have to satisfy the procedural safeguards outlined in the affidavit. If it is not deportation, the affidavit offers no explanation of the statutory or constitutional authority under which such cross-border removals are carried out. The affidavit therefore leaves unresolved a question that is already before constitutional courts: whether recent removals complied with the legal process that the Union itself now says is mandatory.

Beyond Nationality Verification: The missing due process framework

While the affidavit sets out the broad mechanics of deportation, it is noticeably thin on the procedural safeguards that accompany the process. It explains how nationality verification is to be initiated but says almost nothing about the rights of the individual who is its subject.

For instance, the affidavit does not clarify whether a person is informed when a Nationality Verification Request (NVR) is sent to a foreign government, whether they have access to the material relied upon for such verification, or whether they have any opportunity to contest incorrect or incomplete information before it is acted upon. Equally, it is silent on what follows once nationality is confirmed. Is a formal deportation order issued? Is the individual notified that the receiving State has accepted them? Can that decision be challenged before a constitutional court? None of these questions are addressed.

These are not peripheral procedural details. They go to the heart of procedural fairness under Article 21. Deportation is among the most coercive powers the State can exercise—it results in the physical removal of a person from the territory of India. Such a power necessarily requires a transparent legal process, one that affords notice, an opportunity to be heard where appropriate, and meaningful judicial oversight before the final act of removal.

The significance of these omissions becomes even more pronounced in light of recent litigation concerning alleged “push back” operations. If the Union’s own position is that deportation cannot commence without nationality verification and acceptance by the receiving State, the procedural steps connecting those two stages assume constitutional importance. Without clarity on how those decisions are communicated, documented and implemented, it becomes difficult for courts to effectively scrutinise whether the legal requirements identified by the Union have actually been followed in an individual case.

The affidavit therefore provides only part of the legal architecture. It explains the prerequisites for deportation, but not the due process safeguards that ensure those prerequisites are fairly implemented. That gap is likely to assume increasing significance as constitutional courts continue to examine the legality of detention and deportation in the Rajubala proceedings and in the growing number of cases challenging recent removals across the country.

Beyond Rajubala: Why this affidavit reinforces the constitutional limits of deportation

The significance of the Union Government’s July 31 affidavit extends well beyond the immediate dispute in Rajubala Das. Rather than introducing an entirely new legal framework, the affidavit reiterates and reinforces the procedural safeguards that the Supreme Court has been examining throughout the proceedings. In doing so, it re-emphasises a central constitutional question: what constitutes a lawful deportation?

For years, courts have largely focused on whether an individual was correctly declared a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Rajubala case has broadened that inquiry by examining the legality of what follows—the process of detention and eventual deportation. The Union’s affidavit continues that shift by setting out the legal conditions that, according to the Government itself, must precede any deportation.

A key takeaway from the affidavit is that deportation is not a unilateral executive act. While Indian authorities may identify a person as a foreign national and initiate the process, deportation ultimately depends on nationality verification by the receiving State, issuance of travel documents and that State’s willingness to accept the individual. Until these steps are completed, the Union says, deportation cannot be initiated.

The affidavit therefore re-emphasises that executive power under the Foreigners Act is not unfettered. Declaring a person to be a foreigner may establish that they have no legal right to remain in India, but it does not automatically authorise their physical removal from the country. Deportation remains a separate legal process governed by procedural safeguards and diplomatic engagement.

This is an important clarification because it places legal limits on the State’s deportation powers. Those limits arise not only from constitutional guarantees under Article 21 but also from the Union’s own understanding of the deportation process, as placed before the Supreme Court. In that sense, the affidavit is significant not because it creates a new legal standard, but because it reaffirms one before the country’s highest court. That reaffirmation is likely to shape future judicial scrutiny of deportation cases, particularly where allegations are made that individuals were removed without following the safeguards that the Union itself now says are mandatory.

Related:

Aadhaar, Voter ID and PAN Cannot Prove Citizenship: Calcutta High Court’s Foreigners Order and the burden of belonging

They Belong Here: An elderly couple’s victory for citizenship

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

When a narrow reading of documents decide citizenship: GHC in Aminul Hoque

‘Fairness & reason ‘: SC rules that due process is a must for citizenship determination

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

The post ‘Deportation Cannot Begin without Nationality Verification’: Union’s Rajubala affidavit clarifies legal limits on executive power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The signatories include senior lawyer Indira Jaising, academician Uma Chakravarti, social activist Aruna Roy, PUCL India President Kavita Srivastava, Kalyani Menon Sen, publisher Urvashi Butalia, danseuse Mallika Sarabhai, author and activist, Teesta Setalvad, activists Sujata Gothaskar and Shabnam Hashmi, women’s leaders  Jagmati Sangwan and Annie Raja and Nisha Sidhu of National Federation of Indian Women, Maimoona Mollah of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Lalita Ramdas, Syeeda Hameed, Meena Saraswati Seshu, transparency activist Anjali Bharadwaj, lawyer Lara Jesani, Govind Kelkar, academic Shilpa Phadke and journalists Rituparna Chatterjee and Laxmi Murthy.

In their statement, they observed that the legal struggle was not easy from day one. The filing of the FIR after a public protest by the wrestlers that turned violent and the entire period of trial which lasted more than two years saw a legal team led by Sr. Adv Rebecca John who left no stone unturned in eliciting sound testimonies from the violated wrestlers and presenting powerful arguments to the court.

The statement said that “the judgement has acquitted the accused but the fight will continue for justice.” The womens’ organisations and individual feminists have demanded the implementation of POSH in the sports arena, a safe playing field be created for all, free of political interference and the crass use of money and muscle power said that they will continue to support the wrestlers in the struggle for creating a sexual harassment free wrestling arena and its spin off in other sports fields.

Womens’ groups and Feminists Hail Our Wrestlers and Their Lawyers Fighting for Justice 

In the statement, the signatories who include members of women’s’ organisations and independent feminists in India stated that “they are are shocked at the acquittal of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, former MP (BJP) and the erstwhile President of the Wrestlers Federation of India by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi.”

Further, the statement said that, “While the full order is yet to be shared in the public domain, our detailed comments on its merits, or demerits as the case may be, will follow. However, at this point, we stand in solidarity with our courageous wrestlers who never said die. We hail the fight for justice against seemingly impossible odds, as they waged an inspiring battle against the highly politicised power structures of sports associations in India, where money and muscle power rule the arena.

Tracing the timeline of the case, the statement reads,

“The FIRs were lodged in April 2023 on the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, due to the public pressure created by the dharna of wrestlers, who left their training and other commitments, jeopardising their careers as they took on Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and his supporters on the streets. Of the two FIRs lodged against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, one was from a minor and the second was by five wrestlers.

“Prior to this, the wrestlers were forced to make numerous representations before a series of committees, held meetings with the Union Sports Minister, the Chairperson of the Indian Olympic Association and other officers but all these efforts, instead of responding to their genuine grievances, resulted in attempts to silence the complainants.

“We recall the manner in which the wrestlers had to struggle for over six months for just the right to wage a legal battle on their sexual harassment charge against Singh in April 2023.

“The effective struggle in the month of April – May 2023, led by the wrestlers in Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the alleged harasser, brought people from all over India, including senior sports persons, farmers, students, women and human rights groups, was met with a violent backlash by the Delhi police, who used excessive force to stop the marchers to march to the new Parliament, on May 28, 2023. This crackdown was followed by mass scale detention of the marchers and the wrestlers.

“Undeterred the wrestlers did not give up and tried to come back to Jantar Mantar to continue their protest. The state fear of these women was such that huge barricades were erected to stop any further agitation.

“Nevertheless the focus of the Wrestlers became the legal battle, with the Chargesheet being filed on June 15, 2023.

“The struggle and public pressure also forced an otherwise intransigent Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to refrain from standing for the next elections of WFI. He, however, ensured that his supporter would be elected. The BJP dropped him from the 2024 Lok Sabha election in Kaiserganj in Uttar Pradesh but his son was fielded in his stead and won the seat.

“From day one, the legal struggle was not easy. In the month of May 2023 itself, the minor who was also a complainant, of sexual harassment by BBSS changed her statement, news reports of that period claimed that the family was brought under a lot of pressure. And could not withstand the consequences of taking on Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

“The entire period of trial which lasted more than two years, from May 2024 when charges against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh were framed to date, saw three of the witnesses present robust statements and courageously take on the cross examination, although two of the five complainants changed their statements.

Specifically , the statement makes mention of and congratulates the legal team led by senior advocate Rebecca John who left no stone unturned in eliciting sound testimonies from the violated wrestlers and presenting powerful arguments to the court.

While, today the judgement has acquitted the accused but the fight will continue for justice. The wrestlers who spoke out and struggled, despite being victimised in their careers by the federation, still have a large support of the people. We stand by them in their challenge to this judgement in the higher court.

The struggle of the last three and a half years, has also initiated an awareness within the sports arena, where POSH and its predecessor Vishakha Guidelines which had remain un-implemented, were brought in under Supreme Court directives. As women’s organisations and members of the women’s movement in India, the women signatories have stated that they will continue to support the wrestlers in the struggle for creating a sexual harassment free wrestling arena and its spin off in other sports fields. They have also demanded that POSH be implemented in the sports arena and that sportspeople who raise complaints are protected, instead of being penalised and silenced. Further they have demanded that “a safe playing field be created for all, free of political interference and the crass use of money and muscle power.”

List of Signatories

1. Kavita Srivastava
2. Navsharan Singh
3. Geeta Seshu
4. Amita sheereen
5. Mamta Jaitly
6. Padma Singh
7. Annie Raja
8. Sankalpa Satapathy
9. Smitha kumar
10. Nandini Rao
11. Amrita
12. Ladkumari jain
13. Purwa Kushwaha
14. Abhilash Durugkar
15. Smita Gupta
16. Nivedita Menon
17. Koel Chatterji
18. Nisha Biswas
19. Avanti Deshpande
20. Lara Jesani
21. Feminists in Resistance
22. Joycia
23. K. Sreemathy
24. Shabnam
25. Seema jain
26. Pamela Philippse
27. Shalini Gera
28. Manju Lata Sanhghatan (मंजू लता संगठन)
29. Madhusree Dutta
30. Chanda Asani
31. Nymphea Reddy
32. Shobhita
33. Laxmi Murthy

30. Anuradha Kapoor
31. Muskan Tibrewala
32. Adv Dr Shalu Nigam
33. Kalpana Chakravarthy
34. Shilpa Phadke
35. Radha Kumar
36. Runu
37. Anwiti
38. Priyakshi Agarwal
39. Rituparna Chatterjee
40. Kritika S
41. Lalita
42. Anita bhartiya
43. Vanita Mukherjee
44. sheba chhachhi
45. Rakhi Sehgal
46. Sharanya
47. Avisikta Aditya
48. Sharanya Nayak
49. Sujata Patel
50. Arundhati Dhuru
51. Kumudini Pati
52. Manisha Chaudhry
53. Ramlath Kavil
54. Jahan Ara
55. Vanita Mukherjee
56. Uma Shankari
57. Monisha Behal
58. Sagari Ramdas
59. Dr dyuti A
60. Seethalakshmi
61. Jagmati Sangwan
62. Suvidha
63. Meena Saraswathi Seshu
64. Sajaya
65. Sanju Sadaneera

70. Meenakshi Sethi Zaidi
71. Mitra Mukherjee Parikh
72. Vidhi Churiwala
73. Archana Srivastava
74. Shabnam Hashmi
75. Cynthia Stephen
76. Priscilla Rawade
77. Nisha Siddhu
78. Jashodhara Dasgupta
79. B
80. Mudit Singhal
81. Chaitanya Reddy
82. Manisha Banerjee
83. Alaka Basu
84. Varsha
85. Sanjeev Chandan
86. Kavitha Muralidharan
87. Mona Mishra
88. Varna Sri Raman
89. Sanjay Madhav
90. Adv Vertika Mani
91. Nandini N
92. Vishal Solanki
93. Rachel A J
94. Sushma Varma
95. Rishika Agarwal
96. Aruna Gnanadason
97. Shikha bhardwaj
98. Vijay Rukmini Rao
99. Anurita
100. Sujata Gothoskar
101. Suneeta Dhar
102. Ammu Joseph
103. Norat Mal
104. Teesta Setalvad
105. Sohini Bhattacharya
106. Amit Ambedkar
107. Kiran Moghe
108. Virginia Saldanha
109. Indira C

110. Subramanian
111. Soudhari varalaxmi
112. Anjali
113. Geetha Nambisan
114. Elina Horo
115. Dev Desai
116. Leena Dabiru
117. Lakshmi Lingam
118. Dr RuShashi Puri
119. AS Vasanta
120. Yamini Dikshit
121. Mary E John
122. Anjali Bhardwaj
123. Shashi Puri
124. Amrita Johri
125. Rati Rao E
126. Anwesha Banerjee
127. Parvathi Nair
128. Prof F Minusia
129. Malavika
130. Nandini Manjrekar
131. Shweta Raj
132. D
133. Roger Samuel
134. Biraj
135. Rinchin
136. Vani Subramanian
137. Inee koshi
138. Sehjo singh
139. Harish Pejavar
140. Anuvinda
141. Anita Mathur
142. Devyani bhardwaj
143. Indira Jaising
144. Malik
145. Bindhulakshmi Pattadath
146. Ritambhara
147. Mrs Kamlesh Dagar
148. Mridula Mukherjee
149. Bhavna Sharma

150. Sudha Shankar
151. Kamal
152. Sejal Joshi
153. Sirimane Nagaraj
154. Veena Shatrugna
155. Riddhima Sharma
156. Beena Pallical
157. Geetha
158. Purwa Bharadwaj
159. Hemalatha Shenoy
160. Maya Chilwal
161. Sudha Goparaju
162. Renu Khanna
163. Sadhna
164. Deepa Bhushan
165. Mallige Sirimane
166. Hemalatha
167. Anuradha GR
168. Sunita Lakra
169. sandhya Phadke
170. Alka
171. Urvashi Butalia
172. Alka Ranjan
173. Sarika Sinha
174. Vijayakumar
175. Sumana Ray
176. Ranjani
177. Clifton D’ Rozario
178. Jyothi
179. Rita Chadha
180. Kalyani Menon Sen
181. Rajiv Lochan Sah
182. Lata Bhise Sonawane
183. Meghna Nair
184. Nonibala Narengbam
185. Deepti Mary Minj
186. Kiran
187. Koninika Ray
188. Palashka
189. Yashodhara

190. Ritash
191. Anuja
192. Deepa
193. Kamini Tankha
194. Sandeep
195. Poonam Kaushik
196. Minakshi Singh
197. singh
198. Ammu Abraham
199. Madhuri
200. Swarnamala Sirsi
201. Deepa
202. Seema e
203. Nalini Nayak
204. Sudhir Vombatkere
205. Savita
206. Maimoona Mollah
207. Ramya
208. Asha V.
209. Gouthami
210. Kavitha Gajendran
211. Raynah Marise
212. Susheela K
213. Prasad Chacko
214. Nivedita jha
215. Sanyogita Dhamdhere
216. Manjeet Rathee
217. Komal Srivastava
218. Shakeel
219. Mallika Sarabhai
220. Aruna Roy
221. Tanuja Sharma
222. Satish Kumar Singh
223. Madhuri
224. Anupama
225. Prasanna Moses
226. Karuna DW
227. Syeda hameed
228. Kaninika Ghosh
229. Sathya

230. Ritika
231. Reena Mohan
232. Shilpi Gulati
233. Archana
234. Roselle Solomon
235. Natasha Badhwar
236. Davy Tim
237. Komal saigal
238. Indira Jaising
239. Ramnarayan
240. Leila Passah
241. Uma Chakravarti
242. Alaka Basu
243. Ritu Menon
244. Pyoli Swatija
245. Sandhya Phadke
246. Renu Khanna
247. Govind Kelkar
248. ri@gmail.com
249. Varsha Sharma
250. Fatema C
251. Shampa Sengupta
252. Rangoli Agarwal
253. Sehba
254. Pranav Kumar Das
255. Hemalatha M
256. Aruna
257. Amitabha Basu
258. Zeenat Niazi
259. सहमत SAHMAT
260. Radhika Desai
261. Renuka Kad
262. Rajshri
263. Nandini Sundar
264. Sandhya gokhale
265. Raja Chandra
266. Batul Mukhtiar
267. Libania
268. Lalita Ramdas
269. Na Divakara

270. Bittu K R
271. Swarna Rajagopalan
272. Mariam Dhawale

Related:

Delhi Court frames charges against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Singh, says it found sufficient material on record to charge with sexual harassment of 5 wrestlers

Bajrang Punia returns Padma Shri, in open letter to PM Modi states “My fellow women wrestlers gave up sports for safety, that’s why I am returning this “honour” to you”

Clear case of re-victimisation: Former SC judge Madan B Lokur on Delhi Police’s handling of women wrestlers case

The post Women Wrestlers & Lawyers’ battle for justice: Feminists, women leaders in support appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This shift is exhilarating and energising for those who have long felt some quiet desperation that things may not change. The easy camaraderie across class, caste, gender, sexual orientation, language, geography, physical ability had people observing, struck in awe.  What many of us articulated from podiums, through media and books is now being demonstrated in the streets. This is not to say that all that ground work is irrelevant. It probably provided a backdrop for the scale of the current movement. The fact that the Union and state governments have been forced onto the back foot is impressive. This is especially because these same bodies, along with their supporting structures – the governors, judiciary, media and bureaucrats have been largely tone deaf. Their disproportionate abuse of power had the chilling effect of silencing many voices – individuals who had too much to lose when the full strength of the state power was turned upon them.

The honourable chief Justice of India would probably for the first time have felt that words have consequences. When one thinks about the number of people in power who have used inflammatory casteist, sexist and anti-minority language without any fear of consequences, one feels that this is exactly the kind of movement that the country needed – irreverential, inordinately humorous and witty and refusing to back down. In spite of the unacceptable level of violence against the students, their spirits shone through and that is what makes this movement exactly what the country needed.

The movement was sparked by allegations of irregularities in the NEET-UG 2024 examination, which led students across the country to demand transparency, accountability, and reforms in the examination process. The controversy eventually reached the Supreme Court, which heard multiple petitions challenging the conduct of the examination while directing investigations into allegations of malpractice. The Union Government subsequently entrusted the investigation into the paper leak allegations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), underscoring the seriousness of the controversy.

Students demonstrated across numerous states, with protests organised both on university campuses and in major cities, amplified through social media and supported by parents, teachers, and sections of civil society.

Perhaps the movement’s greatest lesson was its clarity of purpose. The students remained overwhelmingly non-violent despite facing lathi charges, water cannons, tear gas, and allegations of sexual assault. Their discipline became one of the movement’s greatest strengths. They refused to be distracted by peripheral issues, remaining focused on a limited set of clear and achievable demands.

No popular movement is beyond criticism, and this one is no exception. Every mass mobilisation carries risks: co-option by political interests, internal divisions, misinformation, or the influence of powerful corporate and political actors. Those dangers must always be recognised. Yet one of this movement’s greatest strengths was that it drew support from many quarters without becoming the project of any single political party. That independence gave it both legitimacy and resilience.

The movement also built upon earlier struggles. The farmers’ protests demonstrated that sustained, peaceful resistance could withstand enormous political pressure. That legacy provided confidence to a new generation of protesters and reminded those in power that coercion does not always produce submission. Each successful act of peaceful resistance strengthens democratic culture and encourages others to participate in public life. Six months before that, youth and women across generations, all hailing from India’s largest minority group had stunned us with their peaceful sit-ins and protests challenging the anti-constitutional amendments to Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the impending National Register of Citizens (NRC). Analyses and reports of both these historic mobilisations may be read, here, here, here and here.

There are some lessons from this movement that needs to be recognised.

The students continued to remain largely non-violent in spite of lathi charges, water cannons, tear gas, and sexual assaults. Their equanimity is commendable.

They had select demands and they stuck to these doggedly. There was no back and forth negotiating and nit picking. The focus on doable demands which were completely rational to anyone was important. Rather than one insensitive minister being replaced by possibly another, the movement created accountability mechanisms that have long been forgotten in the country irrespective of the party in power. This movement for accountability will raise the bar not only the current government but also the Opposition and anyone considering a political career. That, in itself, is a huge victory for the country. The message is that serious violations will face consequences.

The farmers, to their credit, had paved the way and their presence, along with other movements, lent an air of impenetrability to the movement. It said that violence against the students would bring more, not less resistance. The memory of the farmers protests would still linger in the memory of the current political dispensation and each movement that they fail to disrupt with their usual cheap tactics is like disciplining a recalcitrant child.

This movement gives enormous sense of hope to the apparently depressed civil society organisations.

One is that there is always a need for a vibrant civil society who hold power. Depending on the nature of autocracy of the government, the losses and struggles are more, but in the absence of that struggle, there is zero hope.

A senior doctor told me at the peak of government flexing its strong arm against citizens, that some of us have to hold the fort. Now those few people – the small media houses, the YouTubers, the pockets of resistance will have the army of youth asking questions. It is good lesson when one is feeling hopeless about the way forward.

We need to consider this as a very positive and hopeful beginning. The context will not be drastically changed by the resignation of education minister. There are many more systemic changes needed in our democratic country. But the underlying message is change is possible!

As Dr. BR Ambedkar said “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.”

The author is Secretary, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat, New Delhi.

Related:

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

The Republic Speaks Back: How Student Power Reminded Authority of Its Limits

The Revolution has begun….!

The post When students demonstrated what democracy stands for appeared first on SabrangIndia.