The first and most pressing is the case of 26-year-old Sunali Khatun from Birbhum’s Murarai area, pregnant at the time of her arrest, who was detained in Delhi in June along with her husband and 8-year-old son and subsequently deported to Bangladesh. She is currently jailed in Bangladesh, legally battling for her return to India.

The Sunali Khatun case

Sunali and her husband, Danish Sheikh, along with their son, were apprehended in Delhi’s K.N. Katju Marg in June, labeled 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, as per a report in the Times of India.

What has triggered shock and outrage is the revelation that Sunali’s parents — Bhodu Sheikh and Jyotsna Bibi — are listed as voters in Bengal’s 2002 SIR-era electoral roll, under Murarai assembly constituency.  Under the Citizenship Act, one route to being a citizen by birth is if one parent was an Indian citizen at the time of the person’s birth. In this case, both parents appear on a list of voters deemed legitimate by the Election Commission of India (EC).

The Calcutta High Court (HC) in September quashed the FRRO deportation order, noting the haste of the process and the mismatch in Sunali’s age (26 yrs, implying birth in 2000) and the claim of illegal entry in 1998. The court directed the Centre to repatriate her and her family within four weeks — a deadline that has lapsed, The Indian Express reported.

Her father told The Indian Express that “Now our names are on the list. What more do I need to have my pregnant daughter and her family back home?”

The ruling party in Bengal, the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), has seized on these facts to accuse the opposition and the Centre of weaponising the SIR process and targeting poor Bengali-speaking migrants. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), the TMC declared:

“To brand an expectant mother as an illegal infiltrator when her parents stand documented as Indian citizens in the 2002 electoral rolls, is not administrative oversight; it is a moral collapse orchestrated in the name of nationalism” as per a report in the Shillong Times.

Meanwhile, the Centre has moved the matter to the Supreme Court, resisting immediate compliance with the HC’s order.

A suicide amid SIR fears

In a parallel but separate another incident, Kakoli Sarkar, a 32-year-old homemaker originally from Dhaka, married and living in Titagarh for 15 years, ended her life by self-immolation. According to her mother-in-law, Kakoli had valid Indian documents, had voted in multiple elections, yet she lived with anxiety that her name was not on the 2002 voters’ list and that the SIR/NRC process might render her a suspect.

According to reports, on the night of her death she left a note stating that “No one is responsible for my death … I don’t feel well here … Please take care of my two daughters…”

Local police have detained her husband Sabuj Sarkar and her in-laws for questioning to determine if family pressure and documentation fears contributed to the tragedy, as reported

Impact and broader anxieties

These two cases are emblematic of a heightened climate of uncertainty across Bengal, where the SIR rollout and the spectre of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) continue to loom large. The EC’s announcement of SIR-drives across multiple states and Union Territories, including West Bengal, has reignited fears of exclusion, statelessness, and the sense that one’s right to remain is provisional, reported Sabrang India.

For Sunali’s family, the fact that her parents are on the 2002 roll should — in principle — secure her legitimacy. Yet she remains in a Bangladeshi prison and the deadlines set by the court remain unmet. For Kakoli, despite voting and living in India for years, the absence of a listing on the 2002 roll and the ongoing SIR process appears to have triggered existential dread.

Kakoli Sarkar’s suicide is not the only one

The fear that drove Kakoli Sarkar, to end her life amid growing panic over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is not an isolated tragedy. Her death joins a disturbing pattern of despair spreading across Bengal — where citizenship and belonging have become matters of fear rather than procedure.

Haunted by NRC and citizenship fears

The recent death of 57-year-old Pradip Kar from Agarpara, North 24 Parganas, once again exposes the deepening distress among Bengal’s citizens over ongoing citizenship verification exercises. On October 28, 2025, Kar was found hanging in his home, leaving behind a suicide note that “NRC is responsible for my death.”

According to SabrangIndia’s report, his family said he had grown increasingly anxious after the Election Commission announced the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 12 states, including West Bengal — a move widely feared to be a prelude to an NRC-like process.

According to Barrackpore Police Commissioner Murlidhar Sharma, there were no signs of foul play, but Kar’s note made an explicit reference to the NRC. “The family told us he was deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports. After the SIR announcement, he appeared anxious but they assumed it was illness,” Sharma said. Kar’s sister recalled, “He used to tell us he would be taken away in the name of NRC.”

Kar’s death mirrors the earlier tragedy of 31-year-old Debashish Sengupta from Kolkata, who died by suicide in March 2024 after being gripped by fears linked to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). As reported by Sabrang India, Sengupta—visiting his grandparents in South 24 Parganas—was found hanging after confiding that his ailing father, a migrant from Bangladesh, could be denied citizenship for lack of documents. His family said he was “consumed by dread” that the new CAA rules would render many stateless.

These deaths are no longer isolated incidents but reflections of emerging fears consuming ordinary citizens where bureaucratic exercises meant to verify identity instead provoke panic about erasure. Across Bengal, whispers of “NRC coming through the backdoor” now carry the weight of lived fear, not mere speculation.

Related:

Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear”

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC

The post Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Premnagar Basti, also known as the Chick-Chatai Wali Basti, is an at least 45-year-old settlement of BPL migrant labourers, most of which has now been destroyed. 86 of the 250 or so jhuggi-jhopdis that made up the urban village remain protected, entitled to rehabilitation in a 2-decade old low-income housing project called the Ashiana Scheme, as per the state government.

Unlike many similar demolitions of marginalised populations’ homes, the demolition of the Premnagar Basti was initiated not for the purpose of clearing public land, but at the behest of local industrialist Gulaab Singh. In 2013, the Central Market Welfare Association (CMWA) of the market complex opposite the basti filed a lawsuit against the Haryana government and its urban development authority, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), complaining that the very existence of the Premnagar Basti was affecting their business adversely. Singh is the president of this association, and also the owner of the Sector 12 market complex.

The same year that the CMWA filed the lawsuit demanding Premnagar’s demolition, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill was passed in Parliament, repealing 1894’s Land Acquisition Act such that every acquisition would require the government to pay compensation to its occupants, or rehabilitate them. Essentially, it meant that there is no such thing in Indian law as a ‘legal forced eviction’ or a ‘legal forced demolition’.

The act was enforced the following year in 2014, but the CMWA’s case was temporarily dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at the time, as the occupied land in question was not public property at all, but disputed private property that the government had been attempting to acquire for three decades.

Premnagar’s impending demolition has terrorised its residents through much of the last decade, ever since HSVP acquired the land in the mid 2010s (HSVP’s present estate officer, Rakesh Saini, alongside GMDA Nodal Officer and Town Planner R.S. Batth declined comment on the exact date, or any other technical or legal details). Wednesday marked the end of a decade long battle, despite the fact that till date, not a single family has been rehabilitated or compensated by the HSVP as required by the 2013 Act.

In fact, the Ashiana Scheme apartments in sector 47, where the HSVP now promises to house 86 families currently protected from demolition, have sat empty for 15 years. These flats are in a state of utter disrepair, with the HSVP having failed to allot even one of 1,088 flats since the project’s completion in 2010. In 2023, the HSVP announced that these flats would be demolished! The land was set to be resold for high-end commercial use, which the HSVP felt better suited its ‘premium value’; just this year, it was announced that they would not be demolished after all, and Rs. 9 crores  were then allotted for their repair!

In the High Court’s final judgement regarding Premnagar given in January earlier this year, 204 families had been marked as eligible for rehabilitation in these inhospitable Ashiana Scheme apartments. Now, this number has arbitrarily shrunk to 86, and not a single allotment letter has been given to any of them either.

The demolition drive, which employed the use of a massive armed police force, water cannons, detention vans and a bulldozer—blocking Old Delhi Road for regular commuters through the hours of 10 and 6—was overseen by GMDA’s Nodal Officer for ‘removal of illegal encroachments’, R. S. Batth, a somewhat notorious figure for his attempts at internet fame—through the act of demolition itself.

Batth’s Instagram account, @r_s_batth_dtp, consists largely of vertical short-form videos of himself overseeing various demolition drives in addition to participation in Savarna religious events, with the former ranging from the destruction of street food vendor stalls to the huts and homes of slum dwellers. Batth has built a loyal Instagram following, with over 2,71,000 followers and at least 6 fan pages, and a corresponding internet infamy within less than a year of taking office, seemingly entirely at the cost of Gurugram’s urban poor.

On the 8th of October, as sick children were dragged from their homes and men and women beaten with sticks as they were made to watch their homes being razed to the ground, Batth could be seen recording videos of requesting victims of demolition to have tea or water to calm themselves down. These videos, along with closeups of bulldozer action, were then quickly uploaded to his Instagram page, receiving applause from his following.

Surprisingly though, there are forms of attention that Batth does not in fact, enjoy. When reporters from Sabrang India asked him about the legality of the demolition with reference to the 2013 Act, how, if at all, he planned to rehabilitate the people whose homes he’d demolished as constitutionally required, or why the 120 remaining families earlier promised rehabilitation were suddenly dropped from the list. Batth declined comment on each question, and requested that ‘technical questions’ be directed to HSVP’s Estate Officer, Rakesh Saini instead.

“I am not questioning your legal knowledge. Please ask all these technical questions to the Estate Officer and not me,” said Batth. Saini himself also declined comment on the matter, saying that he would prefer if the matter were discussed with him privately instead.

Interestingly, both authorities also failed to answer how many homes it was that they’d set out to demolish. “It is not possible to say the exact number,” said Saini. “It is somewhere around a hundred and fifty.”

Barring the 86 protected homes, marked out by yellow spray paint on bamboo walls and notices pasted everywhere the eye could see, at least 170 homes would have been planned to be demolished. Till the evening, 50 or so homes were destroyed by the Haryana government, with many families not even being permitted to retrieve their belongings.

“That is 50 year’s worth of possessions,” said Reema Devi, resident of one such home, weeping on the street with her granddaughters beside her. “They expect us to get rid of it in a day.”

“This is all the fault of Mukesh Sharma,” she then added. The BJP MLA had campaigned around Premnagar intensely, promising an end to the battle for Premnagar which had begun during Congress’ tenure.” He promised us this wouldn’t happen. That we would be rehabilitated within two months of his taking office,” said Reema Devi.

While Sharma has never since revisited Premnagar,  nor had he replied to the petition sent to him by residents of the basti informing him of the unjust processes of demolition being carried out over there and seeking remedy for the same, he has come very close: On 25th September, Sharma visited the popular Sheetla Mata Mandir merely 2km away from the Premnagar basti, to inaugurate a new building within the temple, and to ensure that no one would sell meat within a four-hundred metre radius of it. These achievements are boasted of on his very own website, mukeshsharma.in.

The following day, the police and demolition authorities were set to return to finish their incomplete task of razing over a hundred more homes, but as of 9th October, at time of writing, no further action is taking place. It seems as if now that Batth’s videos have gone viral, the urgency to ‘clean up’ the streets of Gurugram has ceased.

The homes of a few poor Dalit families have little value to the incumbent government beyond cheap publicity stunts and monkey-fights with the opposition; Congress’ mayoral candidate, alongside their advocate, Abhay Jain were both present at the sight of demolition and spoke vehemently against the drive, requesting that the government at least ‘let Diwali pass’ in peace for the families, most of whom make livings through artisan work and seasonal employment. Both left immediately after the police lathi-charged the basti’s protesting crowd, gathered protectively around the urban village.

“At this point, I don’t understand anything. I don’t know what to do,” said Muskan, an 18-year-old preparing to become a software engineer, who was one of the key voices among the basti’s youth who have been fighting the demolition threats since the judgment of January 16.

“After today, it feels like nothing we can do matters.”

Muskan was among many young women who very nearly escaped violent detention as police forcefully cleared the homes on the outer periphery of the basti. Her friend, a young girl named Shivani was among five people falsely imprisoned without food or water in a detention van outside for the entire duration of the demolition drive, which continued from early afternoon till the evening. Four of these five detainees were women.

“We did nothing. We weren’t violent, we weren’t obstructing anything.  We just asked them not to raze our homes,” said Shivani from behind the grills of the detention van. All the detainees were released past sunset.

For now, the 86 families marked for rehabilitation wait in limbo — their allotted homes in the Ashiana Scheme still locked, decaying, and unfit for habitation. With no timeline or written assurance from the HSVP, uncertainty looms large. Many fear that once the media attention fades, their protection too will quietly dissolve, leaving them next in line for eviction.

(The author is a scholar of religion at Jamia Millia Islamia and a freelance journalist from New Delhi. Additional fieldwork by Vishnu Khanawalia, a reporter and activist from New Delhi.)

The post ‘We Were Promised Rehabilitation’: Gurugram’s oldest Dalit settlement bulldozed after decade long battle; police violently beat and detain residents for protesting appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006 following decades of struggle by forest-working peoples to redress the exclusionary legacy of colonial and post-colonial forest laws. The FRA acknowledges the rights of individual and community access to land, housing, and to minor forest produce, and grants the Gram Sabhas authority to manage and protect forests. The intent of the FRA was to transfer authority from the centralised forest-administrative bodies (like the Forest Department) to local communities and to make the Gram Sabha’s consent a precondition for the approval of any forest diversion. And de-centralisation was recognised as key to protection of both land rights and forest protection.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, enacted in 1980 –and hurriedly amended in 2023 without debate– has a centralised approach to conservation and, following amendments in 2023, has gone further still to consolidate centralized control over forest land. The amendments narrowed the definition of the term “forest” and included broad exemptions for strategic and commercial projects, and also authorised the regularization of diversions under the law. The amendments to the FCA have dismantled community consultation, removed environmental protection, and ultimately weakened the requirements to divert land from indigenous peoples in favour of land acquisition for development. The FCA now enables diversion of forest land for national security and infrastructure development, particularly in border areas, and weakened the requirement for Gram Sabha consent, designed to make community consultation a formality after the diversion has occurred.

It is crucial at this junction to recall the eviction order, passed by the Supreme Court in February 2019 that became the ground for nationwide and lasting protests by forest dwellers and Adivasis. The intent and impact of the order would have been to displace as many as one crore forest community members. Hence, its passage became yet another pivotal moment in the struggle for land and forest rights in India. The order triggered mobilisation among Adivasi and forest community members and immediate civil society response at the nation level, notably the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Within two weeks, national civil society intervention (close to a dozen and a half interim applications were finally filed) led to the Court staying its eviction order. This move was also necessitated after an affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that requested a full reconsideration of the case. The matter still awaits hearing before the Supreme Court, and demonstrates the ongoing struggle over the rights of statutory recognition against conservation. On October 24, 2025, again, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) has –once more–sharply rebutted a plea which has challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the legal validity of the 2012 Rules, made under the law, The Indian Express has learnt. In a counter affidavit filed before the SC in the same matter, the Centre has not only defended the legal validity of the Act but also stressed that the law goes beyond mere land ownership regularisation and aims to restore dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity of forest-dependent communities.

AIUFWP is a national, women-led membership union representing forest-dwelling communities, agricultural workers, and Adivasis. It creates leadership for grassroots communities, especially among Adivasi women, advocates for distributive justice, and works with stakeholders across India to secure legalisation and recognition of community based customary forest rights. CJP operates as a legal rights and advocacy organisation, in close alliance with the AIUWFP by supporting ground-level training and legal interventions. CJP is both drafter and co-petitioner in the detailed interlocutory application (IA) filed before the Supreme Court in 2019. This IA detailed the historic disenfranchisement of India’s indigenous peoples that led to the enactment of the 2006 law, the systemic grievances with claims being denied, due process failings and the deliberate bypassing of Gram Sabhas, and violations of the statute scheme for the Forest Rights Act, 2006 by the forest administration. It also emphasised that mass evictions (not mandated in the law itself) were without constitutional justification and violated natural justice and legal protections.

In the follow-up hearings, the Supreme Court, going well beyond its original order, required states to file affidavits investigating state processes concerning the assessment of forest rights claims and about claims that were denied altogether. Determining whether community land rights are properly granted is now a question of what the Court would deem sufficient transparency in state action.

Apart from this crucial matter (Wildlife First, in which Adivasi unions and others have intervened), at the same time, the apex court of India –another bench–is considering challenges to amendments made to the Forest (Conservation) Act enacted hurriedly in 2023, which would broaden the chasm between statutory protection (under the FRA 2006) and state sovereignty (under the FCA). As publicly noted in one of the recent bench observations, the principle basis for halting mass evictions focused on the unresolved policy and law contradiction between the tenurial and welfare entitlements granted by the Forest Rights Act and the hard restrictions allegedly imposed for sake of conservation by the Forest (Conservation) Act. Thus, this continuing litigation is sitting at the crossroads of India’s obligations—to forest-dwelling peoples and conservation—creating a tension and dispute between rights-based justice and regulatory control the recurrent subject for adjudication in the future.

Criticism of the FCA amendments is directed specifically to their consequences in the North-East, where a multitude of forests are not recognised officially by the state yet serve as crucial in-state clearings for indigenous communities or communities in general. The amendments have bypassed (pushed aside) Gram Sabhas, authorised less participatory governance, and fostered concerns regarding green credits and monoculture afforestation. The Godavarman judgment (1996) expanded the definition of “forest” to include unclassified and community forests; however, the newly repealed law does not recognise large areas subject to exploitation.

The approach of the Supreme Court has fluctuated over the years: see for example the direction of the Wildlife First case, and then the Niyamgiri judgment acknowledged consent from Gram Sabhas prior to forest diversion. Nevertheless, the legal condition for indigenous rights is presently ambiguous and somewhat unpredictable on fore use, where the discretion of execution has taken priority over community rights and constitutional guarantees.

The exclusion of indigenous communities from forest governance has a historical precedent, as far back as colonial rule where laws regarded them as encroachers instead of custodians of land and resources. The FRA can be understood as an acknowledgement and a corrective action towards this injustice, recognising the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to land, resources, and self-governance. The FRA was a multifaceted, energising outcome for these communities after decades of mobilising their rights and advocating for their access to and enjoyment of forests as an acknowledgment of their livelihoods and to democratise forest governance and restore dignity to marginalised communities.

In many ways, the expansion of centralised governance through The Forest (Conservation) Act has been legitimized via the Supreme Court’s Godavarman judgement of 1996, an important case that greatly expanded the administrative definition – and control over the meaning of “forest.” Centralization directly contradicts the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), which creates firm ground for a decentralised, community-based rights agenda of forest management. The tension is not simply administrative or logistical but is an observed and constitutionally established tension in the power relationship between the executive and authoritative and empowered Gram Sabhas, flooring the foundational conflict of purpose between development, conservation, and indigenous rights.

The Godavarman judgment explicitly stated, “…the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership.” (Godavarman v UOI, 1996). By contrast, the FRA 2006 frames the legal mandate as, “…to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; in order to correct the historical injustice done to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.”

The 2023 FCA amendments, with a narrower definition of what qualifies as “forest,” and less opportunity for Gram Sabha participation, are yet another movement towards executive power, effectively disenfranchising the FRA’s commitment to decentralisation and democracy. This constitutional tension is yet to be resolved and is at the forefront of ongoing litigation and policy discussions concerning forest governance, development priorities, and the protection of indigenous and community rights.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a renewed and comprehensive framework that reconciles the inherent community and historic rights of communities over land/the commons and those of “the state” that seeks to unilaterally claim land for corporate development. Such a people’s right driven scheme would be one that upholds constitutional protections, revives community governance, and ensures community participation in environmental assessments. It will take the reversal of community jurisdiction and accountability of the state to limit logging in India’s forests, and the Supreme Court’s intervention could be a new beginning. India will only be able to protect its forests when it also protects the rights of those who have historically cared for them; by reaffirming the primacy of Gram Sabhas, transparency in impact assessments, and a stronger legal basis for rights recognition.

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

Image Courtesy: business-standard.com

References:

• India: Legacies and Challenges of the Land & Forest Rights Movement Booklet
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-act-2023-a-challenge-to-adivasi-land-rights-and-environmental-protections/
• https://cjp.org.in/what-is-the-forest-rights-act-2006-and-how-are-we-defending-it/
• https://cjp.org.in/sokalo-gond-and-nivada-rana-lead-the-campaign-for-forest-rights-in-sc/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-rights-case-sc-directs-states-to-file-compliance-affidavits/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-bill-north-east-to-bear-the-brunt/
• https://thewire.in/environment/the-forest-rights-act-and-the-battle-for-indias-forests
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-frawildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest-dwellers-background/
• https://www.sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/the-forest-%28conservation%29-amendment-act%2C-2023
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-amended-green-law-is-full-of-red-flags-forests-amendment-act-2023/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/arguments-on-february-28th-2019/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest0dwellers-arguments-on-september-12th-2019/
• Godavarman v UOI, 1996, Supreme Court of India

The post Supreme Court examines Forest Rights Act 2006 versus Conservation Law, makes national headlines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His family said he had dinner the previous night and went to sleep as usual. The next morning, he was discovered dead in his room. A diary recovered from the scene contained a suicide note that “NRC is responsible for my death.”

Pradip had been deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports

According to Dainik Bhaskar, Barrackpore Police Commissioner Murlidhar Sharma confirmed that the note was written in Bengali and made specific reference to the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

“The family told us that Pradip had been deeply disturbed by NRC-related reports. After the announcement of the SIR on Monday, he appeared restless, but his family thought he was unwell. He had dinner and went to bed as usual, but did not respond the next morning,” Sharma said.

The officer added that there was no sign of foul play. The body was sent for post-mortem examination, and an investigation is underway, as reported

Kar’s elder sister told reporters, “My brother was very scared about the implementation of the NRC. He used to tell us that he would be taken away in the name of NRC” as per a report in the New Indian Express reported.

SIR rollout triggers fresh anxiety

The suicide came barely 24 hours after the Election Commission announced a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across 12 states and union territories, including West Bengal. The exercise, which begins enumeration immediately, was meant to simplify document verification after widespread anxiety during Bihar’s earlier SIR.

However, in Bengal—where fears of an NRC-like process have periodically surfaced—the announcement appears to have reignited old apprehensions.

Mamata Banerjee blames BJP’s “politics of fear”

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sharply criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), accusing it of exploiting the contentious issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) for political gain, which she termed the “politics of fear.”

Taking to X (formerly Twitter), she said “57-year-old Pradeep Kar from 4 Mahajyoti Nagar, Panihati, Khardaha (Ward No. 9) has taken his own life, leaving behind a note that says, “NRC is responsible for my death.” What greater indictment can there be of the BJP’s politics of fear and division? It shakes me to the very core to imagine how, for years, BJP has tormented innocent citizens with the threat of NRC, spreading lies, stoking panic and weaponising insecurity for votes. They have turned constitutional democracy into a draconian law-regime, where people are made to doubt their own right to exist. This tragic death is the direct consequence of BJP’s venomous propaganda. Those who sit in Delhi and preach nationalism have pushed ordinary Indians to such despair that they are dying in their own land, fearing they will be declared ‘FOREIGNERS’”

“Bengal will resist, Bengal will protect, Bengal will prevail: Mamta Banerjee

Banerjee issued a demand for the Central Government to “stop this heartless game once and for all,” demonstrating her government’s opposed stance against the implementation of the NRC in the state.

She declared, “Bengal will never allow NRC, and never allow anyone to strip our people of their dignity or belonging.” She said that the soil of Bengal belongs to “Maa, Mati, Manush” (Mother, Motherland, People), not to those “who thrive on hate.”

“In a final, defiant message directed at the central leadership” she proclaimed,

She further added that “Let the Delhi Zamindars hear this loud and clear: Bengal will resist, Bengal will protect and Bengal will prevail.”

57-year-old Pradeep Kar from 4 Mahajyoti Nagar, Panihati, Khardaha (Ward No. 9) has taken his own life, leaving behind a note that says, “NRC is responsible for my death.” What greater indictment can there be of the BJP’s politics of fear and division?

It shakes me to the very…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) October 28, 2025

BJP calls CM’s remarks “lies and theatrics”

Within hours, BJP leaders hit back, accusing Mamata Banerjee of “politicising a personal tragedy.”

BJP IT cell Chief Amit Malviya wrote on X, “The tragic death of Pradeep Kar must be investigated thoroughly — the cause of suicide can and must be determined only by the law and investigating agencies, not through political rhetoric.”

He dismissed Banerjee’s charge, saying, “Let’s also get the facts right — there is NO NRC anywhere in the country. Mamata Banerjee is lying and deliberately spreading panic to stoke fear among people for political gain.”

Malviya further alleged that it was the Trinamool Congress, not the BJP that had historically “weaponised fear” for electoral purposes.

“The same fear was used to loot, assault, and suppress voices, as seen in Sandeshkhali and during the riots in Malda and Murshidabad,” he wrote, claiming that the TMC’s narrative sought to protect “illegal infiltrators” who formed its “vote bank.”

He concluded, “Truth and accountability will prevail — not fear mongering.”

The tragic death of Pradeep Kar must be investigated thoroughly — the cause of suicide can and must be determined only by the law and investigating agencies, not through political rhetoric.

Let’s also get the facts right — there is NO NRC anywhere in the country. Mamata Banerjee… https://t.co/uKZLQlUxI6

— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) October 28, 2025

Learn Bengali before commenting, says Abhishek Banerjee

Responding to Malviya’s remarks, Trinamool Congress national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee was caustic. “Amit Malviya has no understanding of the Bengali language. The suicide note is written in Bangla. Let him learn the language first and then he can make his comments,” he said, as reported in the Indian Express.

Later, Abhishek demanded criminal accountability for the incident. “An FIR should be filed against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and senior official Gyanesh Kumar for creating the panic that led to this death. The political answer to this death will come through the ballot,” he declared.

Kolkata youth’s death over CAA fear mirrors citizenship anxiety

According to Sabrang India, in a similar incident earlier this year, 31-year-old Debashish Sengupta from Kolkata reportedly took his own life, allegedly driven by panic over the recently notified Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules, 2019. Sengupta, who was visiting his maternal grandparents in Subhashgram, South 24 Parganas, was found hanging on the night of March 20, 2024. His family claimed he had been under immense anxiety that his ailing father — a migrant from Bangladesh — would be denied citizenship for lacking proper documents.

Related:

ECI’s announced nationwide SIR, will cover 12 States and UTs with a reduced documentary burden

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

ECI’s nationwide SIR plan: a ‘unified’ push, applied differentially across states

The post Haunted by NRC fears, 57-year-old West Bengal man dies by suicide; Mamata blames BJP for turning democracy into a “theatre of fear” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It meticulously traces the evolution of Hindutva neo-fascism since the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014. The narrative bridges the gap between the incarcerated and the free, offering a painstaking scholarly dissection of Teltumbde’s persecution and the broader collapse of democratic principles. It powerfully conveys that in today’s India, free thought itself is a seditious act.

Teltumbde’s memoir provides an illustrative picture of prison conditions, the authorities governing them, and their role in undermining judicial processes, access to basic resources, and hygiene. His firsthand experience of systemic injustice makes this work a testament to the complexities of India’s judiciary. The book transcends the daily routines of prison life, beginning with an exploration of the state’s tightening grip on dissenting voices. It is both a narrative of confinement and an investigation into the farcical democracy that orchestrates it.

Comprising 22 of the over 100 notes Teltumbde wrote during his 31 months of incarceration, the memoir transcends personal catharsis to examine jail life, exposing the humiliation, cruelty, and high-handedness of prison administration.

The book’s symbolism lies in Teltumbde’s astonishment that a man of his stature—a professor of Big Data Analytics, an IIM alumnus, a corporate professional, and a practitioner of capitalism—could be branded an enemy of the state. “I was under the delusion,” he admits, “that because of my qualifications, integrity, and public image, I might not qualify for arrest.”

The memoir offers a grounded examination of how a so-called democracy imprisons its thinkers. Teltumbde recounts his shock at the blatant lies presented by the Pune police in their initial press conference, which formed the basis of the charges against him. His pleas to quash the case were repeatedly rejected, with courts accepting sealed envelopes from the prosecution. Despite his background in corporate and business academia, he never imagined a ludicrous charge of being a Maoist could stick—until his arrest shattered that illusion.

The memoir opens with a poignant observation: incarceration is often seen as a fate worse than death, especially for those who have committed no unlawful act. It begins with Teltumbde being woken by his wife, who received a call from the Director of the Goa Institute of Management (GIM) informing her that the Pune police had raided the campus and stormed their home. This moment captures a life upturned.

Teltumbde writes that watching a raid on television is one thing, but experiencing it at your doorstep is “like fluid from a festering wound seeping into your being.” His analysis extends beyond prison walls, drawing parallels between underreported COVID-19 deaths inside jails and those outside, reflecting the same insensitivity in both realms. For Teltumbde, prison mirrors India’s moral decay. “Prison is a mirror image of society,” he writes, “except that it does not pretend to be free.”

The most evocative passages focus not on physical suffering but on psychological torment, illustrating how a man whose life revolved around teaching, writing, and thinking was stripped of his intellectual freedom. The book shifts between the personal and the political, navigating Teltumbde’s longing to complete his course at GIM and his victimization in a neo-fascist state. This duality defines the work.

“These notes,” he writes, “are not just a glimpse of jail life but a commentary on the system that perpetuates problems while pretending to solve them.” Teltumbde condemns the judiciary for obscuring the truth and the police for their complicity, citing the case of Param Bir Singh to expose the farce of India’s “rule of law.” He describes the Bhima Koregaon case as a landmark in how democracies crush dissent and evolve into neo-fascist states.

The memoir is dedicated to Teltumbde’s late brother, Milind Teltumbde, killed by security forces and branded a Maoist, ironically also a co-accused in the same case. Their intertwined fates highlight the height of state paranoia, equating a brother in the jungle with one in an IIM classroom as enemies of the state. “It was my pursuit to make the world a better place that landed me in prison,” Teltumbde writes in the prologue, encapsulating the book’s moral gravity.

Despite his anguish, Teltumbde initially placed faith in the judiciary and media, hoping they would recognize the fabricated charges against him. However, a broken democracy and complicit media maligned his image, with letters meant for police custody inexplicably reaching news channels without scrutiny. Even when the judiciary warned the police of this unlawful act, the oppression of Teltumbde and other intellectuals persisted, as the government sought to silence those exposing the truth.

Teltumbde vividly describes life inside a prison cell, recalling his childhood curiosity about the fate of prisoners, many of whom were mascots of liberation. He examines how a repressive system sows inequality, injustice, and bitterness, breeding crime. Yet, he never imagined he would end up in a dark cell, with only a cheap cot for rest. The memoir urges readers to look beyond the spectacle of arrests and trials to the repressive state machinery behind them, reflecting that what happens in Taloja jail mirrors society at large.

In the Bhima Koregaon case, arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic weakened protests against these unconstitutional detentions. Accusations against Muslims, Tablighi Jamaat, and migrant workers served as a distraction, obscuring the false evidence and mass arrests.

Teltumbde questions why the government ignored the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, which, according to the World Health Organization and The Lancet, significantly spread the virus, while targeting other groups. The pandemic exacerbated prison conditions, with social distancing imposed amidst overcrowding, and prisoners denied proper diets, hygienic facilities, and basic resources. Teltumbde asserts that the death of Father Stan Swamy was a custodial death.

In the chapter “Entering the Hellhole,” Teltumbde explores how the right to dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is trampled within prison walls. He requested a pen and paper from the Superintendent of Police to keep notes, but the request was denied. Despite a biometric database linked to Aadhaar, he was forced to provide fingerprints repeatedly, enduring constant harassment. At Taloja jail, he was stripped naked and searched under CCTV surveillance—a tactic to assert fascist power over prisoners and their loved ones.

The state’s prime targets, seen as adversaries, are not only imprisoned but barred from expressing their views, exercising fundamental rights, and maintaining their identity. In the Bhima Koregaon case, intellectuals were prohibited from writing to courts, and when permitted, the delivery of their letters was deliberately delayed.

Teltumbde includes an article he wrote in prison criticizing the Narendra Modi government’s privatization of Public Sector Units, falsely promoted as an economic boost.

The Superintendent summoned him for writing it, and despite Teltumbde’s argument that publishing from prison is not unlawful, he and his co-accused were banned from sending or receiving letters—a clear violation of constitutional rights.

Teltumbde compares Indian prisons to those in developed countries like Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, and Switzerland, where correctional facilities are regularly updated to avoid harming prisoners’ consciences. He holds little hope for Indian prison reform, given the dire reality, and advocates for their abolition to enable true rehabilitation.

In the chapter “Of Labels and Labelling,” Teltumbde critiques the hero-worship of Marxism and Ambedkarism, offering a nuanced analysis of their ideologies. He finds coherence in Marx’s framework but sees Ambedkar’s as incomplete. He views Ambedkar’s Buddhism as a rationalist reinvention rejected by traditionalists and subtly compares the opposing origins of Marx’s and Ambedkar’s ideologies. Teltumbde criticizes Ambedkar’s endorsement of religion, particularly his views on Dhamma, which he believes fueled a personality cult and sectarianism.

Harsh Thakor is a Freelance Journalist

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post “The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir” by Anand Teltumbde stands as one of the most powerful indictments of Indian democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A manufactured crisis to justify privatisation?

Six major BMC hospitals are currently being handed over to private companies through public–private partnership (PPP) arrangements. According to the views expressed by this coalition, this move will replace free public services with paid care, hitting Mumbai’s poor and marginalised the hardest. Simultaneously, the BMC has been steadily reducing regular health staff, replacing permanent positions with outsourced and contractual workers, eroding both service quality and workers’ security.

Despite mass retirements of BMC health staff, there has been no serious effort to fill and expand regular posts. This is a deliberate strategy: weaken the public system through neglect, then hand it over to private operators under long-term contracts. The result is restricting access to free care, worsening working conditions, and compromised service quality.

Problematic record of PPPs in BMC health services

Providing details to justify their accusations, in a press release issued Monday, October 7, citizens said that over 20 PPP projects already operate within Mumbai’s municipal health system, covering ICUs, diagnostic centres, dialysis units, and entire maternity homes and hospitals. Yet there is no independent evidence that these PPP arrangements have improved quality or accountability of health services. Many PPPs have been deeply problematic but despite such experiences, new moves for privatisation continue without any comprehensive evaluation of existing projects.

A recent study of healthcare PPPs in Mumbai and Pune has revealed alarming problems:

• Outsourced ICUs are staffed with underqualified doctors, even run by homeopathy practitioners, leading to compromised patient safety and preventable deaths. One ICU contract worth several crores was cancelled after 149 deaths were exposed.
• Diagnostic centres under PPPs frequently charge patients three to fifteen times higher than public hospitals, making them inaccessible to low-income communities.
• Monitoring mechanisms are very weak, allowing non-compliance with contracts, underqualified staff, and erratic service delivery. Some PPP hospitals remain grossly underutilised despite substantial infrastructure, due to lack of full-time doctors, essential equipment, or basic services.
• Political influence pervades the contracting process, with corporators or ex-corporators floating companies or favouring bidders to secure contracts, turning healthcare provisioning into a political-business venture.

Overall, rates charged to patients under various Municipal PPPs were found to be two to twenty-five times higher than comparable public hospital rates. The study concludes that PPPs have largely become vehicles for private profit rather than instruments of public good.

The real issue: Deliberate understaffing

The push for privatisation is justified by claims of inadequate capacity in public hospitals. In reality, the BMC has created an artificial shortage through chronic understaffing of its health services. According to Praja Foundation’s 2024 report, municipal hospitals face massive vacancy rates of 46% among doctors, 26% among nurses and paramedical staff, and 42% among labour staff, with an overall vacancy level of 36% in the health department. Rather than investing in recruitment and better working conditions, the BMC is diverting resources to PPPs—benefiting private operators while bypassing public accountability.

What needs to be emphasised is that there is no shortage of doctors and health workers in Mumbai, the available pool could be readily employed and all vacant posts in BMC could be promptly filled. For example, the number of vacant medical posts in BMC is around 975, while the annual output of MBBS doctors just from government medical colleges in Mumbai is around 1200, and number of graduating MD / MS doctors from these colleges is around 1000 per year. Enough doctors, nurses and health workers are available to fill all vacant posts.

Communities, Health workers and Public health experts raise their voices

Social movements and community organisations in various parts of Mumbai, especially in bastis and informal settlements are opposing user-fee-based PPPs which will deny them life-saving care. One major example of this resistance is the movement by “Aspatal Bachao, Nijikaran Hatao Kriti Samiti” active among residents of M-East ward (Mankhurd and Govandi areas). This is a coalition of over 25 organisations who have organised a series of major protests since July, demanding a halt to the privatisation of Shatabdi Hospital and Lallubhai Compound Super-Speciality Hospital. This mobilization is a powerful, grassroots rejection of BMC’s proposal to hand over key public hospitals to private players under the deeply problematic Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model.

Municipal health worker unions have also joined this movement, highlighting that outsourcing and PPPs cut down of secure employment for health workers. Contractual staff face much lower pay, total job insecurity and lack of social security. Privatisation also replaces teams of experienced regular health staff with precarious contract workers, thus affecting the quality of patient care. All unions belonging to this coalition, who represent thousands of health workers in Mumbai demand that all forms of privatisation under BMC must be halted, and that the huge number of vacancies must be filled promptly through regular recruitment, along with creation of additional posts to meet the city’s health needs. This will majorly reduce work overload on the existing BMC health staff. The vital role played by public health systems and their staff during the COVID pandemic underscores the urgency of this demand.

Public health professionals are also questioning handing over of public hospitals—built with public funds—to private players without robust evidence or accountability mechanisms. The entry of politically connected, non-medical operators undermines healthcare quality and ethics, especially in critical areas like ICUs and maternity care. What Mumbai urgently needs is a robust, publicly funded health system—not privatised services that exclude large numbers of people who are most in need.

Joint demands of the coalition

The coalition demands the BMC to retract its pernicious policy of privatisation and contractualisation, which only benefits contractors, corrupt officials and politicians. Instead BMC must now act decisively and promptly in public interest by taking the following steps:

• Immediately halt and cancel all PPP-based privatisation proposals for public hospitals and health services in Mumbai, and conduct an independent review of existing PPPs with a plan to return them to public management.
• Launch urgent recruitment drives to fill all staff vacancies—doctors, nurses, paramedics, sanitation, support staff—through regular appointments, while phasing out outsourcing.
• Develop a comprehensive plan to strengthen public health services through regular recruitment, increased budgets proportional to population needs, and improved management. This should be linked with assured, quality provision of various levels of health services and essential medicines. 
• Ensure systems for transparency and social accountability, including community-based monitoring of BMC health services and participatory governance mechanisms involving communities, civil society groups as well as health workers.

Joint Plan of Action – Aspatal Bachao Neejikaran Hatao Kruti Samiti and Unions 

– A more extensive public campaign will be launched to against privatisation of hospitals that have been tendered for PPP.

– A massive campaign will be launched in collaboration with health workers’ unions demanding full social security and rights of workers in public healthcare facilities and services. The right to health cannot be fulfilled without workers’ rights.”

– Jan sunvayi’s will be held across the city to address the current state of public health facilities and services.

– All political parties and their candidates will be asked to clarify their positions on these two issues: “transformation of public healthfavilties and services to serve people and opposition to any form of privatization of health services.” Those parties or candidates who unconditionally agree on this issue will be labeled “supporters of public health,” while those who do not will be labeled “enemies of public health,” and the public will teach them a lesson in upcoming elections.

– A massive state-level conference will be held by civil society organizations, unions and other organizations against privatisation and contractualisation of health services in Mumbai on November 30th.

We call upon every Mumbaikar to stand up and speak out today against ongoing privatisation of health services, which is a betrayal of public trust. It is surprising that existing BMC officials, who do not have any democratic mandate to take major policy decisions in the absence of an elected corporation, are trying to push through large scale privatisation of health services. Finally, the coalition stated in a press conference held today that Mumbai deserves a public health system that is equitable, transparent, accountable, and ensures that healthcare is strengthened as a public right, not being turned into a commodity for private profit.

Related:

Citizens and experts rally to save Mumbai’s BEST buses from privatisation pitfalls

Maharashtra: Free speech has remained on the line of fire of the current regime, democracy on trial as state goes for election

BEST strike over Diwali bonus shakes Mumbai’s Bus Service, reveals growing transit strain

Samsung workers end strike but the core issue of recognition of unions’ remains

The post Citizens move to stop privatisation of Mumbai’s Public Hospitals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In Maihar, where the state tourism department had declared the town a “religious city,” the ban on selling meat, fish, and eggs effectively halted the livelihood of small butchers and street vendors for over a week. These directives, though framed as temporary, raise a larger concern that can constitutionally guaranteed freedoms—of choice, privacy, and livelihood—be curtailed to accommodate the societal pressure?

Courts have repeatedly questioned the legality of such bans, yet self-styled moral guardians continue to harass vendors, check identity cards, and force shop closures, turning dietary preference into a test of loyalty. Behind every shuttered meat stall lies more than a dispute over food—it is a question of equality, dignity, and economic justice.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

If the Constitution guarantees every citizen both the right to eat what they choose and the freedom to trade under Articles 19 and 21, why are meat shops still being ordered shut, and why are non-vegetarians compelled to give up their choice in the name of a section of the majority community’s devotion?

It is no coincidence then that in all states where such unlawful and unconstitutional ‘bans’ were made operational are ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a political outfit driven by the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In the eleven plus years that this politics has ruled India, unlawful and unconstitutional acts that specifically target the cultural, food and religious practices of minorities, Dalits and Adivasis have been normalised.

Forced shutdown in Madhya Pradesh

In Madhya Pradesh’s Maihar and Umaria districts, local administrations imposed a ban on the sale of meat, fish, and eggs during the Navratri festival. In Maihar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Divya Patel explained that the decision was taken because the town is home to the revered Maa Sharda temple, which draws lakhs of devotees during the festival. “Maihar is a religious city and Navratri begins at this time, so the administration is banning the sale of meat, fish, and eggs from September 22 to October 2,” she said.

Maihar: Religious city declared by the MP Tourism Department

Patel further noted that Maihar has been officially designated a “religious city” by the Madhya Pradesh Tourism Department. “The Maa Shardey Kwar Navratri fair will be conducted from September 22 to October 2. Lakhs of visitors filled with devotion come to Maihar from every corner of the country for Maa Sharda’s darshan,” she added.

The order, issued on September 20 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 empowers authorities to take preventive action in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. Violations of the order invite prosecution under Section 233 of the BNSS, carrying a penalty of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2,500.

Ban imposed after meeting with community representatives

A similar order was passed in Umaria by SDM Kamlesh Neeraj, who said the decision was made “after discussions with members of different religious communities.” The SDM stated that participants in the meeting voluntarily agreed to ban the sale and consumption of non-vegetarian food—such as chicken, fish, and eggs—during Navratri “in view of the festival’s sanctity.”

This, however, is not a new development. In March this year, Maihar authorities had issued a similar order during the ‘Maa Shardey Chaitra Navratri Fair,’ citing the influx of pilgrims.

Amid reports of ban in Bhopal, administration clarifies

Meanwhile, social media posts and some media outlets claimed that a similar blanket ban on non-vegetarian food had been imposed in Bhopal. The Bhopal Collector, Kaushalendra Vikram Singh, dismissed these claims through an official statement on X, clarifying that “no such order has been issued by the Bhopal District Administration.”

Prem Shankar Shukla, Public Relations Officer of the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, told The Hindu that no extended restrictions were in place. “Each year, a calendar is issued after consultation with various departments and the BMC Commissioner, with certain days marked for special instructions—but we have never had any 8–9-day period in our calendar,” he said.

A pattern beyond administrative closure: harassment, hate and restrictions

The repeated closure of meat shops and eateries during religious/festival periods is not an isolated administrative act—it often stems from pressure by self-declared moral vigilantes and local community leaders. What may appear as a routine or “symbolic” closure during festivals is, in reality, part of a growing pattern seen across several cities in India.

In recent years, incidents of harassment, forced shutdowns, and restrictions on the sale or consumption of non-vegetarian food have become common during major religious observances and yatras. These actions—whether carried out by local authorities or vigilante groups—are frequently justified in the name of respecting sentiments during festivals such as Navratri, Radhastami, and Sawan/Shravan, as well as Jain observances like Paryushan. Similar restrictions are also imposed during large pilgrimages such as the Kanwar Yatra reported TOI and the Braj Mandal Jalabhishek Yatra reported Hindustan Times.

Harassment and intimidation:

• In Sagarpur, Delhi on August 31, Hindu nationalist Vipin Rajput harassed a Muslim couple at a roadside meat stall, accusing them of cutting meat in the open during the Radhastami festival.

• In Vrindaban, Mathura, UP on August 6, Bajrang Dal leader Deepak Tiwari harassed a biryani street vendor for selling non-veg along the Kanwar Yatra route, accusing him of attempting to desecrate the kanwars.

• In Loni, Ghaziabad, UP on July 10, BJP MLA Nandkishor Gurjar shut down a meat vendor, citing the Hindu month of Sawan and the movement of Kanwar Yatris along the route.

• In Ghaziabad, UP on July 18, Hindu nationalist supporters stopped a Muslim man transporting meat during the Hindu month of Shravan.

• In Ghaziabad, UP on July 15, VHP-Bajrang Dal leader Manoj Verma stopped a Blinkit delivery person transporting chicken, questioning him for delivering meat during the month of Shravan.

• In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on July 21, Kali Sena leader Bhupesh Joshi warned Muslim meat sellers not to open their shops on Mondays during the month of Shravan, threatening violence.

• In Katra, Muzaffarpur, Bihar on September 27, Cow vigilantes from Bajrang Dal harassed a man for carrying meat and accused him of cow slaughter during Navratri.

Forced closures and administrative action:

• In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on September 15, Hindu Raksha Dal staged a protest demanding a ban on meat sales during Navratri, targeting meat shops and raising ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans.

• In Dehradun, Uttarakhand on September 23, Kali Sena leader Bhupesh Joshi forcibly shut down a meat shop, citing the festival of Navratri.

• In Ambheta, Saharanpur, UP on September 23, Police instructed meat, fish, and egg shops via loudspeakers to shut down, citing the celebration of Navratri.

• In Kaiser Bagh, Lucknow, UP on September 22, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha carried out a campaign to force meat and fish shops to close for Navratri.

• In Khandwa, MP on July 6, the administration sealed a non-vegetarian eatery operated by a Muslim individual after allegations that meat had been served to Kanwariyas in a tomato-dish.

• In Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP on July 17, Hindu Raksha Dal forced KFC and Nazeer Foods to shut down, stating non-vegetarian food was not permitted during the month of Shravan.

Memorandums for festival bans and restrictions:

• In Satna, Madhya Pradesh on September 19, VHP/Bajrang Dal submitted a memorandum demanding action against meat, fish, and egg shops, citing Navratri.

• In Bairad, Shivpuri, MP on September 24, VHP-Bajrang Dal members demanded a ban on meat, egg, and alcohol shops during Navratri, plus restrictions on non-Hindu entry to celebrations.

• In Annapur, Madhya Pradesh on September 23, VHP-Bajrang Dal members demanded a ban on meat shops during Navratri.

• In Behat, Sahranpur, UP on September 22, VHP-Bajrang Dal demanded that meat shops remain closed on all days of Navratri.

• In Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh on September 22, VHP-Bajrang Dal demanded the immediate closure of shops selling meat, alcohol, and eggs during Navratri and barring non-Hindus from Garba events.

Forced administrative closures:

• In Dug, Jhalawar, Rajasthan on September 4, the local administration removed meat shops along main roads, citing them as “illegal,” after demands from Hindu nationalist groups (Shiv Sena)

• In Indore, MP on September 13, at a VHP National level meeting, CM Mohan Yadav highlighted government actions like restricting open meat sales and peddled anti-Muslim conspiracy theories (“love jihad,” “land jihad”).

• In Purnia, Bihar on August 25, Union Minister Giriraj Singh urged attendees to buy only from Hindu vendors, eat only jhatka meat, and avoid halal, while referring to alleged immigrants as “demons.”

• In Lucknow, UP on July 17, an Antarrashtriya Hindu Mahasangh leader urged Hindus to stop eating meat, claiming it employs non-Hindus, and called for buying goods only from Hindu traders.

Constitutional validity of meat bans in India

The wave of forced closures and targeted harassment over the sale or consumption of non-vegetarian food during festivals raises a critical constitutional question: can faith override fundamental rights? While such actions are often justified as “respecting public sentiment,” they strike at the core of India’s constitutional guarantees—equality, freedom of choice, and the right to livelihood.

Even when these restrictions come through official orders, they stand on shaky legal ground. Administrative bans or “temporary” closures imposed during festivals like Navratri or Paryushan directly conflict with Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit curbs on personal liberty or trade merely on grounds of religious sentiment. In effect, these measures—whether by law or by intimidation—create a regime of unequal citizenship, where what one can eat or sell depends on their faith or location.

As such notifications or circulars have a far-reaching impact on the entire meat industry and infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on trade or business, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The unofficial ban on meat – because shops have been effectively closed by owners unaware of the directive’s illegality or too concerned to challenge it violates three principles of the Constitution of India as equality, freedom to trade, and the right to “self-determination” and freedom of choice.

Section 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Indian citizens. It respects the general principles of equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable classification among people. A ban on the sale of meat certainly warrants such discrimination.

Some individuals’ livelihood depends on selling meat. Right to Livelihood is safeguarded by the fundamental rights enshrined under Indian Constitution. To know the details about Fundamental Rights under Constitution of India, enrol for the below-mentioned course

Article 14: “reasonable classification” and “understandable distinction”

The two main principles on which Article 14 is based are “reasonable classification” and “understandable distinction”. This means that the classification of people/things must be based on conceivable differences, which means where there is a law that distinguishes between two groups of people or things, any distinction must be understandable, “reasonable and wise” and must not be “artificial “.

Ban on sale of meat have failed this test. One group most affected by these bans are small-scale butchers, whose livelihoods depend on selling meat daily, which is sold for free online or in restaurants.

Section 19(1)(g) of the Constitution provides the right to practice any profession or engage in any profession, trade, or business.

Constitutional anchors of dietary freedom and trade

The Right to Food and the freedom to pursue a livelihood are enshrined in the Indian Constitution, making restrictions on non-vegetarian food a complex legal challenge. The core protections are found in the “Golden Triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

The right to self-determination and freedom of choice in one’s diet is protected under Article 21 (Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, ruled that any law depriving a person of “personal liberty” must pass the test of due process. Later, the Court affirmed that what one eats is one’s personal affair, a part of the right to privacy included in Article 21, and that non-vegetarians “cannot be compelled to become vegetarian for a long period.” In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared privacy to be a fundamental right, specifically noting that it includes an individual’s “food habits.”

Concurrently, the right to sell meat is protected under Article 19(1)(g), guaranteeing the freedom to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This right can only be limited under Section 19(6) by law and on reasonable grounds deemed to be in the public interest.

The Supreme Court, in Mohd. Faruk vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (1970), explicitly stated that a prohibition on trade “will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of the people.”

The myth of a primarily vegetarian India

The political narrative often used to justify meat bans—that India is fundamentally vegetarian—belies ground reality and recent survey data. This homogenising project, often led by right-wing supremacist groups demanding bans, is specifically a targeted assault on India’s Muslim, Christian, and Dalit minorities. The underlying narrative is that “authentic Indians” are primarily vegetarian.

Contrary to this claim, the latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) for 2019-21 shows a clear rise in non-vegetarian food consumption. Over two-thirds of Indians (aged 15–49) “eat non-vegetarian food daily, weekly or occasionally.” This 2022 hate-buster by Citizens for Justice and Peace revealed non-vegetarian food consumers have increased in India, including in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states like Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, as per data released by the recent National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5). Furthermore, a 2021 Pew Research Centre report emphasises that 61% of Indians do not describe themselves as vegetarians, with only 39% of adults following a vegetarian diet.

Even among Hindus, who constitute 80% of the population, a 2018 BBC report noted that only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian and that Hindus are “major meat-eaters.”

Judicial test of proportionality and arbitrariness

Any government action, such as a meat ban, must withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny, requiring proof that the restriction is both reasonable and proportional, and is not an arbitrary executive decision.

For a ban to be upheld in court, the city or state must demonstrate that the restrictions are “reasonable” and respect the “doctrine of proportionality.” This doctrine requires the state action to serve a “legitimate goal of the government” and be “necessary,” meaning it must be the least intrusive means possible to achieve that goal. The twin test for reasonable classification, laid down in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1, requires a rational nexus between the classification and the object of the law. (Para 115)

The judgement can be read here:

We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non-vegetarian: SC

The judiciary has expressed strong reservations about arbitrary bans. In 2020, while hearing a plea filed by Akhand Bharat Morcha (Undivided India Rally) challenging Section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 to ban Halal meat, the Supreme Court remarked that, “Tomorrow you will say nobody should eat meat? We cannot determine who should be a vegetarian and who should be a non-vegetarian” as Live Law reported

Similarly, in 2019, while dismissing a PIL by Health Wealthy Ethical World Guide India Trust seeking a ban on meat export, the Court orally remarked, “Do you want everybody in this country to be vegetarian? We can’t issue an order that everyone should be vegetarian.” Reported LiveLaw.

A ban is also vulnerable if it is arbitrary. For instance, in Delhi in 2022 the Hindu reported that, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation’s Mayor Mukkesh Suryaan (BJP) decided to shut down all meat shops during Navratri, arguing that “99 percent of households in Delhi don’t even use garlic and onion.” This decision, taken without a public notice or consultation, bypassed the Commissioner, who holds the official power to impose such bans under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

The Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), had stated that “Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies,” meaning any arbitrary state action violates Article 14 (Equality before law).

Cultural pluralism and judicial defence of choice

Citing vague reasons like “foul smell” or “hurting religious feelings” conflicts with India’s diverse religious practices, prompting courts to defend the fundamental right to choice.

The Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2017) held that the right to choice of food falls within the fundamental right to food and is a part of the “private life of an individual.”

The Court observed that such trade or profession may prima facie face complete prohibition and affect the livelihood of those involved in this trade and profession thereby impinging their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Not only this the same is also coupled with the issues relating to their livelihood apart from their trade and profession, that would also impinge Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The order of Allahabad High Court dated April 3, 2017 can be read here

Similarly, on May 6, 2016, the Bombay High Court in Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2016) struck down certain beef ban amendments, holding that “the State cannot make an intrusion into his home and prevent a citizen from possessing and eating food of his choice.”

The judgement of Bombay High Court dated May 6, 2016 can be read here

You don’t like non-veg food, it is your lookout: Gujrat High Court

In December 2021, the Gujarat High Court rapped the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) for prohibiting street sales of non-vegetarian food, questioning, “You don’t like non-veg food, it is your lookout. How can you decide what people should eat outside? How can you stop people from eating what they want?”,

This judicial stance shows that the constitutional mandate for tolerance and compassion must prevail over a section’s “susceptibilities and sentiments.”

The cultural reality is that while some North Indians abstain from meat during festivals like Navratri, Bengalis celebrate Durga Puja (which falls concurrently) with fish and mutton as part of their essential ritual and food system. The sale of non-veg food outside Durga Puja pandals is legal because the constitutional right to trade (Article 19) and choice (Article 21) cannot be arbitrarily curtailed based on a specific community’s fasting tradition.

Disproportionate impact and communal targeting

Despite this fairly consistent jurisprudence, the ruling political dispensation in many states, unashamedly flaunting its selective majoritarian ideology, has used its executive power to impose—even violently—food bans. Meat bans primarily harm small-scale vendors from marginalised communities, exploiting their economic vulnerability and often revealing a clear communal intent.

The ban is seen as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.), as it not only discriminates between different religious groups but also discriminates between the economic capability of the vendors. The only group severely affected are small-scale meat vendors, whose livelihood depends on daily sales.

The meat, however, remains freely available in supermarkets and online stores catering to the affluent.

Such executive orders cause immediate economic disruption. The sudden closure of approximately 30 meat shops in Delhi’s INA market during the 2022 Navratri ban, without notice, severely affected daily wage earners employed in the meat and egg supply chains, as the Hindu reported

Boycott of non-veg within the non-veg: communal hatred

The political discourse surrounding the ban often targets specific communities. Calls for a boycott of ‘Halal’ meat—associated with Muslim dietary habits—by leaders like BJP General Secretary CT Ravi who termed it ‘economic jihad,’ reveal a clear communal intention rather than a neutral, public interest objective.

This tactic of harassment is also seen in incidents like BJP MLA Nand Kishor Gurjar personally forcing Muslims to shut down their meat shops in Ghaziabad.

The incidents involving the harassment of meat sellers and consumers, often by right-wing groups and cow vigilantes, can be grouped into distinct categories based on the alleged justification or context. These incidents primarily revolve around religious festivals, allegations of illegality (often related to beef/cow slaughter or operating without a license), and general intimidation campaigns against Muslim vendors.

Cow vigilantism and allegations of Beef/illegal meat sale

These incidents specifically involve right-wing groups or individuals alleging the sale or transport of beef or illegal meat, often resulting in assault, seizure, or threats.

• In Soron, Kasganj, UP on August 3, VHP-Bajrang Dal members brutally assaulted a Muslim man, alleging he was selling beef along the Kanwar Yatra route.

• In Surat, Gujarat on August 9, Cow vigilantes from the Pranin Foundation stopped a Muslim auto driver carrying meat, alleging he was illegally transporting beef.

• In Phagwara, Kapurthala, Punjab on July 2, Cow vigilantes from Gau Raksha Dal assaulted men at a dhaba, alleging the meat in cold storage was beef.

• In Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra on June 22, Bajrang Dal cow vigilantes raided a Meat market, alleging all of it was beef, seizing meat from customers and butchers with police assistance.

• In Assam, nearly 200 were held and over 1,000 kg of suspected meat was seized in raids; the CM praised the action with an Islamophobic tone.

Anti-Muslim economic boycott campaigns

Anti-Muslim economic boycott campaigns refer to organised efforts that seek to exclude Muslim individuals or businesses from local markets and community economic activity. These incidents often involve public calls by the right-wing outfits for the closure of Muslim-owned establishments, explicit warnings discouraging people from buying from non-Hindu vendors, and political or social rhetoric promoting economic and social segregation.

CJP’s documentation on socio-economic boycotts tracks the alarming spread of hate-driven campaigns that target livelihoods and deepen communal divisions across India. The resource chronicles a decade of incidents where economic exclusion has been used as a tool of discrimination—particularly against Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis—through calls to boycott, denial of business, and restrictions on trade.

From Bajrang Dal’s “Apna Tyohar” campaign in Madhya Pradesh urging Hindus to avoid Muslim businesses during Diwali (2024), to public oaths of economic boycott in Chhattisgarh (2023), and anti-minority rallies in Faridabad making open calls for genocide (2023), the reports expose a coordinated trend of communal mobilisation through economic segregation.

Earlier records highlight the structural inequalities faced by marginalised groups, including discrimination in housing, education, and employment, and the underrepresentation of Muslims in India.

Threats and forced closures based on location/proximity to temple:

• In Govardhan, Mathura, UP on September 2, Cow vigilantes threatened a meat shop owner, warning him to shut down permanently.

• In Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh on September 7, AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal members warned meat vendors to permanently shut their shops, citing the presence of a nearby temple.

• In Vrindavan, Mathura, UP on August 11, Cow vigilante Deepak Tiwari forced a biryani seller to shut down, declaring that meat would not be allowed in public.

• In Sagarpur, Delhi on August 16, Hindu nationalists forcibly shut down a meat shop, saying they would not allow meat stores in the vicinity of a temple.

• In Farukh Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP on May 29, BJP MLA Nandkishore Gurjar detained meat/fish vendors, demanding their arrest and citing nearby Air Force Station and temples.

Moral policing and illegal identity checks

Based on the witnessed incidents during the Kanwar Yatra, a disturbing pattern has emerged where right-wings groups engage in the illegal checking of identity cards and the religious segregation of vendors, directly contributing to subsequent harassment, vandalism, and clashes.

This self-appointed moral policing, distinct from administrative action, begins with practices like on June 30, 2025, the Hindu nationalists led by Swami Yashveer Maharaj checked the Aadhaar cards of food stall workers in Meerut, UP, to ascertain their religion.

Similarly, on July 13, 2025, the Vishwa Hindu Parishand (VHP) pasted “Say with pride, we are Hindus” stickers on Hindu-owned shops in Mandoli Chungi, Delhi, to identify them to pilgrims. This explicit religious filtering creates a hostile environment that encourages vigilante actions.

The result is immediate conflict and humiliation, as evidenced on July 7 in Muzaffarnagar, UP, where Kanwar yatris vandalised an eatery over the mere presence of onion and garlic.

Furthermore, on July 15, 2025, in Mahrajpur, Chhatarpur, MP, where a vendor was publicly humiliated and forced to perform sit-ups by the Hindu Jodo Sangathan for operating a non-vegetarian eatery named ‘Krishna Dhaba.’

Such targeted identity screening and harassment rapidly escalates into property damage and public shaming, demonstrating the dangers posed by these extra-legal moral policing actions against vendors.

A straightjacket ban on meat cannot be imposed: Bombay HC

On September 14, 2015, a division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice A.A. Sayed, remarked that a blanket or “straightjacket” ban on meat was not appropriate, especially in a metropolitan city like Mumbai. The judges stressed the need to consider the city’s diverse character, stating, “The ban is on slaughter and sale of meat. What about other sources through which meat can be availed? What about packaged meat that is already available in the market?”

The High Court also said that “We are only going by law and not by sentiment and politics.”

The order of Bombay High Court dated September 14, 2015 can be read here

When SC said meat ban cannot be forced down the throat of any one

The 2015 order the Bombay High Court subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, the Court refused to overturn the Bombay High Court’s interim stay on the Maharashtra government’s order restricting meat sales. A bench comprising Justices T.S. Thakur and Kurian Joseph remarked that such restrictions cannot be “forced down the throat of anyone,” emphasising the need for tolerance in a pluralistic society.

The Court acknowledged that while religious sentiments must be respected, abrupt bans, especially those affecting personal dietary choices and livelihoods, raise constitutional concerns.

The Bombay High Court also questioned the legality and practicality of a sudden, extended ban, noting Mumbai’s metropolitan character and the potential impact on traders and consumers alike. The court also highlighted that bans should not be politically motivated or implemented without adequate notice.

P&H HC stays closure of private meat shops in Ambala during Paryushana, citing Bombay HC precedent

Similarly in 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on August 24, 2022 stayed the Haryana government’s order mandating the closure of all private meat shops and slaughterhouses in Ambala district during the Jain festival ‘Paryushana Parv’, observed from August 24 to September 1, 2022. The Urban Local Bodies Department had issued the directive for a complete nine-day shutdown of meat-related businesses across the state.

However, the bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal passed the stay order while hearing a writ petition filed by Rajpal Poultry Farm and others, who contended that such a blanket ban infringed upon their constitutional right to carry on trade and the dietary rights of the general public.

The petitioners also relied on the Bombay High Court ruling in Bombay Mutton Dealers Association v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 2 Bom CR 171 where a similar state directive was stayed, with the court emphasising that public dietary choices should not be curtailed to appease any one religious group.

The order of P&H High Court dated august 24, 2022 can be read here

Rajasthan govt bans meat, egg sales statewide on ‘Paryushan Parv’ and ‘Anant Chaturdashi’

However, in 2025, on August 22, the Rajasthan government issued an order mandating the closure of all meat, egg, and slaughterhouse operations across the state on two upcoming religious occasions — August 28 (Paryushan Parv) and September 6 (Anant Chaturdashi). Notably, for the first time, the ban also extends to egg-selling shops and street vendors, a decision made in consideration of the religious sentiments of the Jain community.

Traditionally, only slaughterhouses and meat shops were affected, but the latest directive from the Department of Autonomous Governance explicitly includes egg vendors, impacting over a thousand small sellers in Jaipur alone.

This August 22 directive and order fails to cite any specific legal provision, rule, or circular to justify its issuance, nor does it outline any grounds of reasonable restriction or broader public interest to support such a measure.

Blanket ban orders without implementing open slaughtering and display of meat in shops

The Bombay High Court’s 2015 order had also asked if the Jain community had a problem, why a directive could not be issued against ‘open slaughtering and display of meat in shop’, as the petitioners claimed that the decision is unconstitutional as it affects the livelihood of a section of people and favours a small percentage of population.

Reasonable restriction: Rajasthan HC upholds ban on meat shops near public temples

On September 1, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to uphold the cancellation of meat shop licences near public temples can be viewed as a reasonable restriction grounded in statutory and regulatory provisions rather than an arbitrary or faith-driven action. The Court, in its detailed judgment, clarified that the prohibition on operating meat shops within 50 meters of temples or schools is supported by law — specifically, Sections 269 and 340 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011).

These provisions empower local authorities to regulate food businesses to ensure hygiene, public order, and respect for community sensitivities in mixed-use localities.

The court said that even unregistered temples qualify as “public temples” if they are open to and used by the public for worship, the Court emphasised substance over technical form.

Importantly, it noted that the restriction does not amount to a blanket or discriminatory ban on meat trade; rather, it is a spatial limitation designed to balance the right to livelihood under Article 19(1) (g) with the right to religious practice and public decency under Article 25 and Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

The order, therefore, represents an attempt to maintain civic harmony and ensure regulatory compliance, while highlighting that lawful trade in meat can continue outside prohibited zones. In this context, the ruling stands as an example of how reasonable restrictions can operate within constitutional limits — regulating, but not extinguishing, the right to trade and livelihood.

The order of Rajasthan High Court September 1, 2025 can be read here

Qureshi community’s protest against harassment and vigilante attacks

The Qureshi community’s (Traditional meat sellers) state-wide strike in Maharashtra, which brought over 300 cattle markets to a standstill, exposed the growing tension between faith-driven moral policing and constitutionally guaranteed livelihood rights. Began as a protest against alleged police harassment and attacks by self-styled cow vigilantes soon evolved into a larger commentary on how religion is increasingly influencing administrative action. As cited, across cities, local authorities—often under pressure from vigilante groups—have ordered the closure of non-vegetarian shops during festivals or after religious gatherings, citing “public sentiment.”

Yet such measures, lacking legal justification, raise critical questions about constitutional validity. The community’s demand—to permit the slaughter of unfit bulls and curb vigilante interference—reflects not defiance, but an appeal for lawful protection and economic fairness.

The unstoppable harassment and violence of self-proclaimed gaurakshaks

Moreover, after meeting a delegation of the Qureshi community led by former minister Nawab Malik and MLA Sana Malik, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar convened a discussion with senior police officials in August, 2025. Following the meeting, the Maharashtra police issued a circular on August 13 clarifying that only authorised police officers can act against illegal cattle transport. “It is illegal for private individuals to stop or check vehicles carrying livestock,” the order read, Maktoob Media reported.

Constitution does not permit faith to dictate food

However, the recurring crackdowns on non-vegetarian food—whether through official diktats or vigilante coercion—serve violates the right to eat at choice and trade, the quiet surrender of governance to religious majoritarianism. A “respect for sentiment” too often ends in discrimination, exclusion, and the erosion of fundamental freedoms.

The Constitution does not permit faith to dictate food, nor sentiment to supersede rights. Yet, in city after city, devotion has been weaponised into policy, and piety into policing. Each forced closure and boycott not only robs small vendors—many from marginalised communities—of their daily income, but also fractures the secular promise that every citizen has the right to eat, sell, and live with dignity.

The judiciary has made its stance clear that tolerance, not enforcement, defines India’s pluralism. But when administrative power bends to the loudest voices of faith, it is not harmony that follows—it is hierarchy. Until the state reclaims neutrality and upholds the rule of law over religious pressure, the right to food and livelihood will remain hostage to belief, not protected by the Constitution.

[1] Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Repealed)

[2] Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Repealed)

Related:

Consumption non-vegetarian food growing in India: NFHS-5

Policing our Plate: What does an enforced Meat Ban mean?

Mob lynching: Three separate incidents surface, even minors and partially disabled Muslims not safe

The post Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Rupesh Kumar Singh, a freelance journalist from Jharkhand, has been in jail since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, or UAPA. His arrest followed years of harassment after he reported on land acquisition, mining displacement, Adivasi rights, and human rights violations in eastern India.

The arrest that changed everything

On the morning of July 17, 2022, police arrived at Rupesh Kumar Singh’s home in Ramgarh. For nearly nine hours, they searched every corner, seizing his laptop, phone, and documents.
“He had only one tool — his pen,” wrote his wife, Ipsa Shatakshi. “But they treated it as a weapon.”

The police later alleged Maoist links, though Rupesh’s name was not in the original FIR. The charges were later expanded under UAPA, making bail nearly impossible.

We could finally talk today

Ipsa described the rare moment when she managed to speak to her husband after weeks of silence:

“Today, October 24, 2025, around 10 a.m., I finally spoke to Rupesh through the STD line at Patna’s Beur Jail. The line had been out of order for weeks. The STD has finally been repaired, and we could talk properly today.”

She wrote that Rupesh had been brought back to Beur Jail on September 23, after nearly two years at Bhagalpur Jail, where he had been sent as punishment on arbitrary and baseless charges.
“The transfer was said to be for six months,” she wrote, “but he was kept there for twenty months.”

He was sent to Bhagalpur as punishment

Her letter details how Rupesh’s health deteriorated sharply during that period. She mentioned that “At Bhagalpur Jail, Rupesh’s health deteriorated badly. His triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol reached dangerous levels, and a spinal nerve got compressed. We filed a petition in court, and under court orders, he received treatment. For a while, his reports improved. The doctors advised regular check-ups and a proper diet.”

But since his transfer back to Patna, she said, even the basic medical care ordered by the court has been denied.

He has been locked in a cell without reason

“Since Rupesh’s return to Beur Jail, he has been kept locked in a cell for no reason,” she wrote.
“Earlier, before being sent to Bhagalpur, he was in the normal ward.”

Eepsa described the neglect bluntly that “He needs a medically suitable diet, but even food according to the jail manual is not being provided. Special diet or care is out of the question. No medical examination has been conducted regarding his earlier condition, even though his health problems had reached a dangerous level.”

During their last video call, she noticed him looking thinner and physically weaker. “But someone who has learned to live with courage will always appear spirited — he tries to stay strong. Yet his health condition cannot be ignored” she mentioned

 This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit

Ipsa’s words move from description to defiance that “We all know that when this cruel system cannot break the morale of a popular and pro-people individual, it resorts to mental torture. It tries to weaken him through his health.”

She wrote that the same game is being played with Rupesh. She added that “If he resists these arbitrary rules or demands his rights, they will again accuse him of disturbing jail discipline and transfer him elsewhere — as they have done before.”

Her tone is both calm and cutting.

Ipsa further added that “There is nothing here except an effort to mentally harass him. A pro-people journalist and writer has already been imprisoned for over three years on false charges. Now they are trying to crush him physically and psychologically.”

Even food is being used as punishment: Ipsa

After describing the mental and physical toll, Ipsa wrote that even daily deprivation has become a form of punishment.

She counted that “At Beur Jail, which ranks among the most corrupt in Bihar, the attitude of the authorities shows clear intent to harm. They are deliberately ignoring his medical needs and dietary requirements.”

And then, with quiet anger, she added “This is no longer about law; it is about vengeance.”

Three years of waiting

Multiple bail pleas have been rejected. Even senior lawyers representing the Singh have questioned the handling of his case. “Every date is another delay. Every rejection is another silence. But silence does not mean acceptance.”

We may need to move the High Court

Her latest note ends not in despair but determination. She mentioned “Looking at the behaviour of Beur Jail — notorious for corruption — it seems we must now file a writ petition in the High Court. What is being done to Rupesh’s health is unacceptable. It is an assault on the rights of a man who has written, spoken, and fought for human rights.”

She signed it simply, “— Ipsa Shatakshi (Life partner of journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh), October 24, 2025.”

Beyond one family’s struggle

The story of Rupesh Kumar Singh is more than a case file. It is a mirror to the shrinking space for independent journalism — and to the quiet resilience of those left behind.

Background of the Case

Rupesh Kumar Singh, an independent journalist from Jharkhand, has been in custody since July 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly maintaining links with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and arranging funds for them. His arrest followed years of ground reporting on Adivasi displacement, industrial pollution, and alleged police excesses — issues that many believe provoked official retaliation against his journalism.

Though Singh was not initially named in the FIR, he was later implicated based on electronic data allegedly recovered from a co-accused’s device. His defence maintains that no incriminating material was found from his residence, and that the digital evidence is unreliable. Singh had earlier faced a 2019 UAPA arrest, where he was released on default bail after police failed to file a chargesheet in time.

Singh’s detention came days after he posted a Twitter thread on environmental degradation in Jharkhand, heightening concerns about surveillance and intimidation of critical journalists. His case echoes that of other individuals — from Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi to the late Father Stan Swamy — facing prolonged incarceration under UAPA.

Supreme Court’s decision

On January 27, 2025, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal dismissed Singh’s Special Leave Petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s refusal of bail, stating it was “not inclined to interfere.” The Court offered no detailed reasoning, effectively prolonging Singh’s incarceration without trial.

We had then pointed out that in the ruling exemplifies judicial deference and inconsistency in UAPA bail jurisprudence — where the presumption of guilt replaces the presumption of innocence, and journalists’ constitutional rights are eclipsed by the state’s sweeping claims of national security.

Related:

SC’s bail denial to journalist Rupesh Singh highlights inconsistent approach to UAPA cases

Delhi High Court dismisses bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and others in 2020 Riots Conspiracy Case

How the Delhi riots case remains stagnant with close to a dozen student leaders incarcerated

The post “This system breaks the body when it cannot break the spirit” — Ipsa Shatakshi on her jailed husband, journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant declared the couple’s detention by police as ‘illegal’ and a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ordered their immediate release and safe escort to Aligarh, and further directed that they be allowed to proceed to Bareilly under continued police protection.

Court steps in after couple disappears post-hearing

The couple had appeared before the Allahabad High Court on October 15, 2025, in connection with three pending writ petitions—one of them seeking police protection, previously granted by the Court on September 3. During the hearing, Rashmi made a voluntary statement affirming that she was a major, had married Shane Alam, and wished to live with him out of her own free will.

However, soon after the hearing, the couple reportedly went missing. A habeas corpus petition [Tehseem and Another vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others] was immediately filed by Shane’s brother, Tehseem, claiming that the couple had been abducted with the involvement of Rashmi’s father and some unknown individuals, with police assistance.

On October 17, the Bench, terming the case urgent, ordered police and respondents—including Rashmi’s father and top officials of Aligarh and Prayagraj—to produce the couple in court by 12 PM on October 18. The urgency of the matter led the Court to conduct proceedings on a Saturday, a non-working day.

The order of Allahabad HC dated October 18, 2025 may be read here:

‘No justification for illegal detention’: HC

According to Live Law, on October 18, a Sub-Inspector from Aligarh police produced Shane Alam and Rashmi before the Court. The Government Advocate informed the Bench that the girl had been produced before the Judicial Magistrate in Aligarh on October 17, who confirmed her age and recorded her voluntary statement. She had clearly expressed her wish to go with Shane, and was ordered to be released.

The Court recorded her statements made both before the Magistrate and again during an in-camera interaction. Rashmi stated that she was 21 years old, had married Shane, and wished to live with him. She categorically denied any coercion, as reported

Despite her clear consent and legal age, the couple alleged that they had been abducted by Rashmi’s father and others with police support after leaving the court on October 15. Shane was kept at a police station, and Rashmi was sent to a ‘One Stop Centre’ until they were produced before the Magistrate two days later, as the Live Law reported

Reviewing the case diary and the girl’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench noted that she had voluntarily left with Shane. Yet, the Investigating Officer had continued to probe issues related to the inter-faith nature of their relationship and the alleged failure to inform the District Magistrate about the marriage—investigations which the Court held were unwarranted.

As per Live Law, rejecting the state’s argument that ‘social tension’ justified the couple’s detention, the Court observed:

“The plea that the girl had to be kept at ‘One Stop Centre’ and the petitioner no. 2 was detained at the police station because of the social tension in the area due to the different religions of the parties is not acceptable and cannot justify the detention… A person can be detained by the police or other state authorities only under law.”

The Court further added:

“A detention under social pressure but without authority of law does not make the detention legal but only increases the illegality… In a democratic country governed by Rule of Law, the State Government and its law-enforcement machinery are expected to protect the liberty of a citizen and not to succumb to social pressures” as reported

Police officers may face action

The Bench ruled that the detention of both individuals from October 15 to 18 was illegal. It directed the Investigating Officer to escort the couple safely to their desired location and ordered the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, along with SSPs of Aligarh and Bareilly, to ensure continued protection and prevent any interference in their companionship.

The Court also directed the SSP, Aligarh, to conduct an inquiry into the entire episode and submit a detailed report by November 28, 2025. His personal presence has also been ordered on the next date of hearing.

Background of the case

According to the petition, Rashmi and Shane had been in a consensual relationship and began living together on July 30, 2025. Her father filed an abduction FIR two months later, which the petitioner claimed was motivated by mala fide intent.

Despite the High Court’s earlier order granting police protection, local police allegedly failed to act and even harassed Shane’s family. The October 15 hearing was meant to resolve ongoing petitions related to the FIR and protection orders.

However, after their testimony affirming their relationship, the couple vanished from the court premises around 5 PM. It was alleged that Rashmi’s father, accompanied by unknown persons, was seen in the court complex and had intimidated the couple. Despite immediate court directions, no FIR was registered regarding their disappearance, prompting the habeas corpus plea.

Court keeps matter open

While the couple has been set free and declared safe, the High Court has kept the matter open in view of the serious questions raised—about police inaction, misuse of law, and suppression of individual liberty in inter-faith relationships.

Related:

SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner

Inter-Community clashes erupt at Dehradun railway station after interfaith couple meets

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta reiterated that Doyjan Bibi had been picked up by police and subsequently declared as “deported” without any formal record of transfer, handover certificate, or receipt from Bangladeshi authorities. He reminded the Bench that throughout the proceedings, no evidence had been produced to show compliance with the established protocol of “handing over and taking over” mandated in cross-border transfer cases. “The wife had been picked up. Then it was informed that she had been deported. We have not been given any letter of handing over or any details,” he submitted.

The Bench, taking note of these submissions, asked whether notice had been issued earlier in the case, to which counsel confirmed that it had. The Court observed that the State’s current position — that Doyjan Bibi had been deported back to Bangladesh — was being challenged on the ground of lack of due process. The Bench therefore directed the FT counsel to obtain instructions from the authorities and to file a detailed affidavit addressing the allegations.

The order records:

“In view of the nature of the grievance raised in this petition, the respondents will file an affidavit two days prior to the next date of listing.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 29, 2025. CJP has been providing legal aid in the said case.

Background of the case

The petition concerns the disappearance of Doyjan Bibi, wife of petitioner Abdul Rejjak, who was allegedly picked up by police on May 25, 2025, without any formal documentation, and subsequently reported as “handed over to the BSF” for deportation to Bangladesh.

In the June 25 hearing, the State had produced written instructions from the Frontier Headquarters, BSF Guwahati, claiming that Doyjan Bibi — identified as the wife of Abdul Munnaf — had been handed over to Bangladeshi authorities on May 27, 2025. However, the petitioner had clarified that his wife’s name and all case particulars matched, and that she was indeed “Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Rejjak,” not “Abdul Munnaf.” The Court had then directed the FT counsel to obtain clarification regarding the manner of her handover.

In the July 25 hearing, when a further set of documents was produced, the petitioner’s counsel raised strong objections, pointing out that no handover certificate, no Bangladeshi acknowledgment, and no procedural record of deportation had been placed on record. The Bench observed that if the State’s position was that Doyjan Bibi had been pushed back, the petitioner could challenge the legality of that act. “Human beings cannot just disappear like that,” Advocate Dutta had argued, stressing that pushback procedures are meant for persons intercepted at the border — not those already in custody.

The present direction, therefore, stems from the continuing absence of any formal proof or procedural compliance in the alleged deportation of a woman who had been under police custody, not caught at the border.

The High Court’s October 15 order marks a crucial development as the Court has now required the State to formally defend its actions through affidavit.

Details of previous hearings may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Bangladeshi Court declares deported Bengal families as Indians, orders their return

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

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

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

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

The post Gauhati HC orders affidavit from State on alleged deportation of Doyjan Bibi without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.