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

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

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

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

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

The case of Rajubala Das

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed report may be read here and here.

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

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

Detailed report may be read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Union leaves little ambiguity. It states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The affidavit and the question of recent deportation practices

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

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

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

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Nationality Verification: The missing due process framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracing the timeline of the case, the statement reads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Signatories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

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

The Revolution has begun….!

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

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, was introduced during the Budget Session of the Maharashtra Legislature in March 2026. The Bill was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 13, 2026, and was passed by the Assembly on March 16, followed by approval from the Legislative Council on March 17. After being cleared by both Houses, the legislation was sent to Maharashtra Governor C.P. Radhakrishnan, who subsequently reserved it for the consideration of the President of India. The Bill received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on July 31, 2026, after which the Governor forwarded it to the state government for notification. The Act will come into force only after the Maharashtra government issues a notification specifying the date of commencement. Maharashtra becomes the 13^th state in the country to pass such/similar laws. All these states are governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that has its ideological base in the far right, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The speed with which the legislation moved through the state legislature had itself become a point of criticism. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), in its dissent note, highlighted that the Bill was introduced and passed within days, with limited scope for public consultation or legislative scrutiny, despite the fact that similar anti-conversion laws enacted by other states are already under examination before the Supreme Court. CJP is the lead petitioner in the constitutional challenge to the first batch of such laws passed by five states between the years, 2020-2023. This challenge has been pending in the Supreme Court, despite pleas for interim stays on the most egregious provisions for over five years now. [1]

Details on the interim applications urging stay on the most egregious provisions, filed by CJP on April 16, 2025 may be read here.

In early 2026, while the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of these state laws were listed before the court of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), they were once again deferred. Reports may be read here. Thereafter, first on May 13, 2026 the matters were listed to be heard after which the next date that appears on the Supreme Court calendar is August 12, 2026!!

The presidential assent does little to resolve the fundamental constitutional questions surrounding the legislation. Instead, Maharashtra has now joined a growing list of states that have enacted “freedom of religion” laws whose provisions are being challenged for creating a framework where the exercise of an individual’s conscience and religious choice is placed under state surveillance.

CJP, which is also the lead petitioner challenging multiple anti-conversion laws before the Supreme Court, has consistently argued that these statutes do not merely target coercive conversions. Rather, their architecture treats voluntary conversion, particularly in the context of interfaith relationships, as inherently suspect and places private decisions under criminal scrutiny.

A “Freedom of Religion” law that restricts the freedom to choose

The Maharashtra Act claims to prevent conversions caused by force, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, allurement or undue influence. On paper, preventing coercion may appear consistent with constitutional guarantees. However, the difficulty lies in the breadth of the law and the mechanisms it creates.

The Act treats offering money, gifts, employment, education, promises of marriage, assurances of better living conditions or claims of divine healing as unlawful inducements if linked with conversion. The problem is that the law does not adequately distinguish between genuine coercion and ordinary circumstances in which individuals make religious choices influenced by personal relationships, social support, material circumstances or lived experiences. By creating a wide category of prohibited influence, the law risks converting legitimate exercises of conscience into potential criminal offences. A person’s decision to embrace another faith is protected not because the State approves of the choice, but because the Constitution protects the individual’s autonomy to make that choice.

Mandatory state oversight over matters of faith

One of the most intrusive features of the legislation is the requirement of prior notice before conversion. The Act mandates a 60-day prior notice to the district magistrate before conversion. This effectively transforms a deeply personal decision into an administrative process.

Instead of recognising conversion as an exercise of individual conscience, the law creates a system where government authorities are informed in advance and can scrutinise the circumstances surrounding a person’s decision.

CJP has argued that such provisions undermine the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience by making religious choice dependent on executive oversight. The Constitution does not make the right to believe, reject, adopt or change religion conditional upon government approval.

The law creates a climate of suspicion around interfaith relationships

While the Act is presented as a measure against forced conversion, its most contentious impact is likely to be felt in cases involving interfaith relationships. The legislation permits complaints by relatives of the person who has converted, including parents and siblings. This creates a mechanism where consenting adults may find their personal relationships subjected to police investigation merely because family members object to their choices.

CJP’s dissent note has warned that such provisions disproportionately affect interfaith couples by allowing private disagreements and social opposition to be converted into criminal proceedings.

The concern is not hypothetical. Similar anti-conversion laws across states have repeatedly been invoked in cases involving marriages between persons of different faiths. A law meant to protect individual choice cannot operate by empowering third parties to challenge that choice.

Reversal of burden of proof

Perhaps the most constitutionally troubling feature of the Maharashtra Act is the reversal of the burden of proof. Under ordinary criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, under this legislation, the accused person must prove that the conversion was lawful and voluntary. The State is therefore not required to first establish wrongdoing in the traditional sense; instead, the person accused of facilitating conversion must defend the legitimacy of the act.

CJP has identified this reversal as one of the central constitutional defects in anti-conversion laws, arguing that it undermines basic criminal law protections and creates a chilling effect on legitimate religious choices.

Regulating women’s choices under the guise of preventing coercion

Although the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is presented as a law against forced or fraudulent religious conversions, its operation is likely to fall most heavily on women exercising autonomy in matters of faith and marriage. Across states with similar anti-conversion laws, a significant number of prosecutions have arisen not from allegations of organised or coerced conversions, but from consensual interfaith relationships where families have opposed a woman’s decision to marry or convert. By permitting complaints from parents, siblings and other blood relatives, mandating prior notice before conversion, and empowering the police to investigate private decisions, the Act effectively shifts control over an adult woman’s choices from the individual to her family and the State. Instead of presuming that adult women possess the capacity to make informed decisions about their faith and relationships—a principle repeatedly affirmed by constitutional courts—the law creates a legal framework that invites suspicion of their agency. As CJP has argued in its dissent note, the legislation risks reinforcing patriarchal assumptions that women are vulnerable to manipulation and therefore require State and familial supervision, undermining the constitutional guarantees of dignity, privacy, equality and decisional autonomy under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

Passed without meaningful debate

CJP has also criticised the legislative process through which the Maharashtra law was enacted. In its dissent note, the organisation argued that the Bill was introduced and passed with extraordinary haste, leaving little opportunity for meaningful public consultation or democratic scrutiny.

The Bill was introduced in the Maharashtra Assembly on March 13, 2026, passed by the Legislative Assembly on March 16, and cleared by the Legislative Council on March 17. CJP argued that the hurried passage of the law was particularly concerning because the Supreme Court is already examining the constitutional validity of similar legislation enacted by multiple states. Introducing another law of the same nature while constitutional challenges remain pending raises questions about legislative accountability and respect for judicial review.

The Maharashtra law comes amid a broader challenge before the Supreme Court against anti-conversion statutes across India. The proceedings, led by CJP, initially challenged laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. The challenge was subsequently expanded to include laws enacted in Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka.

The petitions argue that these laws violate:

• Article 25’s protection of freedom of conscience;
• Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty and privacy;
• Article 14’s guarantee of equality.

The petitioners contend that the State may prohibit forced conversion, but cannot regulate voluntary conversion or require individuals to justify their faith choices before public authorities.

Courts have already warned against excessive state intervention

The constitutional concerns surrounding such laws are not new. In Evangelical Fellowship of India v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 requiring prior declaration before conversion. The Court held that the right to change one’s belief could not be restricted merely on the assumption that public order might be affected. Despite this clear course correction by a constitutional court, the same state re-enacted a similar law with the same provisions in august 2022. This is one of the key substantive points argued by the CJP in its constitutional challenge to the Himachal Pradesh law. Report may be read here. While the Indian National Congress (INC), the lead opposition party has come back to power in the state (December 2022), this law has not yet been repealed, close to four years later. Similar is the situation in the state of Karnataka, a state ruled by the INC since May 2023.

Despite this judicial warning, similar provisions have repeatedly resurfaced in newer anti-conversion laws. The Gujarat High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court have also intervened against certain provisions of their respective state laws, particularly those involving interfaith marriages and mandatory declarations.

The Maharashtra government has defended the law as necessary to prevent exploitation and fraudulent conversions. However, the constitutional challenge is not about whether coercive conversion should be prohibited. It is about whether the State can create a system where every conversion is treated as requiring explanation, scrutiny and approval. A democratic Constitution protects the freedom to choose one’s faith precisely because such choices are deeply personal and cannot be determined by the State.

The complete dissent note may be read below:

[1] CJP had first, in December 2020-February 2021, filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh laws passed earlier and thereafter, in 2023, amended their plea to include similar laws passed in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. CJP is the lead petitioner in this matter.

Related:

Allahabad HC flags misuse of UP Anti-Conversion Law, quashes FIR and rebukes ‘mimeographed’ complaints

35 civil society groups oppose Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion law, warn of threat to women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms

‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill

Maharashtra’s Proposed Anti-Conversion Law: Manufacturing moral panic to criminalise personal choice

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025v

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Push: How organised street pressure, Hindutva mobilisation and a pending law threaten constitutional freedoms

The post Policing Autonomy & Faith: Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion law gets President’s assent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yet the order is equally notable for what it leaves untouched. While expressing sufficient doubt about the conduct of law enforcement to contemplate an independent investigation, the Court simultaneously permits the same police machinery to continue investigating protesters under the FIRs already registered. It further conditions its interim protection upon the absence of “criminal antecedents”, effectively creating two classes of protesters for the purposes of constitutional relief. Read closely, the order reveals not merely judicial caution but an unresolved constitutional contradiction that lies at the heart of the litigation.

From a challenge to police violence in Delhi to a nationwide constitutional controversy

The hearing itself reflected how dramatically the litigation has expanded since the events at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on July 20. What began as petitions concerning police action in the national capital has evolved into a challenge to policing practices across multiple States. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, heard petitions alleging police brutality in Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala, alongside petitions filed on behalf of injured police personnel, journalists and individual protesters. The order correspondingly issues notice not only to the Union and the Government of NCT of Delhi but also to the Chief Secretaries of the seven States where similar allegations have arisen, making it clear that any eventual investigation may extend well beyond Delhi.

The courtroom exchanges demonstrated that the litigation had also moved beyond disputes over individual incidents. As reported by LiveLaw, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the issue before the Court was systemic rather than episodic, referring to alleged departures from established crowd-control protocols, the deployment of plain-clothes police personnel and the need for an investigation independent of the very agencies accused of violence. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan drew attention to allegations of electronic shock batons, assaults on women protesters and threats allegedly issued by police personnel. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted the continued detention of minors in Bihar despite the State’s announcement that cases would be withdrawn, reported LiveLaw. Advocate Prashant Bhushan referred to the petition of Junaid Malik, who alleged illegal detention, harassment and police action against his family. On the other side, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accepted that allegations concerning injuries to students required serious examination but maintained that “anti-social elements” had infiltrated the protests and that hundreds of police personnel had themselves suffered injuries.

It was against this backdrop that the Chief Justice repeatedly observed that the Court was confronted with two competing narratives, each accusing the other of serious violence. The question, therefore, was not simply whether police had used excessive force or whether protesters had attacked police personnel, but whether either version could be accepted without an investigation independent of those directly involved. That concern ultimately shaped the Court’s reasoning.

The Court’s recognition of a prima facie case is constitutionally significant

The order carefully records the allegations placed before the Court. It refers to the alleged use of pellet guns causing severe injuries, including the loss of eyesight of one student, the deployment of rubber bullets, electronic batons and nail-studded lathis, assaults by police personnel both in uniform and in civilian dress, and attacks on members of the media. At the same time, it records allegations that police personnel suffered serious injuries owing to stone-pelting and violence allegedly perpetrated by protesters or anti-social elements. Rather than accepting either version, the Court concludes that the material placed before it establishes a “compelling case” for an independent and impartial investigation capable of addressing both sets of allegations. This finding carries greater constitutional significance than the interim directions themselves.

Ordinarily, investigations conducted by the police are presumed to possess institutional legitimacy. Constitutional courts do not lightly transfer investigations or contemplate court-monitored inquiries. Such departures occur only where the Court concludes that confidence in the ordinary investigative process has been sufficiently undermined. The very logic behind an SIT is that the institutional mechanisms ordinarily entrusted with criminal investigation may not command public confidence in exceptional circumstances. The Court’s observation that an independent investigation may be necessary is therefore, in itself, a recognition that the allegations against law enforcement cannot simply be left to the agencies whose conduct has come under challenge. That premise, however, sits uneasily with the operative directions that follow.

The order simultaneously questions and preserves the ordinary criminal process

Despite concluding that the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting an independent investigation, the Court expressly permits Delhi and all concerned States to continue investigating the FIRs already registered in connection with the protests. The only restriction imposed is that “no coercive measures” shall be taken against protesting students, subject to an important qualification discussed later.

“(iv) The NCT of Delhi and other States may proceed with the investigation of the FIRs registered; however, no coercive measures shall be taken against the protesting students. Such protection, nonetheless, shall not be extended to the persons with criminal antecedents.” (Para 8)

This aspect of the order deserves closer attention than it has received. The Court does not stay the FIRs; it does not transfer the investigations or direct that future investigative steps be undertaken by an independent agency. Instead, the police authorities whose conduct is alleged to require independent scrutiny continue to exercise the full range of investigative powers available under criminal law. Statements may still be recorded, electronic devices may still be seized and examined, witnesses may still be questioned, forensic reports may still be prepared, and charge-sheets may continue to take shape.

The Court thus creates a constitutional arrangement in which two investigations are expected to proceed simultaneously: one, a proposed independent inquiry into police conduct; the other, the ordinary police investigation into the conduct of protesters. The order never explains how these two processes are to coexist.

This is not merely a procedural curiosity. Criminal investigations shape the evidentiary record. They determine which witnesses are examined, what evidence is collected, how events are reconstructed and ultimately which narrative enters the criminal justice system. If the Court considers the neutrality of the ordinary investigative process sufficiently doubtful to contemplate an independent investigation, it is difficult to understand why that same process should continue exercising authority over the protesters arising out of the same sequence of events. The contradiction is never confronted.

“No coercive measures” does not suspend the coercive force of criminal process

The Court’s direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against protesting students has understandably attracted public attention. Yet, as a matter of constitutional law, the protection is considerably narrower than it first appears. Orders restraining coercive action ordinarily operate against arrest or similarly drastic steps. They do not suspend investigation itself. Nor do they prevent repeated summons, compulsory appearances before investigating officers, seizure of electronic devices, extraction of digital data, surveillance, examination of social media activity or the continuing collection of evidence. The distinction is significant in cases concerning political protest.

The chilling effect upon constitutional freedoms is produced not only by arrest but by the criminal process itself. A protester compelled to repeatedly appear before investigating agencies, surrender personal devices or remain subject to an ongoing criminal investigation continues to bear the burden of state action irrespective of whether arrest is immediately threatened. The Court therefore restrains one manifestation of coercion while leaving intact the broader investigative machinery through which coercion may continue to operate.

If the purpose of the interim order is to ensure that constitutional rights remain meaningful while allegations of police excess are independently examined, it is not immediately apparent why the continuation of the ordinary criminal process should remain unaffected.

The exception for “criminal antecedents” undermines the logic of constitutional protection

Perhaps the most constitutionally troubling aspect of the order is the qualification that protection against coercive action shall not extend to persons with criminal antecedents. The same qualification also governs the release of detained children. 

The order does not explain what constitutes a criminal antecedent. Nor does it distinguish between previous convictions and pending criminal cases. However, that omission is significant. In practice, the expression “criminal antecedents” is routinely employed by investigating agencies to refer not only to persons previously convicted of offences but also to individuals against whom criminal proceedings are pending or FIRs have previously been registered. For those engaged in political mobilisation, this distinction assumes particular importance.

Student leaders, trade union organisers, civil rights activists and political workers frequently accumulate criminal cases because they repeatedly participate in demonstrations. Many such prosecutions culminate in acquittal or remain pending for years without adjudication. The mere existence of previous criminal proceedings therefore cannot be equated with criminality. Yet the Court’s formulation effectively permits previous executive allegations to determine the scope of present constitutional protection.

The result is that the protesters most likely to have prior experience with the criminal justice system, precisely because they have participated in earlier movements, become least likely to receive interim judicial protection. This sits uneasily with first principles of constitutional law- the presumption of innocence does not disappear because an individual has previously been named in an FIR. Nor are the guarantees of Articles 19 and 21 reserved only for first-time protesters. Constitutional rights do not fluctuate according to the number of criminal cases the State has chosen to register against a citizen. The Court’s order, however unintentionally, risks producing precisely that consequence.

The Court’s instinctive turn towards an SIT also deserves scrutiny

The Court’s indication that it may constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge has naturally been welcomed as evidence of judicial seriousness. It is also entirely consistent with an increasingly familiar pattern in Indian constitutional adjudication. Whenever allegations involve politically sensitive policing, communal violence, custodial abuse or failures of ordinary investigation, constitutional litigation frequently culminates in demands for an SIT.

The institutional appeal of this mechanism is obvious. It reassures the public that the investigation will not remain entirely within the control of the executive while allowing the Court to maintain supervisory distance. Yet experience also warrants caution. An SIT is not itself a constitutional remedy. It is only an investigative mechanism.

Indian constitutional history is replete with court-monitored investigations that have extended over years, produced little by way of institutional accountability or concluded long after the immediate constitutional crisis had passed. Judicial supervision has not invariably translated into meaningful prosecutions, as one may understand with the SIT on Manipur violence. Nor have SITs consistently addressed questions of command responsibility, systemic policing failures or institutional reform. They frequently identify individual culpability while leaving broader structures of power untouched.

The Supreme Court’s growing reliance on SITs also reflects a deeper institutional tendency. Faced with allegations of executive misconduct, the Court increasingly responds by creating new investigative mechanisms rather than directly interrogating the legality of executive action or crafting structural constitutional remedies. An SIT may well uncover facts. It does not necessarily answer the constitutional questions that those facts reveal.

If the present litigation ultimately results only in another prolonged investigation, without examining the legality of protest policing, the use of force, surveillance practices, deployment of plain-clothes personnel or the repeated invocation of criminal law against dissent, the constitutional significance of the proceedings may prove considerably narrower than their immediate political importance.

Preserving evidence is necessary, but accountability requires more

Among the strongest features of the order are its directions preserving CCTV footage, drone recordings, body-camera footage, wireless communication records and PCR logs, alongside the prohibition on publishing protesters’ personal information. These directions recognise the centrality of digital evidence in contemporary protest litigation and respond to legitimate concerns regarding surveillance and the destruction of electronic records.

They are undoubtedly important; but they are also procedural safeguards. They preserve the possibility of accountability without guaranteeing accountability itself. The harder constitutional question remains unresolved. If the Court has already concluded that there exists a prima facie case warranting an independent investigation because the allegations against the police cannot be left to the ordinary investigative process, should that conclusion not also have consequences for the criminal investigations being conducted by the same police authorities?

The July 28 order does not answer that question. Instead, it reflects a familiar pattern in constitutional adjudication. The Court acknowledges serious allegations of state excess, preserves evidence, contemplates an independent investigation and grants carefully calibrated interim relief, but stops short of disrupting the ordinary machinery of criminal administration. Meanwhile, the more enduring constitutional issue, however, lies elsewhere. The order proceeds on the premise that police conduct is sufficiently doubtful to justify independent scrutiny, while simultaneously leaving the architecture of criminalisation almost entirely intact. 

The complete order may be read here. 

Detailed reports on the protests and the state violence may be read here, here, here, here and here. 

Related:

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain

From Feeding Students to Fighting in the Supreme Court: The story of Mohammad Junaid Malik

A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan amid the political fallout surrounding examination controversies and sustained student anger over examination-related concerns has brought back into focus the strength of democracy and youth: some of the most consequential political corrections do not happen inside Parliament but outside it—on streets, at protest sites, in university campuses and in public spaces where ordinary citizens refuse to let their concerns be ignored. The “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged as a satirical youth-led protest movement after a remark by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant; and young protesters transformed it into a platform of resistance, starting with humour, memes and digital mobilisation, and then on-site protest and fast to highlight broader anxieties over unemployment, examinations and institutional accountability.

For the students who stood at the forefront of protest, the journey was marked not merely by slogans and demonstrations, but by immense personal hardship. They faced police crackdowns, lathi charges (even pellet injuries and sexual abuse!), physical injuries, detention and intimidation. Excessive force, restrictions on movement, internet shutdowns, closure of businesses and disruption of daily life across protest sites reflected the heavy cost imposed on those exercising their democratic rights. Young people, including women protesters, endured harassment, abuse and humiliation while insisting that their concerns be heard. Behind every protest was a human story of anxiety, sacrifice and resilience: the latest is a generation that felt compelled to leave classrooms and homes to defend the fairness and credibility of the very systems upon which their aspirations and future depend.

The departure of a senior minister from one of the most sensitive portfolios of governance underscores the growing power of public pressure as a force of democratic accountability in contemporary India. For millions of students who spent weeks demanding transparency, fairness and institutional responsibility, the moment carries the significance of a democratic victory—the recognition that sustained civic resistance can compel even powerful governments to confront failures they might otherwise seek to manage politically. The intensity of the public debate was reflected in the usually restrained PM Modi’s late-night Instagram video defending the government’s handling of the controversy, while Union ministers simultaneously engaged with activist Sonam Wangchuk, leading to the conclusion of his hunger strike. Together, these developments demonstrated that sustained public mobilisation had pushed the government into direct engagement, reinforcing a fundamental democratic principle: when citizens organise persistently, power is compelled to respond.

But the significance extends beyond one minister or one controversy. It reflects the rise of a new generation of Indians unwilling to accept institutional failure as inevitable. For these young citizens, the struggle was never merely about examinations; it was about trust, merit and the credibility of systems that shape their futures. Their movement represented a larger democratic demand—that institutions created to serve citizens must remain accountable to those whose lives and aspirations they influence. This politically conscious youth generation participates beyond traditional party structures. They organise through campuses, digital networks, creative campaigns and public conversations, using technology not merely to communicate but to mobilise, document and challenge authority. Their politics is rooted in lived realities—unemployment, questions of fairness, institutional credibility and the anxieties of a generation competing for limited opportunities. For millions, a competitive examination is not merely a test; it is often the dividing line between economic security and prolonged uncertainty

The significance of the student movement lies in how it transformed individual anxiety into collective democratic action. Students who could have remained isolated by personal uncertainty recognised a shared institutional failure and converted it into a national conversation. Their struggle demonstrated that youth participation in democracy does not begin and end with voting every few years; it also means questioning systems, demanding transparency and insisting that institutions remain answerable to the people they serve.

This is the same democratic force that was witnessed during the farmers’ movement, which forced the repeal of the three farm laws in 2021. The issues were different, but the underlying principle was remarkably similar: citizens confronting a powerful State, facing initial dismissal, enduring prolonged resistance and ultimately creating enough moral and political pressure for the government to reconsider its position.

When the farm laws were introduced in 2020, the Union government presented them as transformative reforms that would modernise agriculture, expand market opportunities and attract investment. Farmers, however, feared that the reforms would weaken the minimum support price system and gradually erode the mandi structure that protected millions of cultivators. Instead of resolving these concerns through sustained dialogue, the disagreement escalated into confrontation. Farmers moving towards Delhi encountered barricades, trenches, barbed wire, concrete barriers, restrictions and heavy security deployment—creating the extraordinary image of the State responding to its own citizens as a security challenge.

The movement was also subjected to political de-legitimisation, with sections of the ruling establishment and its supporters portraying protesters as politically motivated and, at times, associating them with anti-national or separatist forces. Yet the farmers remained at Delhi’s borders for more than a year through harsh weather, criticism and immense political pressure. Their persistence eventually forced the government to withdraw the laws.

The significance of that moment extended far beyond agricultural policy, and it demonstrated that electoral dominance cannot substitute for democratic persuasion. A government may possess a strong parliamentary majority, but legitimacy requires more than numbers; it requires public trust, dialogue and the willingness to listen.

The student movement carries the same message. Institutions cannot demand public confidence while avoiding public accountability. When young citizens are forced to leave classrooms and enter streets to demand fairness, protest is not a disruption of democracy—it is one of democracy’s most important corrective mechanisms.

India’s students have historically been central to democratic transformation, from the freedom movement to the anti-Emergency struggles. The present generation belongs to that longer tradition of young citizens questioning authority and reshaping public debate.

But unlike earlier political movements built primarily around traditional organisations and ideological structures, today’s youth movements operate through networks, creative communication and collective storytelling. This generation does not merely react to political decisions; it documents, debates and challenges them. Its politics is shaped by immediate questions of dignity, opportunity, merit and institutional credibility. A hashtag can become a movement, a meme a political message, and a single statement a national conversation. Democracies survive not merely because institutions exist, but because citizens believe those institutions are fair. Once that confidence weakens, protest becomes a language through which society demands repair. No government moves survive without democratic consent.

This new generation is not rejecting democracy but demanding a deeper system with transparent and responsive institutions. They are demanding that systems determining their futures deserve their trust, and they have new methods to mobilise and react.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests, particularly the women-led mobilisation at Shaheen Bagh, transformed a public space into a forum of constitutional dialogue. By carrying copies of the Constitution and the Preamble, ordinary citizens asserted a fundamental democratic principle: questioning government policy is not an act of disloyalty. In a constitutional democracy, disagreement with those in power is itself a legitimate form of citizenship.

The wrestlers’ protest in 2023 raised another troubling question about institutional accountability. Athletes who had brought international recognition to India were compelled to mobilise publicly while seeking action over serious allegations. Their struggle revealed an uncomfortable reality: when institutions fail to respond adequately, even those with public recognition may feel compelled to seek justice through collective pressure.

These movements differ in their immediate demands, but they share a common democratic foundation. Citizens do not take to the streets because they have abandoned faith in the Republic. They do so because they believe the Republic can still be made to listen.

The deeper concern for Indian democracy is not that citizens are expressing their voice. It is that governments increasingly risk interpreting criticism as hostility, dissent as conspiracy and critics as adversaries, anti-national elements or even threats to national security. Such an approach misunderstands the essence of constitutional democracy. Peaceful protest is not an attack on the State; it is one of the ways through which the State is reminded of its obligations.

The government has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order and act against violence. But there is a fundamental difference between enforcing law and delegitimising peaceful opposition. Force, political labelling and attempts to discredit protesters may delay resolution, but they cannot eliminate legitimate grievances or rebuild public trust.

Democratic movements function as warning systems. They reveal failures that governments, protected by electoral victories and administrative power, may overlook. A confident democracy does not fear criticism; it uses criticism to correct itself. Revising a policy after hearing citizens is not weakness, but it shows that democracy remains capable of engagement.

India’s recent protest movements reaffirm a constitutional truth often forgotten by those in power: electoral mandates provide the authority to govern, but they do not provide immunity from scrutiny. From the repeal of the farm laws to the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, these episodes demonstrate that democratic resistance remains one of the strongest safeguards against unchecked power.

The greatest democratic victories are not always the defeat of governments or political opponents. They are moments when citizens compel power to listen, reflect and correct itself. From farmers’ fields to university campuses, Indians continue to defend a foundational constitutional principle: sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people.

Democratic protest does not weaken governments; it reminds them of their responsibility. It is through such moments of public accountability that power remembers whom it exists to serve.

(The author is an Indian author (his first book being The Essential,2023), policy analyst, and columnist. His research and commentary regularly appear in scholarly and popular publications. Follow @ens_socialis)

Related:

The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters

Hegemony: Kerala’s Bharatapuzha as a political stage

The post The Republic Speaks Back: How Student Power Reminded Authority of Its Limits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detailed report on actions taken by Maharashtra police against student protesters may be read here, here and here.

According to The Indian Express, the Chief Minister’s directions have also been communicated to the Director General of Police, with officials indicating that, broadly, there would be no detentions, no police visits to the homes of those named in the FIRs and no coercive measures while the government works through the legal process for withdrawing the cases.

The protests, held largely on July 23 and 24 across Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur, were organised in solidarity with the brute police action against student protesters and youth led-Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) agitation at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and demands for the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. According to PTI, most of the cases registered in Maharashtra relate to allegations of unlawful assembly and violations of prohibitory orders.

By the time the withdrawal process was announced, Mumbai Police had registered around 20 FIRs across police stations including Worli, Dadar, Sion, Mahim and Shivaji Park, with more than 1,000 students, youth and protesters booked under bailable offences such as unlawful assembly and violations of prohibitory orders under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Hundreds of those booked later received notices, many delivered through WhatsApp, directing them to appear before investigating officers.

According to Hindustan Times, Fadnavis directed the Home Department to begin the process of withdrawing cases against participants in the CJP protests, fulfilling one of the key assurances given after the party suspended its nationwide agitation. However, government officials stressed that the announcement does not automatically terminate the FIRs.

“Once an FIR is registered, the government cannot suo motu withdraw the case. It can only initiate the process for withdrawal, which has to be completed in accordance with the legal procedure and requires scrutiny as well as court approval,” a senior official told Hindustan Times.

Officials told The Indian Express that while such cases are ordinarily withdrawn after a chargesheet has been filed and the prosecution seeks permission from the court, the government is also examining whether filing closure reports may be legally feasible in some cases. They emphasised that the Chief Minister’s announcement by itself does not bring the investigations to an end.

The government’s decision follows sustained pressure from student organisations, opposition parties and the CJP, which had repeatedly warned that it would resume nationwide protests if governments failed to honour assurances to withdraw all FIRs against peaceful demonstrators. Earlier, the Bihar and Assam governments had also announced the withdrawal of cases registered against participants in the CJP-led protests.

Despite the government’s announcement, confusion has continued on the ground. According to The Free Press Journal, Mumbai Police have maintained that investigation procedures cannot be halted until they receive formal legal instructions. Police officials said they are still required to record statements of accused persons and witnesses, conduct panchnamas and complete other statutory procedures because the FIRs remain legally in force.

The decision to withdraw the cases followed representations by a joint delegation of the All India Students’ Federation (AISF), which met the Director General of Police and the Mumbai Police Commissioner seeking an end to police action against peaceful protesters. While welcoming the government’s decision, AISF has maintained that the struggle will continue until every FIR, notice and legal proceeding against student protesters is withdrawn.

AISF Mumbai President Aamir Kazi told The Free Press Journal that students continued to receive calls and notices from police even after the government’s announcement, creating fear and uncertainty. He said the Director General of Police advised the organisation to submit a representation to the Mumbai Police Commissioner requesting that no further notices be issued and that students not be summoned to police stations while the withdrawal process is underway.

Student organisations have also alleged that police action continued despite the government’s announcement. According to The Free Press Journal, members of the Harsha Disha student organisation said that beginning around 9:30 a.m. on July 28, several students who had participated in the protests received FIR notices through WhatsApp. In a statement, the organisation accused the Mumbai Police and the BJP-led government of attempting to intimidate students and discourage future protests, and urged the CJP to continue its agitation until every FIR is withdrawn and police officials allegedly responsible for violence against protesters are held accountable.

Officials further indicated that the current government resolution authorising withdrawal of such cases remains valid until July 31. As several investigations are still underway and many chargesheets may not be filed before then, an extension of the resolution is likely to be considered. Police officials said the sooner chargesheets are completed, the sooner the formal withdrawal process can begin.

The issue has also played out differently in other states. The West Bengal government stated that it would not take coercive action against students but clarified that this protection would not extend to persons with criminal antecedents, citing the Supreme Court’s order. The state said that one police case had been registered, in which 16 people were arrested before subsequently securing bail. Six additional cases remain pending on complaints filed by journalists alleging they were assaulted during the protests.

In Kerala, the Congress-led government has directed the Home Department to examine the demand for withdrawal of cases after the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Chief Minister seeking similar relief for protesters.

Detailed report may be read here.

Meanwhile, the CJP has expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s observation permitting investigations in existing FIRs to continue. The organisation argued that the direction was inconsistent with the assurances allegedly given by governments that cases against peaceful protesters would be withdrawn. CJP leader Saurav Das said the executive retained the power to withdraw the FIRs, as demonstrated by Bihar and Assam, and called for complete transparency in the process.

The Supreme Court cannot be politicised for government’s gains. Its orders cannot be weaponised to achieve those gains. A solemn guarantee was given before the nation. Those ought to be honoured. All FIRs ought to be withdrawn. If criminals roamed, police must apply for…

— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) July 28, 2026

URGENT STATEMENT

The interim order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the batch of PILs related to the CJP protest must ring alarm bells across the country. In particular, Direction No. 4, which permits governments to proceed with existing FIRs and carry out…

— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) July 28, 2026

The Maharashtra government’s announcement comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that no coercive action be taken against student protesters across states and that any detained minors be released immediately. Even as the state has publicly committed to withdrawing the FIRs, the legal process remains ongoing, meaning students may continue to receive notices and be required to participate in investigation procedures until the statutory process is completed and the courts formally approve the withdrawal of the cases.

Related:

A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jakira Bibi and Naseruddin Sheikh

For Naseruddin Sheikh and Jakira Bibi, an elderly couple from Shernagar village under Agomani Police Station in Dhubri district, that question arrived in the form of notices from the Foreigners Tribunal. The notices did not merely initiate legal proceedings; they brought an extraordinary degree of fear into the ordinary life of a family that had spent generations rooted in Assam.

The allegation against them was that they had entered India illegally from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971. The consequence of such an allegation is immense. For a person of limited means, an appearance before a Foreigners Tribunal can mean confronting a legal system that demands historical documents, family linkage, oral evidence and a coherent explanation of one’s identity and residence, often going back decades. The burden is particularly heavy for those who are elderly, poor, uneducated or physically unwell.

Naseruddin was an ageing handcart puller whose life had been spent in physical labour. Jakira was an elderly woman suffering from several health problems who had spent her life caring for her family. Neither possessed the resources to comfortably navigate a prolonged legal battle.

The couple therefore faced something far larger than two legal cases. They faced the possibility that the country in which they been born and lived, could question their allegiance and their lives could suddenly become a question mark.

Their story, however, is also a story of legal intervention, documentary evidence and persistence. With the assistance of the intrepid para-legal and legal team of the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), the couple was able to place their evidence before the Foreigners Tribunal. After examining the materials and testimony presented in the respective proceedings, the Tribunals ultimately declared both Naseruddin Sheikh and Jakira Bibi “Not Foreigner.”

The two orders are significant not only because they brought relief to an elderly couple but also because they demonstrate how citizenship-related proceedings can turn on the careful reconstruction of family history, legacy linkage and documentary continuity—and how access to quality and sensitive legal assistance can be critical when ordinary citizens are required to defend themselves against allegations that challenge their very belonging. The final order in Naseruddin’s case is dated May 8, 2025, while the order in Jakira’s case was pronounced on November 1, 2025. It took the Assam team of Citizens for Justice and Peace, that provided this quality legal aid, eight months in accessing the order of the Foreigners Tribunal.

Foreigners Tribunal Court, Dhurbi

Naseruddin Sheikh: A man who spent his life pulling a handcart, now forced to defend his Indian identity

Naseruddin Sheikh is now close to 76 years old. His life has been shaped by hard work rather than privilege. Born on January 12, 1950, he belongs to Bidyadabri village in the Dhubri region and is the son of late Basaruddin Sheikh and grandson of Sukur Ali @ Khasar.

He never received an education and, from a young age, had to depend on physical labour for survival. For nearly three decades, he worked as a handcart puller in Agomani market, transporting vegetables, rice and other goods. At different times, he also worked as a daily wage labourer, taking whatever work was available to support his family.

His life was not one of comfort, but it was a life firmly rooted in the place he knew as home. Together with his wife, Jakira, he raised six children—three sons and three daughters. While he worked outside, she managed the household and cared for the family.

Today, Naseruddin’s body bears the consequences of decades of physical labour. Yet, even at an advanced age, he sometimes continues to pull his handcart because the economic circumstances of his family leave little room for retirement. It was against this background that the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings began.

The case against Naseruddin was registered as FT-9/113/GKJ/2019. The reference originated from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, following a citizenship verification process and raised the question of whether Naseruddin was an illegal migrant or foreigner of the post-1971 stream or any other relevant stream. The Tribunal’s order records that Naseruddin appeared in response to notice, filed a written statement, produced documents and contested the allegation that he was a foreigner.

For Naseruddin, the proceedings were frightening not simply because of their legal implications but because of the practical reality of defending himself. A man whose daily existence depended upon manual labour was suddenly required to reconstruct his family history through documents and testimony. The cost of legal representation, travel to court and the loss of working days could have placed an unbearable burden upon him.

The legal system, however, required him to answer the allegation with evidence. That is where the intervention of CJP became crucial.

CJP Team Assam along with Jakira Bibi and Naseruddin Sheikh

When the CJP team came to his door: After receiving the notice, Naseruddin did not know where to turn. He was confronted with a legal proceeding whose consequences he could not fully understand and whose financial demands he could not easily meet. It was at this point that he came into contact with CJP Community Volunteer Ilias Sarkar, who connected him with the wider CJP team. State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh, Advocate Iskandar Azad and Community Volunteer Habibul Bepari became involved in assisting the couple.

The team visited Naseruddin’s home, examined the available records and began working to understand the documentary history of his family. This intervention was important because citizenship proceedings of this nature often require something that is not easy for ordinary people to provide on their own: the ability to transform scattered documents from different periods into a legally coherent narrative.

A voter list from decades ago may establish the presence of an ancestor. A later electoral roll may establish continuity. A land deed may support residence or possession of property. A witness may explain the relationship between generations. None of these pieces necessarily tells the whole story in isolation. Their significance emerges when they are connected into a credible chain of evidence.

For Naseruddin, the legal task was therefore not simply to produce an Aadhaar card or an EPIC card. The more fundamental challenge was to demonstrate the historical continuity of his identity and his connection to his family and to India.

CJP took responsibility for assisting him in the proceedings, and Advocate Iskandar Azad represented him before the Tribunal. The support gave Naseruddin something that he had been missing since the notice arrived: the confidence that he would not have to face the legal process alone.

As Naseruddin later recalled, “After getting the notice we did not understand where to go. Even with papers, people become foreigners here. So the fear remains, but after you came we got courage.”

His words capture the psychological reality behind the legal case. The presence of legal assistance did not merely provide representation; it restored a measure of confidence to a man who had suddenly been made to question his own security in the country where he had spent his entire life.

The legal strategy: The central challenge in Naseruddin’s case was to establish his connection with his family lineage and demonstrate the continuity of his presence in India. The evidence presented before the Tribunal therefore went back across generations.

One of the important pieces of evidence was a 1966 electoral roll of Bhamandanga Part-II, in which the name of Gerpu Sheikh, son of Sukur Ali, was recorded. Naseruddin identified Gerpu Sheikh as his paternal uncle and Sukur Ali as his grandfather. The Tribunal also considered a 1966 electoral roll from Jaldhoya, where the name of Naseruddin’s father, Basiruddin, was recorded.

The importance of these records lay in their historical character. They were not documents created for the purpose of the present litigation; rather, they were old electoral records that predated the proceedings by several decades. Their evidentiary value, therefore, arose from the fact that they could potentially connect Naseruddin’s present identity to members of his family who were recorded as voters in the relevant period.

The case was further supported by electoral rolls from 1994, 1997, 2005, 2015 and 2022, reflecting the names of Naseruddin and his wife in successive electoral records. The Tribunal’s order records these documents as part of the 13 exhibits produced by Naseruddin in support of his claim.

The defence also relied upon Registered Deed No. 473 dated 24 January 1976, together with Naseruddin’s EPIC, PAN and Aadhaar documents. A licence issued by the Agomani Gaon Panchayat for operating a push cart and certificates issued by the relevant Gram Panchayat were also placed on record.

The evidence was not confined to documents. Naseruddin himself appeared as DW-1 and gave evidence regarding his birth, his father and grandfather, the family’s movements between Assam and West Bengal, his father’s death, his subsequent residence and his own connection with the places in which he lived. His relative Yashomuddin Munshi was also examined as a defence witness.

The Tribunal therefore had before it a combination of historical electoral records, later electoral continuity, land documentation, identity records and oral testimony. Legally, the importance of this combination lies in the way the evidence was intended to work together. The case was not based upon the proposition that any single document, by itself, conclusively established citizenship. Rather, the defence sought to establish a consistent narrative of family lineage and residence through multiple sources of evidence spanning different periods. That approach was central to the Tribunal’s assessment.

Why the evidence was found sufficient in Naseruddin’s case: The Tribunal’s reasoning is particularly important from a legal perspective because it did not simply list the documents and declare the case proved. It examined the documentary record alongside the oral evidence.

The Tribunal scrutinised the 1966 electoral roll of Bhamandanga Part-II and the corresponding electoral evidence from West Bengal. It considered the oral evidence concerning Gerpu Sheikh and Basiruddin, whom Naseruddin identified as members of his paternal family. The Tribunal also noted that Naseruddin’s own testimony supported his existence in India from his birth in 1950.

The Tribunal also considered Naseruddin’s account of his father’s movements between Assam and West Bengal. His evidence was that his father had moved to Jaldhoya in Cooch Behar in the mid-1950s, remained there for a period and had cast his vote in the West Bengal electoral roll, before returning to Assam and subsequently residing in the Bhamandanga area. Naseruddin further described the circumstances following his father’s death and his own later residence in Shernagar.

This is legally significant because the Tribunal was required to assess not only whether individual documents existed but whether the overall evidence formed a credible and consistent account. The Tribunal ultimately found that the historical electoral evidence, together with the oral testimony, supported the existence of Naseruddin in India from birth and established the parental linkage relied upon by him. The evidence of his defence witness was also considered in support of his version.

The significance of the decision, therefore, lies in the Tribunal’s acceptance of a cumulative evidentiary approach. Historical voter records, family linkage, oral testimony and subsequent documentary continuity were considered together rather than in isolation.

The final conclusion was unequivocal: Naseruddin did not appear to be a foreigner of the post-1971 stream or of any other stream, and the reference against him was answered in the negative. In practical terms, Naseruddin Sheikh was declared “Not Foreigner.”

For a man who had spent his entire life working with his hands, the order represented the end of an extraordinary legal ordeal. It meant that the elderly handcart puller who had always said, “I was born here, my father was born here, my grandfather was also born here,” had succeeded in placing before the Tribunal the evidence necessary to support that claim.

The complete order may be read below:

Jakira Bibi: When an ailing elderly woman had to defend the home she had always known

While Naseruddin fought his legal battle, his wife, Jakira Bibi, was facing a Foreigners Tribunal proceeding of her own. Jakira is above 60 years old and suffers from several health problems. Her life, like her husband’s, has been one of family responsibilities and modest means. She was born on July 12, 1964 in Shernagar village, the same region where her family had long been rooted.

Her father was Bataullah Sheikh, also referred to in the proceedings as Batasulla Sheikh, and her mother was Jelmoti Bibi. Her family history, as presented before the Tribunal, extended through historical electoral records and NRC legacy data.

Jakira’s case was registered as FT-9/112/GKJ/2019. The reference alleged that she had entered India illegally from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971. The order records that the reference originated from the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, and that Jakira contested the allegation, asserting that she was an Indian citizen by birth and that her parents and family were rooted in Assam.

For Jakira, the proceedings came with a particularly heavy physical burden. She was an elderly woman living with health problems, while her husband was himself an ageing daily wage worker. The prospect of travelling, collecting documents and participating in litigation was therefore not merely inconvenient—it was a serious hardship. But the evidence in her case was substantial.

Her defence sought to establish her identity through her parents, her family lineage and her own long history of residence and participation in the electoral process.

The evidence in Jakira’s case: The legal case presented on behalf of Jakira was built around a combination of historical electoral records, family linkage, land documentation and oral evidence. The Tribunal considered a 1958 electoral roll of Shernagar in which the names of Jakira’s parents, Batasullah Sheikh and Jelmoti Bibi, were recorded. The defence also relied upon a 1966 electoral roll, which reflected the name of her mother along with her stepfather, Goher Ali. Later electoral records from 1985, 1994, 1997, 2005, 2015 and 2022 were produced to demonstrate continuity of the family’s presence and Jakira’s own electoral history.

The defence further relied upon 1951 NRC legacy data, which was cited in support of the family linkage, as well as Registered Sale Deed No. 456 dated 20 January 1983, relating to ancestral land. Jakira’s own EPIC, PAN and Aadhaar documents were also placed on record. Importantly, the case did not rest solely upon documentary evidence. Jakira herself appeared as DW-1, while her elder brother Jahir Ali appeared as DW-2 to support the family linkage and her account of the family’s presence in India.

The Tribunal’s order records that Jakira produced as many as 16 exhibits in support of her claim, including historical and subsequent electoral rolls, the 1983 registered deed, identity documents and the identity documents of her brother. The evidentiary structure of the case is important.

The older electoral records were relevant to establishing the presence of Jakira’s parents and family in the earlier period. The later electoral records helped demonstrate continuity. The land deed supported the family’s connection to property in the area. Her own testimony and that of her brother addressed the relationship between the generations. Thus, as in Naseruddin’s case, the legal significance lay in the cumulative effect of the evidence.

The legal significance of Jakira’s victory: The Tribunal’s order makes an explicit reference to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, observing that the burden was upon the proceedee to prove her nationality and that, accordingly, the liability of the prosecution was dispensed with.

In a Foreigners Tribunal proceeding, the legal question is not merely whether a person possesses contemporary identity documents. The person proceeded against must establish the case put forward regarding their nationality and status in accordance with the applicable legal framework. That makes historical evidence especially important when the allegation concerns illegal entry after the March 25, 1971 cut-off.

Jakira’s case therefore required her to establish more than her present-day identity. Her evidence sought to demonstrate her familial and historical connection to Assam, beginning with the electoral presence of her parents and continuing through her own life and electoral records.

The Tribunal examined the historical voter lists and the oral evidence of Jakira and her brother. It noted that her father and mother had cast votes in Assam and that the relevant electoral records supported the defence version. The Tribunal also considered the subsequent electoral rolls in which Jakira and her husband were recorded as voters.

The Tribunal further noted that the Election Office, Dhubri, had confirmed the authenticity of the exhibited electoral rolls. This was an important corroborative element because it strengthened the evidentiary reliability of the historical electoral records relied upon by the defence.

The Tribunal also considered the oral evidence of Jakira’s brother, Jahir Ali, regarding her paternal linkage. His testimony was treated as corroborating Jakira’s own evidence, and the Tribunal found that the parental linkage with Batasullah Sheikh had been established adequately.

The legal significance of this reasoning lies in the Tribunal’s reliance on multiple mutually supporting forms of evidence. The historical electoral records established the presence of the family; the later rolls demonstrated continuity; the land record supported the family’s connection to the area; and the oral evidence provided the relational bridge linking Jakira to her parents.

The Tribunal ultimately found that Jakira was a descendant of genuine Indian parents and that she had successfully discharged the burden placed upon her. She was declared “Not Foreigner.”

The complete order may be read below:

What triggered the proceedings against them?

The question of how a person first comes to be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal is an important part of every citizenship case. The legal battle before the Tribunal is only one stage of the process. Before that, there must be a basis for the initial reference and the decision to question the person’s nationality.

In the case of Jakira Bibi, the reference was originally forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri, through SP (Border) I(M)DT Case No. 2389/98. The order records that the reference was made on the basis of a doubt regarding her nationality, with the purpose of determining whether she was or was not an illegal migrant. The matter was subsequently re-numbered before Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Dhubri as F.T. Case No. 3494/GKJ/2011, under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

In Naseruddin Sheikh’s case, the order provides a somewhat more specific description of the origin of the reference. It states that the case was originally forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (B), Dhubri, Assam, vide IM(D)T Case No. 2388/1998, on the basis of a report made by the Local Verification Officer for determination of his citizenship. The case was initially registered before the Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, Dhubri and was later transferred to the present Tribunal following the constitution of additional Tribunals.

The order further records that, upon consideration, the Tribunal found “sufficient grounds to proceed” and accordingly issued notice to Naseruddin, providing him an opportunity to show cause in respect of the matter. These details are significant because they bring the question of the “first cause of action” into focus.

In Naseruddin’s case, the order specifically refers to a Local Verification Officer’s report as the basis for the original reference for determination of his citizenship. In Jakira’s case, the order states that the reference arose from a doubt regarding her nationality. The documents, however, as quoted above, do not themselves set out the substantive contents of the Local Verification Officer’s report in Naseruddin’s case or explain in detail what specific material gave rise to the doubt regarding Jakira’s nationality.

Two Cases, One Common Lesson: Citizenship proceedings are often about reconstructing a life through evidence

The cases of Naseruddin Sheikh and Jakira Bibi are legally distinct proceedings, but their evidentiary journeys reveal a common pattern. In both cases, the defence had to reconstruct a family history that stretched back decades. In both, historical electoral rolls played an important role, electoral records helped demonstrate continuity, and oral testimony was used to establish family relationships and explain the documentary record. And in both, the evidence was considered not as isolated pieces but as part of a larger narrative of identity, ancestry and residence.

In citizenship proceedings, the strength of a case may lie not in one document but in the consistency between several independent sources of evidence. A historical electoral roll may establish the presence of a parent or grandparent. A later electoral roll may demonstrate continuity. A land document may reinforce residence and family connection. A witness may explain the relationship between individuals appearing in different records.

The value of legal representation, therefore, is not limited to arguing before the Tribunal. It also lies in identifying which documents matter, tracing family linkage, locating historical records and presenting them in a manner that allows the Tribunal to assess the evidence as a coherent whole. For Naseruddin and Jakira, the CJP team’s intervention helped transform a collection of old documents and family memories into a structured legal defence. That is where access to justice becomes particularly important.

The human cost behind the case numbers

Behind FT-9/113/GKJ/2019 and FT-9/112/GKJ/2019 were not merely two case files. There was an elderly man who had spent his life pulling a handcart to feed his family. There was an elderly woman who was already battling illness. There were six children whose parents were suddenly living under the shadow of a citizenship proceeding.

There was a family that had to search through decades of records to prove a history that had always been part of their everyday lives. The legal proceedings also reveal the disproportionate impact that such litigation can have on people living in poverty.

For Naseruddin, appearing in court could mean losing the day’s earnings. For Jakira, the physical strain of participating in proceedings was compounded by her health problems. For both, the financial cost of engaging a lawyer could have been beyond their means. This is why legal aid in citizenship proceedings is not simply a matter of convenience. It can determine whether a vulnerable person is able to meaningfully participate in the legal process.

A person may possess relevant documents but not know which ones are legally significant. They may have a family connection but lack the ability to explain it in the form required by a legal proceeding. They may have old electoral records but not understand how those records can establish a historical linkage. Legal assistance can bridge that gap. In Naseruddin and Jakira’s cases, that bridge ultimately helped them present their evidence before the Tribunal.

The day the order came home

On July 18, the CJP team visited the couple’s home to deliver copies of the order. The team included Advocate Iskandar Azad, Office Driver Asikul Hussain, Community Volunteers Ilias Sarkar (Rabbi), Habibul Bepari, Deep Ghosh and Ilias Rahman, along with State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh. This time, they did not arrive with another notice; they came carrying the order.

For the couple, the moment represented the end of months of uncertainty and fear.  Naseruddin had feared that the proceedings might eventually lead to detention. Jakira had endured the physical and emotional burden of litigation despite her health problems. Together, they had lived through the uncertainty of not knowing whether the country they had always called home would continue to recognise them as belonging to it. When the order were placed in their hands, the relief was overwhelming.

Naseruddin recalled the terror he had experienced when the notice first arrived and how the support of CJP had given him the courage to continue. Jakira expressed her gratitude through tears, remembering how the team had come to their home, helped organise their documents and ensured that they had legal representation. Their words reveal something that legal orders alone cannot capture.

A favourable order may end a proceeding, but it cannot immediately erase the fear created by the proceeding itself. The couple had won, but the memory of having been forced to defend their belonging would remain.

Beyond Two Victories: The larger citizenship question

The legal victory of Naseruddin and Jakira is deeply significant to them and their family. But their cases also raise broader questions about how citizenship proceedings affect ordinary people, particularly those who live on the margins of society.

A person may have lived in a village for decades and still be required to reconstruct their family history through records that may be more than half a century old. Historical documents may contain variations in names or spellings. Families may have moved between districts or across state boundaries. Electoral records may exist in different places. Land may have been acquired, sold or requisitioned. All of these factors can make the process of establishing continuity complex.

The two cases demonstrate why citizenship proceedings cannot be viewed purely as administrative exercises. They involve questions of identity, family history, dignity and belonging. They also raise crucial questions of maintainability, accountability and mala fide by authorities, unused to being questioned on these foundational aspects.

The legal orders also demonstrate the importance of the evidentiary process. In both cases, the Tribunals considered the documentary record alongside oral evidence and assessed whether the evidence, taken as a whole, was sufficient to discharge the applicable burden.

In Naseruddin’s case, the Tribunal accepted the evidentiary chain connecting him to his paternal family and his presence in India. In Jakira’s case, the Tribunal accepted the evidence establishing her parental linkage and the family’s historical presence in Assam.

The outcomes therefore underline the importance of access to legal assistance, preservation of historical records and the careful presentation of evidence. At the same time, the emotional experiences of the couple remind us that the human consequences of citizenship proceedings extend far beyond the courtroom. For the poor and elderly, the process itself can become a source of profound anxiety. The question, therefore, is not only whether justice can ultimately be obtained. It is also whether vulnerable people have the support necessary to reach justice in the first place.

From Fear to Dignity: The meaning of “not foreigner”

For Naseruddin Sheikh and Jakira Bibi, being declared “Not Foreigner” means more than winning a legal case. It means that the fear and uncertainty they lived with after receiving the notices have finally come to an end.

The judgments have brought them relief and restored their sense of security. The evidence they collected, the family records they preserved and the testimony they gave were accepted by the Tribunals.

Naseruddin is still the elderly man who spent decades pulling a handcart in Agomani market. Jakira is still the woman who devoted her life to caring for her family. But now, they can return to their home without the fear that once followed them. Their story is about belonging, but it is also about the importance of having the chance to be heard and to present one’s evidence before the law. For both, the journey began with fear. It continued through old electoral rolls, land records, family documents and witness testimony, supported by legal assistance and the determination to prove their history. And it ended with two words that brought them immense relief: “Not Foreigner.”

or CJP, the victory of Naseruddin Sheikh and Jakira Bibi is not the end of the struggle, but a reminder of why access to justice and legal support remain so important for Assam’s poor and marginalised communities. The CJP team says it will continue to stand with those whose citizenship and dignity are challenged, with the hope that no Indian will ever have to face the fear of proving that they belong to their own country.

Today, Naseruddin and Jakira can finally smile without the shadow of the notices hanging over them. After a long journey of fear, uncertainty and legal struggle, they can return to their home with renewed confidence and say what they have always believed: “We are Indian.”

 Related:

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

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

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

Gauhati High Court upholds foreigner declaration, rejects mental illness plea

When a Spelling Error Can Cost Citizenship: Supreme Court stays deportation of five Assam women

The post The country they called home, the identity they had to defend appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Revolution has begun…But is it from the frying pan into the fire? The appointment of another hard-core RSS man, Prahlad Joshi, to succeed Pradhan is certainly no solution. Everyone knows that! In March 2022, in the height of the Russia-Ukraine war, when Indian students studying there had to be brought back. Joshi famously said, “Ninety per cent of Indians who study medicine abroad fail to clear qualifying exams in India.”  He hurt the sentiments of many then. When the rapists of Bilkis Bano and the ones who brutally murdered her kith and kin were prematurely released a few years ago, it was he who defended their premature release. The Supreme Court then annulled the remission period granted to these rapists and murderers. To think that this man now presides over the education and future of our youth is, for most, totally unacceptable.

The Revolution has begun…the youth protesting in Jantar Mantar and elsewhere were loud and clear. They would never allow xenophobia, exclusivism, sectarianism or any form of bigotry to permeate their ideals, their dreams, their hopes for a better future. They visibly and vocally demonstrated in no uncertain ways that they were first and foremost citizens of the country, students and youth. They were with one heart and one mind, transcending the confines of every religion. They belonged to every strata of society. No one could divide them and pit them against each other.  Not the fascist, fundamentalist agenda of the regime. They were determined not to fall prey to insidious designs. With the Constitution in hand, they chanted in unison, ” We are one, we shall overcome!” Hum Honge Kaaba!”

The Revolution has begun…Arundhati Roy is one of the most celebrated and renowned Indian personalities today. In a hard-hitting and incisive article in ‘The Wire’ (dtd. July 22, 2026) entitled ‘Cockroach Democracy: Unarmed and Dangerous’, she writes, “For the first time in years, it feels wonderful to be Indian. Just when hope seemed lost, they came. Young roaches riding in on the rain. The progeny of the unholy union between a judge and a joke…. The cockroaches took the capital city by storm. They came by train, by bus, by air, by metro, their numbers increasing by the hour. Hours before the first rays of sunlight lightened Delhi’s monsoon skies, they began to pour into Jantar Mantar in the tens of thousands. By sunrise it was clear that a generation of desperate and furious young people who have seen their future snuffed out before their eyes was going to reclaim what their parents and grandparents’ generations had conceded: our dignity as a people and as a country. Our rights as citizens of a democracy.

The Revolution has begun…thousands of students, youth and others have come out on the streets all over the country: in perhaps every big city and small town, in district headquarters and even in villages. This was not a paid mob mobilisation – as this current Government does so often!  It was a spontaneous uprising, giving rise to their angst, their sense of outrage at what is happening to them, to the whole educational system, to the fact that twenty-one students had committed suicide because of the NEET paper leakage. It reminded one of the ‘Arab Spring’, of what happened not too long ago in neighbouring Nepal and Sri Lanka, and they have come out in hordes everywhere in protest. Besides, in several countries across the world there have been protests in solidarity with what is happening in India. All major civil society organisations and movements have issued powerful statements of support to the students.

The Revolution has begun…in Ahmedabad, in Gujarat, the sight was unbelievable. Something never seen in recent years. Groups of students walking together, singing as though they were on a picnic. There were droves of them. Shouting slogans, of course: “Modi hatao! Desh Bachao!” People were rubbing their eyes and ears! This in Ahmedabad of all places! Well, it is happening! Some were detained! There were thousands of police and security (with guns and armoured vehicles) in the Gujarat University area. They could do nothing. The students/youth were not ‘in assembly’ – just walking. And can anyone stop people walking? They were walking for change! The political masters, of course, will never forget the ‘Nav Nirman’ agitation of 1974 and how a Government was overthrown!

The Revolution has begun…Indian academic and social analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in an article, ‘Cockroaches’ have shown us what it means to be courageous citizens — not subjects’ (Indian Express dtd July 27, 2026), does plain speaking, saying, “The farmers’ agitation had made the government withdraw legislation. But this is the first time that the government has acknowledged the need for taking responsibility and being held accountable…There are glorious moments when the youth of the nation demonstrate that they are indeed the genuine trustees of posterity, to borrow Benjamin Disraeli’s phrase. A generation that has been catastrophically failed by their elders, who bequeathed to them authoritarianism, communalism, a failing education system, an administrative state marked by impunity, and an atmosphere of suffocating fear, decided to take their future into their own hands. They made a regime and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, intoxicated with fantasies of total power, look out of touch, small and ridiculous. By itself, the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan will not bring change. But India’s young have shown that the regime is vulnerable. We can still pull back from the abyss.”

The Revolution has begun… Rhiya Ahir courageously demonstrated the power of one: the power of youth, the power of women!  On July 22, she went to the protest rally in Shivaji Park, Mumbai.  As she was walking towards the venue, she noticed a police van packed with youth who were detained by the police. The sight immediately disturbed her, and she says, “The van was stuffed from the front to the back. There was no space to stand.” She did not know anyone inside. She plucked up courage to stand in front of the van, not allowing it to proceed. What followed was a heated exchange with the police. They knew they were wrong, Rhiya asserts. They finally relented and released all the youth they had detained. The defining pictures and videos of Rhiya preventing the police van from moving went viral!

The Revolution has begun… godimedia has been singing the tunes of the ruling regime to no end. The mainstream media has been bought up, corrupted, co-opted, and threatened. For several days, they did not take cognisance of the Jantar Mantar protest. The prestigious UK newspaper ‘The Guardian’ (July 26, 2026) in a lead analysis piece, ‘India’s Cockroach Janta party protest victory signals trouble ahead for Modi’, puts it succinctly, “Modi had also lost another medium critical to the BJP’s domination over the national narrative – the mainstream TV news channels widely acknowledged to have been co-opted by the BJP government over the past 12 years and turned into mouthpieces for its right-wing Hindu nationalist ideology. Initially, the channels ignored the protests, and when they did cover them, it was to suggest the protesters were being bankrolled by sinister foreign forces and Pakistani terror groups. In response, the protesters turned on the channels, using social media to expose their “lies”. When the protests escalated, Modi remained conspicuously absent from the airwaves. Interestingly, since times are changing, godified media, like a chameleon, is also changing colours. Foreign media have editorials and articles on this!

The Revolution has begun…the ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to Parliament on 20 July was proof enough of this fact! The fact that hundreds of thousands, from all walks of life, began this historic march was a breakthrough in the recent annals of the country. There was panic among the ruling regime. They spared no efforts to stop the march. All police and paramilitary forces were called out. Thousands of the marchers were baton-charged, beaten, and pellet guns were used against them. Many had to be hospitalised.  This ensured a groundswell of protests all over the country. On July 27, the Supreme Court said, “The right to peaceful, lawful protest absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can’t be lathi-charge. Police excesses must be inquired into.” The Bihar youth are still under attack by the ruling regime. They seem to have forgotten that in 1974, the JP Andolan began in Patna, Bihar!

The Revolution has begun… The Jantar Mantar protest was about reclaiming shrinking democratic space in the country. And wow, it succeeded tremendously – with a profound impact everywhere. The right to dissent is back on the big canvas. People are out on the streets. It is significant that whilst delivering the fourth Justice GP Singh memorial lecture at the National Law Institute University in Bhopal on July 25, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan referred to the right to dissent. He said, “It will not be an exaggeration to say that public space for expressing divergent opinion is shrinking in India. The right to express one’s views and to demonstrate peacefully are fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens. Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy…Unfortunately, even normal activities are being criminalised. Students protesting on campuses are arrested, and they do not get bail for 30 to 40 days. They are suspended, for which they have to go to court. It takes time. These issues raise serious questions.” The last thirty-five days are changing things! 

The Revolution has begun… against corruption. The youth are not going to take things lying down anymore.  Not only corruption in education, but which has permeated every strata of society. Beginning right at the top. There is a lack of accountability and transparency. Much has to be addressed, like demonetisation, electoral bonds, the PM Cares fund, and now the E20 (The E20 Janata Party is on the rise). More questions will be asked. Where did the RSS and BJP get the enormous amounts of money to put up palatial buildings everywhere? What about the crony capitalist friends who profiteer at the cost of the poor and by looting the country? What about electoral malpractices: the manipulation of the EVMs and the meticulous disenfranchisement, through SIR, of thousands of legitimate citizens everywhere.

The Revolution has begun …In a strongly worded statement on July 27, the Cockroach Janata Party said, “We are observing a complete breach of the agreement regarding no police action against the protestors. Hundreds of students have been arrested in Bihar and Bengal, and hundreds are being shrivelled/harassed in Delhi and other states. Multiple reports are emerging in Delhi around the detention of volunteers supporting protestors with logistics. We demand that all the FIRs against the protestors be immediately withdrawn, students be released, and no future FIRs be filed (in line with our agreement) by Delhi police / Central investigative agencies / Police in BJP-allied states, FAILING WHICH WE WILL BE FORCED TO SIT ON PROTEST AGAIN. We also demand that the written agreement around legal cases be shared with us by tomorrow, along with the aligned timelines with the Government of India.” Yes, the protests, are not a flash-in the- pan!

One has had enough of references to the past: from the French Revolution to the Quit India Movement! The Revolution has begun indeed…. And there is no looking back!

July 27 2026

 (The author is a human rights, reconciliation and peace activist & writer)

The post The Revolution has begun….! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a sense, the developments may mark a significant de-escalation after one of the country’s largest youth-led protest movements in recent years. Little moves for pinning individual or collective accountability on RAF/Police/Paramilitary inflicted violence have been witnessed though. This leaves unresolved questions about accountability of the state during peaceful protest.

Bihar: first state to formally withdraw cases

The Bihar Home Department on Monday issued a notification announcing that no punitive, retaliatory or other adverse legal action would be taken against anyone who participated in protests before 6 p.m. on July 26.

The government said it would immediately begin the legal process of withdrawing all FIRs, criminal complaints and show-cause notices linked to the demonstrations. Everyone arrested or detained in connection with those cases would be released, while the government also assured that no future action would be taken against protesters covered by the order. Past experiences of activists and protests movements however reveal many a slip between the cup on the lip: at the height of agitations when public anger and attention is trained on the issue being agitated, the state appears to “concede to its overreach;” once public attention –notoriously fickle shifts—the demeanour of the state hardens. It then becomes a herculean task to ensure that these promises are kept.

Be that as it may, the “prompt” announcement of case withdrawals this time came after sustained pressure from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the All India Students’ Association (AISA) and several student organisations, which had accused governments of reneging on commitments made during negotiations that led to the suspension of nationwide protests.

Neha Bora: “The movement will not stop”

AISA national president and JNU PhD scholar Neha Bora confirmed that Bihar’s notification followed a meeting between student representatives and Bihar Director General of Police Vinay Kumar.

Posting on X, Bora wrote: “Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP.”

संघर्ष तब तक जब तक आखिरी छात्र अपने घर नहीं पहुँच जाता है!

Order of release of arrested students and withdrawal of cases has been notified following our meeting with Bihar DGP pic.twitter.com/xxLL5y75FO

— Neha (@neha_aisa) July 27, 2026

However, she made clear that the notification alone would not end the agitation. Calling dissent a constitutional right rather than a crime, she said AISA would continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every detained student had been released. Even after welcoming Bihar’s notification, Bora maintained that AISA’s planned statewide protest on July 30 would remain in place until the government fully implements its commitments. At a press conference in Patna, Bora declared:

“Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi. The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away.”

AISA All India President Neha Bora (@neha_aisa) made it clear at a press conference in Patna today:

Jab tak har arrested student protestor riha nahi hota, movement rukne wala nahi.

The right to dissent is a constitutional right, not a crime. No government can take that away. pic.twitter.com/8vN0HEyfRK

— AISA (@aisa_official_) July 27, 2026

Assam follows with similar assurance

Hours later, the Assam government issued a similar press note. The state acknowledged that five criminal cases had been registered and 13 people arrested during the protests but announced that it would begin withdrawing those cases “as per law” while expediting the release of everyone arrested. The government further stated that it would initiate no further legal proceedings against those involved in the protests and would treat the matter as closed once the process is completed.

The Assam government’s announcement has also raised hopes for Monjur Rahman, Ashraful Islam and Abdul Kashem, the three young men arrested after allegedly attempting to organise a solidarity protest. As reported by The Wire, their families have maintained that the protest never even took place. With Assam now promising to withdraw protest-related cases and release those arrested, it remains to be seen whether their cases will also be withdrawn.

Bengal remains the key test

West Bengal is now the principal state where protesters continue to await a similar announcement. According to ThePrint, senior police officials indicated that while the government is examining the possibility of withdrawing protest-related cases, FIRs lodged by private complainants—including journalists alleging assault during the demonstrations—would likely require separate legal examination.

Meanwhile, The Hindu reported that Kolkata Police arrested two more people on Monday in connection with the July 24 Esplanade violence, taking the total number of arrests to sixteen. Responding to the developments, the Cockroach Janta Party publicly appealed to Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari to honour the assurances allegedly given during negotiations with Union ministers J.P. Nadda and Jitendra Singh by releasing all arrested protesters and withdrawing every pending FIR.

CJP says Delhi calm, updates expected from three states

Providing the latest organisational update in a video statement, CJP spokesperson Ratna Singh said the party expects official updates regarding FIR withdrawals and the release of detainees from West Bengal, Delhi and Maharashtra shortly. She added that, according to information received by the organisation, no fresh FIRs have been registered and no new detentions have taken place in Delhi since the agreement. Ratna also said the organisation had raised concerns with authorities over allegations that members of one particular community were being selectively targeted and harassed for participating in the protests.

According to her, officials assured CJP that clear instructions would be communicated to all police officers to prevent any such discrimination. She further disclosed that she had received complaints from Goa regarding the alleged harassment of a protest organiser and had requested the concerned authorities to examine the matter. The update was shared through her official post on X, where she wrote:

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals: We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them. Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered or detentions taking place in Delhi. I also raised concerns that members of one particular community were allegedly targeted and harassed for participating in the protest. We were assured that clear instructions would be communicated to all officers to ensure this does not happen. As of now, there are no fresh FIRs in Delhi. I was also contacted regarding a similar issue in Goa, where an organiser is allegedly facing harassment. I have requested the concerned authorities to look into the matter.

Update on FIR withdrawals and the release of detained/arrested individuals:

We expect updates from West Bengal, Delhi, and Maharashtra shortly, and we will share them as soon as we receive them.

Yesterday, we were informed that there are currently no fresh FIRs being registered…

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) July 28, 2026

Agreement must be honoured

The government notifications followed a public warning from the Cockroach Janta Party earlier on July 27. Addressing the media, CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka accused governments of violating the understanding reached after the Jantar Mantar protests by continuing arrests in Bihar and West Bengal while allegedly detaining volunteers in Delhi. He warned that unless FIRs were withdrawn immediately and governments stopped initiating fresh criminal proceedings, the organisation would be forced to resume nationwide protests.

Later that night, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das announced that government representatives, including Delhi Police officials, had met party leaders and shown them Bihar’s official notification confirming withdrawal of cases. Das said the organisation had also expressed concern over possible harassment of protesters across states and claimed that authorities assured them that appropriate instructions would be issued to prevent any retaliatory action.

Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who has been advising the organisation, said he would continue providing legal assistance to protesters. Alongside pressing governments to withdraw criminal proceedings, CJP announced a nationwide legal support initiative. The organisation has launched a public fundraising campaign to support injured protesters and those facing criminal proceedings. It has also established legal aid cells across India, with Kapil Sibal pledging ₹1 crore towards legal assistance while urging lawyers across districts to volunteer.

Additionally, CJP announced the launch of the Sakshi Portal, where photographs and videos documenting alleged police excesses during the protests can be uploaded for legal documentation.

Allegations of excessive force continue

Despite governments beginning to withdraw cases, allegations against police remain widespread. Ratna Singh alleged that volunteer lawyers are already assisting detainees in Assam, West Bengal and Bihar. She claimed that eleven people had been arrested in Kolkata, ten of whom belonged to the Muslim community, and alleged that stringent legal provisions were being considered against them.

She further alleged police brutality in Patna, Siwan and Chhapra, claiming that protesters had been booked under serious charges including attempted murder while cases had been registered against nearly 5,000 unidentified persons.

Following visits to detainees in Beur Jail, Neha Bora also alleged that arrested students described being abused, threatened with fake encounters and questioned about their religion and caste while in police custody. She further claimed that some detainees were labelled “terrorists” and “Naxalites.” Jail officials, however, assured her that students would receive all necessary assistance during their detention.

A fragile truce

While governments appear to be stepping back from criminal prosecution under public pressure, the violence witnessed during the protests remains an important part of the story. According to Bihar Police, 694 people were detained during the demonstrations. Of these, 339 students, women and minors were released after verification, while 355 individuals accused of involvement in violent incidents were produced before courts. Police stated that 91 personnel, including the Superintendents of Police of Siwan and Sitamarhi, sustained injuries during clashes. Authorities also reported that 14 police vehicles were damaged and one government vehicle was set ablaze.

One of the most controversial moments of the protests occurred in Bihar’s Siwan district, where Constable Abhishek Kumar was captured on video firing an AK-47 rifle into the air while attempting to disperse demonstrators. Bihar Police suspended the constable and ordered a departmental inquiry, confirming that four rounds were fired but stating that no injuries resulted from the incident.

Police action also extended into the digital space. According to ThePrint, Delhi Police approached X and Meta seeking removal of social media posts considered abusive towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other political leaders, describing the exercise as part of routine monitoring.

In Madhya Pradesh, content creator Yashpal Soni was booked over an Instagram reel allegedly containing abusive remarks directed at former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the BJP. Meanwhile, Kolkata Police registered a complaint after BJP leader Keya Ghosh alleged that actor Sreelekha Mitra displayed defamatory caricatures of the Prime Minister during a protest rally.

Detailed report may be read here.

For now, the immediate confrontation appears to be easing. Bihar and Assam stated that they will implement these commitments that student organisations say, formed the basis of the agreement reached with the Union government. Delhi, according to CJP, has not seen any fresh FIRs or detentions since the understanding was reached, while West Bengal and Maharashtra are expected to announce their positions shortly. Yet protest leaders insist the movement is far from over.

Both CJP and AISA say they will continue monitoring implementation of the government’s assurances until every arrested protester has been released, every pending FIR withdrawn and all allegations of harassment addressed.

The rollback of criminal proceedings may have reduced immediate tensions, but it does not resolve the deeper questions exposed by the protests: the limits of police force, accountability for violence committed during demonstrations, the treatment of detainees, and the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding the constitutional right to peaceful dissent.

Other detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.

Related:

A deleted tweet, an NSA order, and the shadow of past crackdowns

Youth Uprising: A protest, a brute crackdown, a continuing countrywide response

Mumbai stands with students, but the state pushes back

The exam crisis that became a battle for accountability

Brute Police Action: Mumbai’s crackdown on protestors in solidarity with CJP & Student Groups, AISF, SFI & AISA

The post Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain appeared first on SabrangIndia.