As reported by The Indian Express, the agreement was finalised at a meeting at the Kolhapur district collector’s office, attended by Maharashtra Minister Hasan Mushrif, representatives of sugar mill owners and members of the farmers’ organisation. Shetti, who had been demanding an initial payment of Rs 4,500 per tonne, agreed to the revised arrangement.

Under the formula, farmers will receive an initial payment of Rs 3,900 per tonne. An additional Rs 100 will be paid at the end of the crushing season, while the remaining Rs 200 will be disbursed before the next crushing season, subject to sugar prices remaining stable at Rs 45 per kg.

The agreement also includes a provision to ensure that farmers benefit if sugar prices rise. If prices exceed Rs 45 per kg, 70 per cent of the additional revenue will be passed on to sugarcane growers, with the remaining 30 per cent going to factory owners, Shetti said.

Following the agreement, Shetti announced the withdrawal of the agitation at the Kini toll plaza in Kolhapur and Nagthane in Satara at around 1 am on Friday, November 6. A strike scheduled for Friday was also called off. Traffic along the Pune-Satara-Kolhapur stretch of NH-48 subsequently began returning to normal.

Months of demands culminate in highway blockade

The agreement follows nearly two months of sustained protests by sugarcane growers, who had been demanding an initial payment of Rs 4,500 per tonne, arguing that the amount was necessary to secure a fair return for their produce.

The agitation escalated on November 3, when the Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana launched road blockades at Nagthane in Satara district and the Kini toll plaza in Kolhapur district. As reported by The Indian Express on November 4, the protests disrupted traffic at several points along the highway, including Satara, Nagthane, Atit, Umbraj and Kini-Wathar. With both Mumbai-bound and Kolhapur-bound traffic affected, police were compelled to divert vehicles through interior village roads.

The blockade was not the organisation’s first attempt to press its demands. On October 13, farmers had blocked the highway at the Kognoli toll plaza on the Maharashtra-Karnataka border for more than 34 hours over the same issue.

The farmers’ demands extended beyond the immediate price of sugarcane. Shetti had also called for an increase in the minimum support price of sugar from Rs 31 per kg to Rs 50 per kg, arguing that the existing price structure did not adequately address growers’ concerns.

Speaking to the media during the November agitation, Shetti had criticised the state government and sugar mill owners for their failure to engage with the protesters despite the prolonged blockade. He pointed out that farmers had remained on the roads for over 24 hours without any official visiting them to hear their demands.

The protest had also received political support. Former Maharashtra Chief Minister and Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan, who represents Karad in Satara district, backed the agitation, accusing the state government and sugar factory owners of repeatedly ignoring farmers’ demands despite two months of protests.

Related:

“It Is Not Just Numbers”: Prakash Raj on the Exclusion of 13.6 Crore Indians | SIR | Teesta Setalvad

Diwali travel rush exposes unchecked profiteering by private bus operators as fares soar to Rs 7,000

From Arunachal to Delhi, anti-dam protesters face state crackdown; detained allege sexual assault

Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance

The post 61-hour highway blockade forces Maharashtra sugar mills to agree to Rs 4,200 per tonne for farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A brief background on the facts and legal proceedings:

Two days ago, on November 3, 2026, a Division Bench (DB) comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v Archana P.S. & Ors (W.A. 2276/2026), set aside a single judge’s interim order. The interim order had directed the university to accept the fees of 16 suspended students of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (Kalady, Ernakulam, Kerala) and let them appear for their exams. The appeal before the Division Bench (DB) was decided on grounds of pleadings and interim relief. In doing so, the DB quoted, and gave fresh life to, the 2017 observations in Dr Antony Thomas v V.M. Muhammed Rafique, to say that students engaging in such protest in an educational institution are liable to be expelled or rusticated.

The university has alleged that both obstruction and assault took place on August 13, 2026. Students on their part have disputed this, and an investigation is ongoing. NAJAR has stated that it takes no position on disputed facts and does not condone violence, if it has happened. But the issue of whether violence took place and whether peaceful protests have a place in a campus are entirely different questions, and the two must not be inter-twined. NAJAR believes that presenting non-violent campus protest as inherently ‘anti-democratic’ confuses peaceful agitation (for better facilities) or student rights with unlawful disruption and the same cannot be accepted.

Peaceful Protest in Academic Spaces is a Constitutional Right:

Article 19 (1) (a) and (b) under the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Nothing in the Constitution excludes dharna or satyagraha as forms of peaceful protest, and nothing suspends these rights when a citizen is a student or when the place is a university campus or academic institution. The Supreme Court has recognised peaceful protest as part of these freedoms, including in in the famed Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020).

Invoking Dr. Ambedkar to restrain peaceful protest is unfair:

On November 3, 2026; the Division Bench repeated the following observations of the Court in Dr. Antony Thomas v. V.M. Muhammed Rafique and others:

“Political activities like dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Satyagraha have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make himself liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education.”

These observations apparently stem from Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s “Grammar of Anarchy”, wherein he had stressed that, where there are constitutional remedies available, there is no justification in adopting unconstitutional methods. However, says NAJAR, to misquote Dr. Ambedkar in such a skewed fashion, particularly in the context of student politics is nothing more than a futile attempt at stretching the clock of constitutionalism over institutional suppression. The whole ideation is problematic in manifold ways.

First, the above quoted passage is conditional. It says unconstitutional methods lack justification where constitutional methods are open. The relevant question is whether constitutional channels were actually open to these students, and the Court actually has not examined it on merit. When university authorities act arbitrarily, constitutional avenues inside the campus stand effectively shut. In such situations, peaceful protest is not a breakdown of law; it is the only remaining constitutional recourse to invoke administrative accountability.

Second, Dr. Ambedkar’s call to rely on constitutional remedies alone has to be read with the shift in his personal and political ideology pre and post adoption of the Constitution. The fact that in the pre-independence era, the people had to rely on both violent and non-violent means of protest against the colonial oppressors doesn’t vitiate the political reality of today, which many a times demand lawful means of protests including Satyagraha and dharna. In fact, more often it is the constitutional institutions that compel the citizens to adopt such means. Quoting Babasaheb, who himself led the Mahad Satyagraha in 1927, to justify a blanket ban on satyagrahas is selective. Equating non-violent protest with criminality distorts the original intention and warning.

Satyagraha and the role of student movements in India today:

Satyagraha was one of the methods of mass resistance during India’s freedom movement. It is difficult to call it ‘alien’ to constitutional democracy when this method, popularised by Gandhi himself, helped create one. Student movements, likewise, have shaped campuses in Kerala and the country, from the freedom struggle to later movements for rights and institutional reform. Back then, students boycotted colonial institutions and joined the Non-Cooperation and Quit India movements. In recent years, students have challenged sexist hostel curfews and caste discrimination on campus. After the NTA cancelled the NEET-UG exam amid paper leak allegations, students across the country peacefully took to the streets, following which Mr. Dharmendra Pradhan, former Union Education Minister, had to resign.

These movements are not ‘distractions’ from or ‘disruptions’ in education. They are how students and youth demand answers and accountability from educational institutions. To say that educational institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics is either political illiteracy or a much despicable attempt to isolate students from critical thinking and democratic expression.

NAJAR Re-affirms Right to Peaceful Organising and Protest:

NAJAR has emphasised that it believes that all students across campuses and learning spaces must have lawful channels to raise grievances, and institutions should answer reasonable grievances, rather than discipline or crack down on those who raise them. De-politicizing campuses strips students of their ability to question injustice and understand, reform social structures.

Belonging to a particular political ideology or refusing to tender an apology, or relying on matters yet to be evidentially ascertained, cannot be the reasons to shun protesting students from placing their reasonable grievances for institutional reforms, in a constitutionally democratic manner. Protesting peacefully does not make the students ‘less civilized’ or ‘unruly’.

Rather restricting the right to peaceful protest is a highly dubious attempt of subverting the progressive, democratic civic spaces in a state like Kerala, which is what it is today, thanks to democratic resistance, protests and the constitutional fights spearheaded by student and citizen movements!

Hence, the collective has also called upon the Sree Sankaracharya University to complete the enquiry promptly and fairly, in accordance with natural justice and proportionality. NAJAR has also urged that the 2017 observations of the High Court not be relied upon currently by the Kerala High Court to punish peaceful protests. Campus dissent must not be criminalised or treated as a threat to education.

Related:

Jamia’s Answer to Student Protest: Online exams, hostel closures and police detentions

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

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

The post Kerala High Court’s Observations on Protest in Educational Institutions Unacceptable & Restrictive: NAJAR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar allowed the petitions challenging the deletion of their names and the rejection of their Form 8 applications, which are used by existing voters to update their residential addresses.

The court directed the Booth Level Officer (BLO) of the Santacruz Assembly constituency in Goa to include the petitioners’ names within 10 days, after verifying their residence.

As reported by LiveLaw, the bench said, “We allow the petition… We have rejected the contention of the ECI that the hearing in the present plea be deferred as the issue of SIR is pending before the Supreme Court…. This is not pertaining to SIR… We therefore ordered the BLO of Santacruz Constituency (in Goa) to add the names of the petitioners within a period of 10 days from today.”

The court also refused the ECI’s request to stay the operation of its order for two weeks.

Court questions requirement to submit enumeration forms

The dispute arose after the petitioners, members of the Salgaonkar family, approached the court stating that their names had been omitted from the electoral roll despite submitting Form 8 applications seeking changes to their residential addresses.

The ECI argued that under the SIR guidelines, voters were required to submit a pre-filled enumeration form along with Form 8. Since the petitioners had not submitted the enumeration forms, they were asked to file Form 6, which is meant for fresh inclusion in the electoral roll.

The bench questioned this requirement, pointing out that the pre-filled enumeration form contained a declaration that the elector continued to reside at the address recorded in the existing electoral roll.

Questioning how voters who had shifted residence could be compelled to make such a declaration, Justice Menezes observed:

“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in Form 6 (inclusion of new voter). Your enumeration form, basically has a declaration that a person continues to live at the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration? Why can’t that person simply give a Form 8 because anyway, his name is there in the existing list he just wants to get his address changed.. Why compel enumeration form?”

The bench had also questioned why an existing elector seeking an address correction should be required to apply as a new voter.

Court flags risk of excluding eligible voters

During the hearings, the bench questioned the ECI’s approach of rejecting Form 8 applications instead of keeping them pending for verification. It also raised concerns about the consequences of compelling relocated voters to submit declarations that no longer reflected their actual residential status.

As reported by Bar and Bench, the court flagged a “catch-22 situation” in which voters who had shifted residence faced rejection of their Form 8 applications and were instead directed to submit Form 6, potentially creating further difficulties in establishing their electoral registration.

The ECI, represented by Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that the draft SIR roll was prepared afresh (de novo) on the basis of newly collected enumeration forms. According to the ECI, voters whose names did not appear in the draft roll could not use Form 8 to modify an existing entry and were required to apply afresh through Form 6 during the claims and objections period.

The court, however, allowed the petitions and directed restoration of the six names. It also rejected the ECI’s request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court decides the broader challenges to the SIR process.

The detailed written order is awaited.

Related

ECI affidavit says SIR decisions were unanimous, but questions over two commissioners’ objections remain

UP voter lists: Software manipulates Voter’s names, Pilibhit investigation finds 10,470 irregular entries

Who controls access to voter records? ECINet audit raises fresh questions

The post Goa SIR: Bombay High Court orders ECI to restore names of six voters deleted from final electoral roll appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“My wife was feeling weak and dizzy, so we were just trying to sit for a moment, when the police began to drag us away. One lady constable said that my wife was acting,” said Virendra Bhandari, Ankita’s father as reported by the media, The Times of India and The Print.

A senior police officer told ThePrint that Ankita’s parents were removed as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been imposed on Rajghat and its surroundings areas.  Ankita’s father, however, alleges police is tracking their location.

The Bhandari parents, along with social activist Yogita Bhayana and Congress leader Mumtaz Patel, had gone to Raj Ghat to offer prayers. “We have come here to pray for Ankita and get some strength. The Delhi Police has been tracking our phone location so as soon as reporters began speaking to us while we were catching our breath, they detained us,” Virendra Bhandari said. The expression of public protest was silent and peaceful.

आप ख़ुद ही पूरा वीडियो देखिए… अंकिता की माँ बेहोश पड़ी थी पास में एलएनजेपी हॉस्पिटल था लेकिन पूरे डेढ़ घंटे के बाद उनको बुरारी के सरकारी हॉस्पिटल ले जाया गया…. एक पीड़ित परिवार के साथ ऐसी सवेंदनशीलता ??? https://t.co/uGRhUVLjiT

— Yogita Bhayana योगिता भयाना (@yogitabhayana) November 5, 2026

Instead of allowing their anguish expression, the Delhi police appeared insensate and brutal. Reports state that the couple was allegedly kept in a police van for close to two hours. “They made us sit in the van for close to two hours without any water. My wife was feeling weak and they provided no emergency assistance, but kept on making rounds around markets and roads in that area,” he added.

Later, the police eventually dropped the duo at Burari Hospital, where Virendra claimed that his wife was not given proper treatment. “My wife was not happy with how she was being treated at the hospital so we just left. We don’t want this government’s treatment or help; we have seen enough mistreatment.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) M. Harsha Vardhan told ThePrint, “Parents of Ankita Bhandari were intending on putting up an indefinite dharna so they were removed. We have no issues with them sitting there for a few minutes, but when the police posted there learnt that they intended on doing an indefinite strike, we had to detain them.”

The officer added that the parents were not being tracked, but when they reached the spot, Central Industrial Security Force personnel present alerted the Delhi Police. “We had no intentions of detaining them for two hours but when the Central District police detains people, we take them to Burari or Chhatrasal area, so when Ankita’s parents complained of being unwell we took them to Burari hospital,” he said. He added that the time spent inside the vehicle could be due to the traffic congestion.

The development comes weeks after the Bhandari couple protested in the Capital against the appointment of Bharatiya Janata Party leader Dushyant Kumar Gautam as the governor of Sikkim. The family has alleged that Gautam was involved in Ankita’s death.

Previously, in October 2026, the parents had also faced similar police brutality at India Gate. At the time, Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi had also visited the site of the protest.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Will the Ankita Bhandari murder case, arrest of journalist, Negi affect the April 19 poll?

Ankita Bhandari Case: Protests for justice enters 7th day, victim’s parents leading the protestors, condemning the arrest of the journalist seeking action in Ankita’s case

The women India continues to ignore

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

The post Delhi Police: Ankita Bhandari’s parents detained, ‘Dragged, driven around, no help to unwell wife,’ says father appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In constitutional jurisprudence, few distinctions are as crucial, or as frequently conflated, as the line separating the substantive protection of civil liberties from the procedural integrity of the rule of law. When state authorities deploy the machinery of criminal law to target citizens engaging in public protests, registering widespread First Information Reports (FIRs), executing indiscriminate detentions, and imposing coercive measures, the vindication of fundamental freedoms under Articles 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Indian Constitution is an urgent judicial duty. Yet, how a court achieves that protection determines whether its decision operates as a durable triumph of constitutional governance or as an act of unstructured, transactional equity.

The Supreme Court’s order of September 1, 2026, quashing over a hundred FIRs filed across multiple states during the student exam-irregularity protests, presents precisely this constitutional paradox. At first blush, the order appears to be an act of judicial benevolence since it relieves thousands of young student-protesters from the crushing burden of ongoing criminal prosecutions. However, a closer examination reveals that this relief was not achieved through judicial adjudication based in constitutional principle. Instead, it was delivered as the judicial rubber-stamping of a negotiated compromise between the executive branch and a protest organisation.

By invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to extinguish criminal proceedings en masse as part of a bilateral settlement, where the quashing of FIRs was effectively exchanged for the withdrawal of a planned protest march, the Supreme Court shifted its role from an independent court of record to an informal arbitral forum. In doing so, the Court’s methodology closely mirrored the traditional logic of a panchayat, an institution that prioritizes ad-hoc compromise, transactional peace-making. While protecting citizens from abusive state prosecution is unquestionably good, accomplishing it through judicial discretion en masse represents a subtle but dangerous denigration of the rule of law.

Relief as an Executive-Judicial Settlement

The legal proceedings surrounding the July 2026 student protests examination malpractices illustrate the operational mechanisms of this model. Following widespread demonstrations across Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, and Maharashtra, law enforcement agencies-initiated dozens of FIRs naming thousands of participants. The pattern was remarkably similar, a stenograph-ed pattern of behaviour that reflected close, cross border communications between different state police! In response, litigations were brought before the Supreme Court, challenging the proportionality of state force, the use of metallic pellet guns, biometric surveillance, and arbitrary detentions.

None of the original writ petitions prayed for a blanket judicial extinction of all criminal cases across the country without trial. Rather, they sought constitutional accountability, judicial scrutiny of police brutality, guidelines on crowd control, and the enforcement of personal liberty under Article 21. On August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court took a step toward structured adjudication by constituting a High-Powered Enquiry Committee, chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, to investigate police conduct, preserve drone and CCTV footage, and evaluate the legality of blanket prohibitory orders.

Later, the apex court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution. When the protest leadership agreed to withdraw a major national march scheduled for September 5, and in return, the state governments ‘consciously decided’ not to pursue the FIRs. On September 1, 2026, period and Court quashed 129 specified FIRs across five states, closing all unlisted FIRs nationwide arising from the same protest period, and recording the protest group’s formal withdrawal of its demonstration.

Why Procedure is Liberty’s Shield

To understand why this disposition degrades the rule of law, one must examine the architecture of criminal procedure. Criminal law is intrinsically individualised. An FIR is an assertion that a specific individual committed a specific statutory offence at a specific time and place. The statutory scheme for extinguishing criminal proceedings, whether through police final reports, executive withdrawal of prosecution under Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), or judicial quashing under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), requires judicial evaluation of specific material.

When a High Court or the Supreme Court exercises its inherent power to quash an FIR, the well-established legal standard requires the Court to ask whether taking the allegations in the FIR at face value, does a prima facie criminal offence exist, or is the prosecution demonstrably malicious and an abuse of legal process? This inquiry is the essential mechanism through which the judiciary holds the executive accountable for illegal criminalisation.

In the September 1 order, this entire statutory and analytical framework was bypassed. The Supreme Court quashed 129 FIRs, which encompassed disparate charges ranging from mild unlawful assembly and road blockades to serious allegations of rioting, destruction of public property, and attempted murder, in a single, wholesale decree. The Court did not evaluate whether the allegations were legally unsustainable or factually fabricated. By replacing judicial scrutiny with executive acquiescence, the Court failed to make a finding that the state’s mass registration of FIRs was unlawful. Consequently, the protesters were administratively spared prosecution as an act of state grace, rather than legally vindicated as citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

The Arbitrary ‘Antecedents’ Exception

The risks of abandoning statutory procedure become even more transparent when examining the exceptions carved out within the order itself. While granting blanket immunity to the majority of protesters, Paragraph 7 of the Court’s order excluded approximately 2,873 individuals. These individuals were denied relief and subjected to fresh criminal investigation solely because state police affidavits asserted that they had ‘serious criminal antecedents’ according to national police databases and were ‘prima facie present’ at protest sites.

This carve-out demonstrates the problematic layering of uncanalised discretion. One is that Indian criminal law contains no statutory principle authorising the judicial exclusion of individuals from general legal remedies based merely on ‘antecedents.’ In criminal jurisprudence, an FIR relates to a specific alleged act, not a person’s prior history. Second, the list of 2,873 excluded individuals was compiled using automated facial recognition technology matched against police databases, an unverified process that the Court accepted without independent judicial verification or procedural testing. And then, If the mass filing of FIRs against peaceful assembly was an abuse of state power warranting Article 142 intervention, on what legal principle does prior criminal history deprive a citizen of protection against an admitted abuse of state power?

Discretion inevitably breeds further discretion. Having constructed an extraordinary amnesty unmoored from code procedure, the Court was forced to construct an equally arbitrary threshold to limit that amnesty, relying on unverified executive data to divide citizens into protected and unprotected classes.

Evasion of Constitutional Duty

Perhaps the most defenceless aspect of the September 1 order is its explicit concluding direction: that the invocation of Article 142 was based on ‘peculiar facts and circumstances’ and ‘shall not be treated as a binding precedent.’ In recent years, the practice of issuing sweeping orders while simultaneously stripping them of precedential value under Article 141 has emerged as a frequent judicial technique. From a constitutional perspective, this practice is deeply problematic.

The primary obligation of an apex constitutional court is to declare generalisable legal principles that bind lower courts, discipline executive power, and guide future adjudication. The rule of law requires that like cases be decided alike. When a court decides a dispute, applies legal standards, and then declares that its ruling cannot be cited by any other citizen in any other court, it effaces the decision’s standing as law. It transforms the judgment from a rule of general application into a one-time privilege conferred upon specific litigants.

This non-precedent mechanism severely harms civil liberties jurisprudence. A student protester in a distant trial court facing an identical, fabricated FIR cannot cite the Supreme Court’s order as a legal standard. Trial courts and High Courts remain bound by rigid procedural rules, while the Supreme Court reserves to itself the exclusive power to randomly grant extraordinary, ad-hoc relief. Instead of diffusing liberty-protective legal standards throughout the judicial pyramid, the Court centralises power within its own hall, creating a regime where fundamental rights are accessible not as of legal right, but as a matter of top-tier judicial audience and transaction.

Ad-Hoc Compromise vs. The Rule of Law

It is in this structural departure from legal principle that the resemblance to a panchayat becomes unmistakable. In traditional Indian legal theory and sociology, a village panchayat operates on principles fundamentally distinct from a constitutional court of record. A panchayat does not adjudicate rights according to pre-existing, neutral, written laws, nor is it bound by strict procedural rules or formal evidence. Its primary objective is transactional dispute resolution: ‘buying peace,’ brokering compromises between powerful factions, and restoring social harmony through ad-hoc equity.

While informal compromise has a legitimate place in customary community spaces or private civil mediation, it is the antithesis of constitutional adjudication. A constitutional court exists to enforce jus (principled justice), and not merely to secure social peace at the expense of legal standards. The Supreme Court conditioning the quashing of unlawful prosecutions on a political party agreeing to call off a protest march is the Court adopting the precise logic of the panchayat. It treats fundamental freedoms, such as the right to peaceably assemble under Article 19 (1) (b), not as non-negotiable constitutional guarantees, but as bargaining chips to be traded away in exchange for executive leniency.

This approach creates severe long-term institutional risks. It signals to the executive that mass criminalization is an effective strategy; the state can file thousands of baseless FIRs against peaceful dissenters, safe in the knowledge that if public pressure escalates, the Supreme Court will facilitate a negotiated settlement without ever holding police officers accountable or declaring the state’s actions illegal. Conversely, it signals to citizens that relief from state coercion depends on organizational bargaining power rather than constitutional entitlement.

Emergency judicial relief brings immediate comfort to citizens facing state coercion. When the Supreme Court uses Article 142 to clear criminal cases against peaceful protesters, individual lives are saved from endless prosecution. Problems emerge when that relief depends on political bargaining. Trading criminal dismissals for cancelled rallies produces informal settlements. Declaring these orders without precedential value removes their legal weight. The Court assumes the role of a village panchayat, brokering temporary peace between unequal sides.

The consequences of this approach appeared during the October demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner. In September, the Court wiped away FIRs from student protests while leaving foundational legal questions unresolved. The bench did not evaluate whether police could issue blanket prohibitory notices under Section 163 of the BNSS or close transit networks. By treating the September quashing as an isolated compromise, the Court allowed law enforcement to retain unchecked statutory authority.

When citizens gathered again in October, authorities deployed their usual tactics. Officials shut metro stations and stopped incoming trains. Police also detained working lawyers on their way to court. Lacking prior legal standards, the bench convened emergency Sunday sittings to hear contempt petitions. Justices issued oral warnings that regulation cannot equal total prohibition while ordering police to remove restrictive notices from around court gates.

Had the Court articulated binding constitutional boundaries in September, executive agencies would have faced clear limits. Setting prospective rules constrains state authority and protects public assembly across future disputes. Settling individual cases through transactional orders creates administrative convenience today while guaranteeing repeated overreach tomorrow.

Structural Remedies

The critique of the CJP order is not to suggest that the Supreme Court should have allowed thousands of innocent students to be dragged through decades of oppressive trials. Rather, it demonstrates that a truly liberty-preserving court must protect citizens by developing and applying legal principles, rather than resorting to ad-hoc, non-precedential amnesties.

In landmark constitutional jurisprudence ranging from Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1962) to Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court established that Article 142 cannot be used to supplant statutory frameworks or override fundamental rights. To genuinely protect civil liberties against state overreach, the Court must deploy structural remedies grounded in Public Law. The Court should formally evaluate mass FIRs against the standards of Article 19 (1) (b) and Article 19 (3), explicitly ruling that the routine criminalization of peaceful assembly is unconstitutional and illegal. Under the doctrine established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court should impose direct compensatory damages on state authorities for malicious prosecution and illegal detention, creating a genuine deterrent against police abuse. By declaring clear, generalizable legal standards under Article 141, the Supreme Court empowers trial courts and High Courts across India to swiftly quash abusive FIRs at the threshold, ensuring equal protection for all citizens.

The protection of civil liberties and the preservation of the rule of law are not opposing values; they are mutually dependent. A judicial order that delivers immediate relief by sacrificing procedural rigor and precedential integrity provides only a fleeting, fragile sanctuary. True constitutional justice demands that the Supreme Court remain an uncompromising court of law protecting the citizen not through the informal compromise of a panchayat, but through the enduring, equalizing power of constitutional principle.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

A Constitutional Reset on Governor Assent: The Supreme Court’s opinion in the presidential reference on Articles 200–201

How permanent or temporary is Article 370?

Is Article 367 a tool for understanding or amending the Constitution? Abrogation of Article 370, Part 1

‘Reorganisation’ of J & K into two union territories, constitutional? Part III of the analysis in the 370 case

The post SC: Article 142, Mass Amnesties, and the Panchayatisation of the Rule of Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The demonstration, organised by Himkhand and Youth for Change (YFC) Arunachal, sought to draw attention to the escalating crackdown on indigenous communities opposing the proposed 11,200-MW project. Protesters were demanding the withdrawal of the project, the release of anti-dam activists and villagers arrested in Arunachal Pradesh, the withdrawal of criminal cases against them and the removal of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel deployed in the Siang region.

According to accounts shared by protesters with Maktoob Media, the demonstration had barely continued for 15 minutes before Delhi Police personnel began forcibly detaining participants. Among those detained was Katon Moyong, popularly known as Abor Man, an environmental engineer and prominent voice in the anti-dam movement in Arunachal Pradesh. Protesters alleged that Moyong was manhandled during his detention, reportedly while interacting with the media.

The allegations of mistreatment extended beyond physical force. Vagheesha, a member of Himkhand who participated in the demonstration, alleged that several protesters were subjected to sexual assault and inappropriate touching by police personnel while being detained.

“My shirt was lifted, I was pinched on my private parts and brutally pushed into the buses,” Vagheesha said, describing the treatment meted out to protesters. The activist maintained that indigenous people from Arunachal Pradesh had travelled to the national capital to exercise their democratic rights and raise concerns about their ancestral land, only to face police brutality. In a video statement recorded while being taken away in a police vehicle, another Himkhand member alleged that protesters had been beaten and sexually assaulted. The protesters also said that police personnel did not initially disclose where they were being taken.

“My shirt was lifted, I was pinched on my private parts” alleges a peaceful anti-Siang Dam protester brutally detained by Delhi Police outside Arunachal Bhawan on Saturday.

Is this the Delhi Police whose job is to serve and PROTECT the PEOPLE?

The lengths that Home Minister @AmitShah’s forces are going to quash any kind of political expression is reaching depraved and disgusting new lows day by day.

The right to protest is constitutional. Who will hold the Delhi Police accountable?

— Pawan Khera ಪವನ್ ಖೇರಾ (@Pawankhera) November 1, 2026

SIANG DAM heat Reaches to Delhi as Protest Erupts amid Delhi Police Violent Detention of Tribals

Voice is Getting Louder
Siang नदी को बहने दो
#savesiang https://t.co/Z3uUqVuliq

— CJP Gems | (@GameonNewbie) October 31, 2026

The manner in which the detentions were carried out raised further concerns. Speaking to Maktoob, Kranti, another Himkhand member, said that three police vehicles transported protesters to different locations. Seven students from the Northeast were taken to Chanakyapuri Police Station, while other detainees were reportedly taken towards Najafgarh, near the Delhi-Haryana border. Men and women were separated during the process. An independent journalist, Baksheesh Lamba, was also allegedly picked up during the operation and taken away in a separate vehicle. Kranti said that Lamba was subsequently unreachable and that protesters had no information about his whereabouts.

Siang Dam Protest: Delhi Police Attack on Arunachal Protesters in New Delhi! https://t.co/xs6KM29ieT

— Roshni Haokip (@RoshniHaokipIN) November 2, 2026

Protest against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) was held in New Delhi today, with people gathering in solidarity with the people of Arunachal Pradesh. Demanding the withdrawal of SUMP, the removal of police and security forces from the Siang Valley, and the release of Ebo Mili and other detained activists.
Katon Moyong also known as Abor Man were detained along with others in Delhi .

— Marina Dai (@itsMarinaDai) October 31, 2026

According to the organisation, around 40 people had been detained, with approximately 25-30 protesters initially remaining at Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station. Himkhand further alleged that women protesters continued to be detained late into the night and that detainees were asked to sign forms under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞-𝙙𝙖𝙢 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙆𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙣 𝙈𝙤𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙜 from Arunachal Pradesh leading protests against the Siang Dam Project. https://t.co/YIXHVxXg6k

— Kreately.in (@KreatelyMedia) November 1, 2026

*Urgent Action Alert*
Students and youth brutalised at Delhi Arunachal bhawan peaceful protest against Siang dam project! The brave youth led protest dared to protest despite the heavy militarisation that was done in Chanakya Puri, meant to terrorise anyone who dared to even https://t.co/eGla8q6nw1

— Anwar Mavericks (@AnwarMavericks) October 31, 2026

Lawyers representing the detainees reportedly waited outside the police stations as families and fellow activists attempted to establish contact with those in custody. Delhi Police had been approached for a response to the allegations of assault and arbitrary detention, but no response had been received at the time of the initial reports.

All protesters released after Congress intervention

All the Arunachal Pradesh youths and students detained during the Delhi demonstration have since been released following the intervention of senior Congress leaders. According to Echo of Arunachal, Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Bosiram Siram, accompanied by All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charges for Arunachal Pradesh Dr A. Chellakumar and advocate Mathew Antony, visited Chanakyapuri Police Station after learning about the detentions. The leaders intervened with police authorities to secure the release of the protesters.

Around 40 young people had reportedly been detained and taken to three different police stations across Delhi. Their release brought immediate relief to the detainees and their families, but it does little to address the larger questions surrounding the police action, particularly the allegations of sexual assault and the circumstances in which the protesters were picked up.

Reacting to the development, Siram said that the voices of Arunachal Pradesh’s people could not be ignored and that young people must be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to peaceful protest. He stressed that concerns relating to land, identity, livelihoods, the environment and the future of indigenous communities must be heard rather than suppressed.

The APCC had earlier condemned the detentions, demanding that the police disclose the legal grounds for taking protesters into custody, communicate their whereabouts to their families and ensure that no peaceful demonstrator faced intimidation or harassment. The party also called for transparent engagement with affected communities, indigenous organisations, student bodies and civil society groups before the government proceeds with further activities related to SUMP.

While everyone is busy with the Ramlila Maidan protest, I would like to remind you that people are being detained in Arunachal Pradesh. https://t.co/olV9EyesLS

— Henry Singh (@HenrySingh_x) November 1, 2026

The crackdown in Arunachal Pradesh that brought protesters to Delhi

The demonstration outside Arunachal Bhawan was not an isolated protest. It was an extension of a growing movement against the proposed dam, which has faced sustained opposition from sections of the indigenous Adi and Galo communities in the Siang region. On October 23, youth groups and local organisations had called for a 12-hour bandh across Siang, Upper Siang and East Siang districts to oppose the proposed project. The demonstration in Pasighat subsequently turned violent, with police deploying tear gas and stun grenades as tensions escalated. Angry protesters allegedly vandalised and set fire to police vehicles, an NHPC office and the residences of political leaders, including local BJP MLAs and the state BJP president.

Following the violence, the Arunachal Pradesh government intensified its security deployment and initiated arrests under stringent provisions, including the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (APUAPA). Ddozens of people had been arrested or detained, while families raised concerns that the police action had also affected ordinary residents and people who had participated in peaceful demonstrations. The deployment of additional security personnel in the region, reportedly including more than 30 companies of CAPF personnel, has further heightened tensions. The security presence has been linked to efforts to facilitate preliminary project-related exercises, including the preparation of a Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR).

The crackdown has also reportedly extended to government employees and traditional village institutions. The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee has expressed concern over the suspension of government employees and action against gaon buras, or traditional village headmen, who have opposed the project.

Detailed report may be read here.

Why indigenous communities are resisting SUMP

The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, being pursued by the Centre through the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), is envisaged as one of India’s largest hydropower and multipurpose storage initiatives. Its proposed capacity has been reported at approximately 11,200 MW. The Centre has repeatedly invoked strategic, water-security and flood-management considerations to justify the project, particularly in the context of China’s proposed large hydropower development on the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet, which flows into India as the Siang.

However, for the indigenous communities living along the river, the proposed project is not merely an infrastructure or energy-policy question. It concerns the possible destruction of ancestral settlements, displacement, loss of agricultural land and forests, ecological disruption and the erosion of a way of life closely connected to the river.

Reports have indicated that as many as 27 villages could face submergence, with several dozen more potentially affected by the project. For the Adi community, the Siang, traditionally revered as Ane Siang, or Mother Siang, is central to cultural memory, identity, livelihoods and community life. The prospect of a massive dam on the river has therefore generated opposition that cannot be reduced to a disagreement over the technical feasibility of a development project.

Organisations such as the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), Adi Bane Kebang United and various student and youth groups have consistently questioned the project and demanded that the concerns and consent of affected communities be taken seriously.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu has maintained that the government is presently seeking cooperation only for the preparation of the PFR and that the project will not be imposed without public consultation. However, activists have questioned how meaningful public consultation can take place when people opposing the project are being arrested, criminal cases are being registered against them, and security forces are being deployed in areas where the project is proposed. SIFF spokesperson Tagori Mize has also questioned the government’s willingness to engage in genuine dialogue while protesters remain behind bars, and security deployment continues.

Congress demands withdrawal of project and action against protesters

The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee has demanded that the proposed SUMP be scrapped and all those arrested for opposing it be released. It has also called for the withdrawal of cases registered against protesters under APUAPA, the revocation of suspension orders against government employees and the withdrawal of action against traditional village headmen.

The party has maintained that no development project should proceed at the expense of indigenous communities’ ancestral land, identity, culture and livelihoods. It has called for the removal of additional security personnel from affected areas, compensation for those who have suffered losses and medical assistance and rehabilitation for injured protesters.

In a statement, the APCC emphasised that the government’s assurances about public consultation must translate into actual democratic engagement. It argued that strategic considerations cannot become a justification for disregarding indigenous rights or bypassing the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The party has also urged the Centre and the Arunachal Pradesh government to restore peace through dialogue and confidence-building measures, rather than treating opposition to the project as a law-and-order problem.

“Different groups but one voice; different organisations but one collective resolve — Stop SUMP, Save Siang,” the APCC said in its appeal for solidarity among indigenous organisations, student unions, youth groups, civil society organisations and traditional institutions.

Related:

Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance

From treating Adivasi communities to being branded an instigator: Odisha jails doctor Randall Sequeira

Assam NRC: Seven years after 19 lakh people were excluded, rejection slips remain a non-starter

Christian families assaulted, humiliated and forced into Durga Puja rituals in West Bengal village

“Pradhan Helped BJP Win Odisha, Gyanesh Is Helping It Win India” | Aishe Ghosh | Teesta Setalvad 

The post From Arunachal to Delhi, anti-dam protesters face state crackdown; detained allege sexual assault appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A thelawala by occupation, Kashem Ali earns his living by pulling a handcart through the heat and rain, working day after day to support his wife, Suraton Khatun, and their two sons, Sahjahan Ali and Sahajamal Ali. He is neither a politician nor a person of influence. He is a working man whose life has been consumed by a legal battle over his citizenship, despite documentary records linking his family to Assam decades before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date.

On October 25, 2026, Kashem finally received a measure of relief. The Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, held that he had successfully discharged the statutory burden of proving that he was not a foreigner and was a citizen of India. The decision came after a prolonged legal fight, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

But the end of Kashem’s ordeal does not mean the end of the family’s suffering. His wife, Suraton, was declared a D-voter in 2019 and remains unable to exercise her voting rights for ten years, until 2029. The husband has now been recognised as an Indian citizen, while his wife continues to live with the consequences of a citizenship-related determination that has deprived her of a fundamental democratic entitlement.

Kashem Ali, outside his home in Assam, looking through all his case related documents

A case registered in 2004, notice served only in 2022

The case, State of Assam vs Md. Kashem Ali, was heard by Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, under BNGN/FT Case No. 1205/2010, arising from BNGN/IM(D)T Case No. 1944/2003. According to the case records, proceedings were registered in 2004 based on an order issued by the Superintendent of Police (Border). Yet Kashem did not receive notice until March 2022. Eighteen years had passed between the registration of the case and the service of notice upon him.

For a man dependent on daily earnings to sustain his family, such prolonged uncertainty carries consequences far beyond a courtroom. The years between registration and notice, followed by the legal proceedings themselves, meant that Kashem had to confront an allegation of foreign origin while continuing to make a living through manual labour. When his wife’s case had previously come up, Kashem was unaware of CJP and had incurred considerable expenses. This time, knowing that legal assistance was available, he approached the organisation for help.

CJP’s legal team, led by legal member Dewan Abdur Rahim and his two junior colleagues, took up his case before the Tribunal. The defence challenged both the basis of the allegation and the way the investigation had purportedly been conducted. In his written statement filed on December 10, 2025, Kashem put his position in straightforward terms: the case was not maintainable in law or on facts, he was not a foreigner, and he had been born in Assam.

Born in Assam, with family records predating 1971

Kashem Ali was born in 1968 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri, under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon district, Assam. He was the son of Nojumuddin Sheikh, also recorded under variations of the name Naju Sheikh, and Panful Nessa, also known as Panful. His father died in 1974, while his mother died in 2018. His paternal grandfather, Najirulla, also recorded as Nojib, was the father of four children: Naju Sheikh, Yunus Ali, Khalek Miya and Khatim Bibi. Kashem has one sister, Toshiran Bibi, against whom, according to the information placed before the Tribunal, no foreigners case is pending.

Kashem married Suraton Khatun, daughter of the late Toyab Ali of Village No. 2 Dhupuri, in 1988. Together, they raised two sons. These were not merely family details. They formed part of the chain of relationships and documentary evidence through which Kashem sought to establish his identity and his connection to Assam.

The defence placed particular emphasis on records showing that Kashem’s parents were enrolled as voters in Assam in 1966, five years before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date relevant to the determination of citizenship in Assam. Subsequent electoral records also documented Kashem and his wife as voters over several decades. Despite this documentary trail, Kashem was compelled to establish before a Tribunal that he was not a foreigner.

Eighteen documents to establish what should never have been in doubt

To discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Kashem produced 18 documents before the Tribunal, recorded as Exhibits A to Q, with Exhibit A-1 as an additional document. He also obtained a Panchayat certificate. The evidence included land and revenue records, historical electoral rolls, school records, identity documents and a death certificate. Together, these materials were relied upon to establish his family links, place of birth and long-standing presence in Assam.

Among the most significant records was the certified copy of the 1966 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I under the Bijni Legislative Assembly Constituency. It recorded Nojumuddin, son of Nojir Ullah, and Panful, wife of Nojumuddin, as voters. The 1971 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I also recorded Nojmoddin Sheikh, son of Nojib, and Panful Nessa, wife of Nojmoddin, alongside other members of the extended family.

The records connecting Kashem himself to the electoral rolls began with the 1997 list for Dhupuri Part II, which recorded Kasem Ali, son of the late Nasimuddin Sheikh, and Suraton Khaton, wife of Kasem. The 2008 list also included both husband and wife. Kashem appeared in the electoral rolls for 2010, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, with variations in the spelling of his name and his father’s name across different records.

The documentary evidence also included a land record showing Kashem’s father as the recorded owner and possessor of 4 bighas, 1 katha and 17 lessas of land under Annual Patta No. 27, with Dag Nos. 155, 156 and 200 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri. A revenue payment receipt in Kashem’s name accompanied the record.

A school certificate issued by the head teacher of 480 No. Dabaguri Lower Primary School recorded Kashem Ali, son of Noju Sheikh, as having studied in Class I in 1975. His Election Commission of India-issued Elector Photo Identity Card, dated March 6, 2024, was also produced.

Other documents included a ration card issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in the name of Suraton Khatun, identifying her as Kashem’s wife; Kashem’s PAN card and Aadhaar card; and the death certificate of Panful Bewa, issued by the relevant health authorities in Manikpur.

The documents did not all serve the same evidentiary purpose. Rather, the defence relied on them collectively to establish the links between Kashem, his parents, his wife, his residence and the historical records of his family. The sheer volume of documentation required to defend his citizenship underscores the burden imposed on ordinary people facing allegations of foreign origin. For Kashem, years of family history had to be assembled, authenticated, translated and placed before a Tribunal before he could obtain legal recognition of what he had maintained from the outset: he was not a foreigner.

Defence challenges the investigation

CJP Team Assam with Kashem Ali outside his home in Assam

A central part of the defence was its challenge to the investigation that had led to the reference against Kashem. The CJP legal team argued that the investigating officer had submitted a report without conducting a genuine inquiry. According to the defence, the officer had neither visited Kashem’s home nor recorded his statement, seized any documents or examined any witnesses. The defence further questioned the credibility of the witnesses named in connection with the case.

The allegation, the advocate argued, rested on the assertion that Kashem had entered Assam from a specified territory after March 25, 1971. Kashem denied this outright, maintaining that he had never come to Assam from East Pakistan or Bangladesh and had been born in the state in 1968.

The defence also addressed discrepancies in the spelling of names across official records. Kashem appeared as Kasem Ali or Kashem Ali, while his father’s name was variously recorded as Nojumuddin, Nasimuddin, Najim Uddin Sheikh and Nojim Uddin Sheikh. The legal team argued that these variations were clerical inconsistencies and did not establish that the records referred to different individuals.

Such discrepancies can create serious difficulties for people whose names are recorded across different government departments, particularly when records are handwritten, translated or entered by officials over several decades. For poor families with limited means to scrutinise or correct official documentation, a spelling variation can become a formidable obstacle in proving identity and family links. The defence maintained that the differences in Kashem’s records had to be assessed in their proper context, alongside the broader documentary evidence, rather than treated as grounds to doubt his citizenship.

Revenue official corroborates land records

Kashem and two other defence witnesses gave evidence before the Tribunal. One of them, Defence Witness No. 2, Subash Medhi, a S.K. of the Manikpur Revenue Circle, proved the Jamabandi produced as Exhibit A after furnishing official documents underlying its issuance. The revenue official’s evidence provided an official basis for the land record relied upon by the defence. It formed part of the wider evidentiary case through which Kashem sought to establish his family’s links to the land and locality.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that Kashem had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It held that the opposite party was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. The decision brought relief after years of uncertainty and a prolonged legal battle. It also meant that the allegation of foreign origin could not stand in the face of the evidence accepted by the Tribunal.

A husband declared Indian, a wife still denied her vote

Yet Kashem’s relief is incomplete in the most painful sense: his wife continues to bear the consequences of a separate citizenship-related proceeding. Suraton Khatun’s case had come before a Foreigners Tribunal in 2019, when she was kept in the D-voter category. As a result, she remains unable to vote for ten years, from 2019 to 2029.

Her name appeared alongside Kashem’s in the 1997 electoral roll, and she was again recorded as a voter in the 2008 roll. The family ration card also identifies her as Kashem’s wife. She is the mother of their two sons and has shared the same home and family life through the years in which her husband was forced to defend his citizenship.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the proceedings against her remain in place. Kashem’s successful defence does not, by itself, restore Suraton’s voting rights or resolve her separate case. The contrast is stark. In 2026, a Tribunal recognised Kashem as an Indian citizen after examining the documentary evidence. His wife, whose name appeared in electoral records decades earlier, remains unable to participate in elections until 2029 because of her D-voter status.

For this family, the cost of citizenship proceedings is not measured only in legal expenses or years spent answering an allegation. It is also measured in the democratic rights lost while the proceedings cast a shadow over their lives.

CJP’s intervention brings relief, but the larger questions remain

On October 25, Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and CJP State In-charge Nanda Ghosh, representing Team CJP, visited Kashem’s home and handed him a copy of the Tribunal’s judgment. After years of uncertainty, he could finally breathe a sigh of relief. He welcomed the team with tea and expressed his gratitude to CJP for helping him navigate the legal battle.

For Kashem, the judgment is a hard-won victory. For CJP, it is another reminder of the importance of accessible legal assistance for people facing citizenship proceedings, particularly those without the financial means to sustain a prolonged fight on their own.

But his case also raises questions that extend far beyond one family. Why did a case registered in 2004 result in notice being served only in March 2022? What safeguards exist to prevent allegations resting on inadequate investigations from subjecting people to years of uncertainty? How should authorities assess discrepancies in names across decades of public records, particularly when historical documentation is inconsistent? And what happens to those who cannot assemble 18 documents, secure witnesses, pay legal expenses or find an organisation willing to help?

Kashem Ali with his wife outside their home in Assam

Kashem Ali is not a case number. He is a man who pulls a handcart to feed his family, a husband to Suraton, a father to two sons, a brother to Toshiran and the son of parents whose names appear in Assam’s historical records. His case demonstrates how the burden of proving citizenship can fall on ordinary people even when documentary records trace their families to Assam before the 1971 cut-off date. It also shows why legal aid can make the difference between confronting a case alone and having the opportunity to place one’s evidence before a Tribunal.

CJP’s intervention helped Kashem secure relief. But how many others face similar allegations without access to legal assistance, the resources to gather documents or the means to sustain years of proceedings?

And while Kashem can finally put this chapter behind him, Suraton must still wait for the restoration of her democratic rights. Their story is not simply one of a man declared Indian after a long legal battle. It is a reminder of the human cost of citizenship proceedings in Assam, where the right to belong can become a prolonged struggle for people whose lives, families and records are already rooted in the state.

The order may be read below:

Related:

Assam citizens’ forum demands scrapping of SIR, completion of pending NRC process; police block protesters at Guwahati Press Club

CJP helps secure Ajabha Khatun’s release after 772 days in Assam’s Matia detention camp

Floods | Documents | Courts: CJP’s Fight for Citizenship in Assam

Nationality Before Deportation: The Rajubala Das case

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

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

The post After 22 years under suspicion, Assam’s Kashem Ali declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, that same doctor is lodged in Rayagada sub-jail. On the night of October 16, 2026, Odisha Police arrested Sequeira from his rented residence in Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, along with Dalit activist Laxman Naik. The arrests came nearly six months after a violent confrontation between villagers and police in Kantamal village on April 7, during protests against a proposed road project connected to the Sijimali bauxite mining project. Neither Sequeira nor Naik figured among the 26 people initially named in the first information report (FIR). Their names were subsequently added from a category of approximately 100 unnamed persons described as ‘others’.

Massive Protest rally today,against the unlawful arrest of people’s doctor Randall Sequeira, Youth tribal Singer cum Activist Laxman Naik, Adivasi leader Lada Sikaka and Eminent environmental Activist Lingaraj Azad in front of Muniguda Tehsil Office, Rayagada district of Odisha.
@tmkrishna @samar11 @TeestaSetalvad @HansrajMeena
@DhanadaKanta @Ayaskant_Das

— Amiya_Pandav ଅମିୟ ପାଣ୍ଡଵ Write n Fight (@AmiyaPandav) October 26, 2026

According to The Hindu, Sequeira was arrested in connection with the April violence despite having already secured anticipatory bail from the Orissa High Court in another FIR relating to the same incident. He was subsequently booked under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those relating to attempt to murder and rioting.

The circumstances of his arrest are particularly disturbing. Speaking to The Hindu from Rayagada jail, Sequeira said that he and Naik were made to sleep on the floor of a police station through the night, were subsequently transferred to another police station and were not initially informed of the grounds for their arrest. He also alleged that he was not allowed to speak to his family.

This is not the first time Sequeira has found himself at the receiving end of administrative action for his association with the anti-mining movement. In June 2025, the Rayagada district administration issued an ex parte order prohibiting him and 24 others from entering the district for two months. The administration accused him of attempting to mobilise tribal communities against the proposed Sijimali mining project and raised apprehensions about public order.

The Orissa High Court subsequently quashed the prohibitory order. In its ruling, the court found no material demonstrating that the proposed peaceful gathering posed an immediate and grave threat of violence or public disorder. Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed that constitutional jurisprudence demanded a high threshold of actual risk before fundamental rights could be curtailed. The High Court’s intervention, however, did not end the administration’s pursuit of Sequeira.

ODISHA RISES: RELEASE DR RANDALL SEQUEIRA, LAXMAN NAIK, LADA SIKAKA AND LINGARAJ AZAD!

WHEN PEOPLE DEFEND THEIR LAND, THEIR RIGHTS AND THEIR FORESTS, THEIR VOICES MUST NOT BE SILENCED.

A powerful protest rally was held on 26 October 2026 outside the Muniguda Tehsil Office in Rayagada district, Odisha, against the arrests and continued detention of activists associated with the Adivasi people’s struggle.

WHO ARE THEY?

• Dr Randall Sequeira — a doctor who has dedicated years to providing healthcare to Adivasi communities in remote parts of Odisha.

• Laxman Naik — a grassroots activist associated with the Maa Mati Mali Surakhya Manch.

• Lada Sikaka — an Adivasi leader associated with the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti.

• Lingaraj Azad — an environmental and people’s rights activist.

Their supporters allege that criminal cases and arrests are being used to weaken resistance to bauxite mining in the Sijimali region, where Adivasi communities are defending their land, livelihoods, forests and natural resources.

THE QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS

Why are people who stand with vulnerable communities facing serious criminal allegations?

Were the arrests, detention procedures and access to legal counsel consistent with constitutional safeguards?

Are the concerns of affected Adivasi communities being heard freely and fairly before decisions affecting their ancestral lands are implemented?

Police have alleged that Dr Sequeira and Laxman Naik were involved in violence connected with an earlier protest. Civil-liberties organisations dispute the circumstances and have raised serious concerns about the arrests. These allegations must be examined by an independent and impartial authority, with due process and a fair opportunity for all sides to present evidence.

An accusation is not a conviction. A demand for justice is not a crime.

DEVELOPMENT CANNOT MEAN DISPOSSESSION.

India’s natural resources must not become more important than the people whose lives, cultures and livelihoods depend on them.

The rights of Adivasi communities, the protection of forests, meaningful Gram Sabha participation and constitutional freedoms must be respected. Any allegation of wrongdoing must be investigated fairly, without intimidation or political interference.

OUR DEMANDS

1. Immediate and lawful review of the detention of Dr Randall Sequeira, Laxman Naik, Lada Sikaka, Lingaraj Azad and other detained activists, with release wherever continued detention is not legally justified.
2. An independent investigation into allegations of police excesses and procedural violations.
3. Protection of Adivasi communities and their constitutional rights to organise, protest and defend their livelihoods.
4. No coercive implementation of mining-related land acquisition or projects without compliance with applicable laws and the rights of affected Gram Sabhas.
5. Transparent accountability for every proven violation, regardless of who is responsible.

Let the rally in Muniguda be heard across India.

Let journalists, lawyers, doctors, students, human-rights defenders and democratic citizens stand with communities demanding dignity and justice.

SILENCE IN THE FACE OF INJUSTICE PROTECTS POWER. SOLIDARITY GIVES PEOPLE A VOICE.

Stand with Adivasi rights.
Stand for constitutional freedoms.
Stand for independent justice.
Stand for people before profits.

Creator/source: @AmiyaPandav

READ AND SHARE:

PUCL’s statement on the arrests and demands for accountability:
https://t.co/6NRbu7aSAB

The Wire — Jan Swasthya Abhiyan condemns the arrests:
https://t.co/GjnoSm3DMK

Times of India — Report on the Muniguda rally and the family’s appeal:
https://t.co/zg50EYEOqA

#DimaagiNaxal #Resistance #UnitedResistance

— Ashok Dadhwal (@ashokdadhwal196) October 27, 2026

A doctor who chose the hills over urban medicine

Originally from Mangaluru, Karnataka, and raised in Mumbai, Sequeira completed his MBBS at St John’s Medical College in Bengaluru before pursuing postgraduate studies in internal medicine at Sawai Man Singh Medical College and Hospital in Jaipur. He arrived in Kalahandi in July 2017 and began working with Swasthya Swaraj, a non-profit organisation providing community healthcare in the tribal-dominated Thuamul Rampur block.

He could have pursued a conventional medical career in an urban hospital. Instead, he remained in the region, continuing his work with organisations including Living Farms and the Development Agency for Poor and Tribal Awakening (DAPTA), which work on healthcare, nutrition, education and the rights of marginalised communities.

Dr Randall Sequeira, a medical practitioner, who moved to Odisha to practise medicine in service of the Adivasi communities in the state, was arrested along with Dalit activist Laxman Naik on 16 October. Please amplify and raise your voice to ask for them to be released.

— Arpita Das (she/her) (@arpitayodapress) October 24, 2026

As reported by Article 14, Sequeira travelled to settlements where residents had little access to medical facilities, visiting households and providing treatment. His work extended beyond treating individual patients. He focused on preventive healthcare, community health training and understanding the relationship between environmental degradation and public health.

His experiences in mining-affected areas also led him to examine the health consequences of industrial extraction. He observed that communities living near operational bauxite mines reported more skin ailments than those in non-mining areas. Since March 2022, he has also travelled to Sukinda in Odisha’s Jajpur district to treat patients suffering from tuberculosis in an area affected by extensive chromite mining.

A close friend of his told Article 14 that Sequeira understood the limitations of treating individual patients when the structural conditions producing ill health remained unaddressed. Healthcare, in his understanding, could not be separated from access to clean water, forests, nutrition and a healthy environment.

This understanding increasingly brought him into solidarity with Adivasi communities opposing mining projects that threaten their land and natural resources. Since 2023, he has worked alongside grassroots organisations, including Maa Mati Mali Surakhya Manch and Niyamgiri Surakhya Samiti, which have opposed the proposed mining projects in the region. It is this association that has now become central to the allegations against him.

When solidarity becomes an alleged criminal offence

The Odisha Police has rejected allegations that Sequeira’s arrest is intended to suppress anti-mining resistance. Speaking to the Press Trust of India (PTI), Deputy Inspector General of Police Akhileshwar Singh alleged that Sequeira was not merely providing medical services but was instigating Adivasi communities against the state government.

The police have also cited multiple criminal cases against him. However, the central question remains: what evidence supports the serious allegations, and why was he implicated in an FIR in which his name did not originally appear, particularly when he had already secured anticipatory bail in another case arising from the same incident?

In its report, The Quint highlighted the concerns raised by activists over the police’s use of the ‘others’ category in FIRs. Narendra Mohanty, convenor of the Campaign Against Fabricated Cases, alleged that the open-ended category allows the police to subsequently implicate activists who were not named when the complaint was first registered. According to him, this practice has become particularly useful in keeping movement leaders in custody by filing successive cases whenever they secure bail in an earlier one.

The figures are alarming. According to data compiled by the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), 43 cases connected to resistance against bauxite mining were registered in Kalahandi and Rayagada over the past three years, resulting in more than 100 Adivasis and Dalits being jailed. Between March 8 and April 8, 2026, as many as 24 people were arrested, 217 were named as accused and another 1,140 were listed under the category of ‘others’. Sequeira’s arrest is therefore unfolding against a much larger pattern of criminal cases against those resisting mining projects.

The battle over land, forests and the right to resist

The region’s resistance is not new. For decades, Adivasi communities have opposed attempts to convert their forests and hills into mining sites. The Dongria Kondh, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, regard the Niyamgiri hills as sacred and worship Niyam Raja, whom they believe resides in the hills. In its landmark 2013 judgment, the Supreme Court placed the decision on the proposed diversion of forest land for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri before the Gram Sabhas. Subsequently, all 12 Gram Sabhas rejected the proposal, and the Odisha government scrapped the project in 2014.

The renewed push for bauxite extraction in Sijimali has brought the region back into confrontation with mining interests. Vedanta has secured environmental clearance for the Sijimali deposit, while the nearby Kutrumali deposit has been allotted to the Adani Group.

For communities whose livelihoods, water sources, forests and cultural identities are inseparable from these hills, mining is not simply an industrial development project. It is a question of survival, autonomy and their constitutional and statutory rights over their land and resources.

The arrest of Sequeira has also attracted condemnation from sections of the medical and civil society communities. Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as LiverDoc, appealed to the medical fraternity to stand up for his former St John’s Medical College junior. Recalling Sequeira’s work in Kutrumali, Philips described a physician who had travelled to remote settlements to treat malnourished children and women with limited access to healthcare. He argued that Sequeira understood that prescriptions could not compensate for the destruction of forests, the loss of water resources and the denial of dignity to indigenous communities.

My dear friends, please, I hope to demand your absolute attention to this matter:

In 2018, my junior from St. John’s Medical College, Bengaluru, Dr. Randall Sequeira (middle in the pic), trekked up a steep, bauxite-rich plateau in Odisha to hold a monsoon health camp in the indigenous Kutiya Kondh village of Kutrumali.

In a piece he wrote then titled “Kutrumali’s Demons,” Randall described sleeping under a dripping school roof in freezing fog, borrowing utensils from a local health worker to cook khichdi, and waking up at 6 AM to a line of tribal mothers. He wrote with heartbreak about treating malnourished toddlers with protruding bellies and visible ribs, listening to stories of stillbirths and chronic fevers, while noticing the shiny new solar lights installed by a mining conglomerate eyeing the aluminium ore beneath the villagers’ feet.

Comparing his small medical team to hobbits sheltering in the night, Randall worried about the outside forces coming for that fragile village.

Randall stayed with the tribal/ adivasi community to serve them. After St. John’s and an MD in Internal Medicine from SMS Jaipur, he gave up every comfort of urban medicine to live in Kalahandi, recognizing that clinical prescriptions are meaningless when indigenous communities are stripped of their forests, water, and dignity.

On the night of October 16, Odisha police picked up Dr. Randall Sequeira and Dalit activist Laxman Naik at 11 PM from his home in Bhawanipatna. A gentle physician who has spent years trekking up hills to save tribal children is now locked in Rayagada sub-jail under frivolous but draconian charges (attempt to murder, dacoity), simply for standing with Adivasis peaceful protesting the mining of their sacred hills in Sijimali and Kutrumali.
https://t.co/PsxZZCngyV

Odisha Govt. said it will cut down forests to connect tribal villages. But it was a way to bypass green laws and fast track London based Vedanta’s, and Adani’s mining plans. Local organisations estimate that around 45 villages depend on these hills and would be affected.
https://t.co/0pATUIYADm

The state has answered with repression rather than dialogue. In the last three years, at least 43 police cases have been filed and over a hundred Adivasis and Dalits, both women and men, have been incarcerated in Odisha jails. For example, from In March and april 2026, 8, 2026, to April 8, 2026, within one month, 24 people were sent to jail, 217 were made accused, and the number of “others” total 1,140. An activist who was not named in the original FIRs, but has since been implicated in about 12 cases, so that bail in one case is followed by arrest in another. This pattern of capture and releases have been used to crush rational dissent.

Dr. Randall understood that being a good doctor means understanding that prescriptions cannot compensate for the denial of land rights, that surgery cannot undo displacement and that no medical can substitute for the basic infrastructure a government has failed to provide.
https://t.co/fOC9AU3jaR

To my fellow medical fraternity, and every citizen with a conscience: a kind physician who embodies the highest ethics of our profession is being criminalized to clear the way for bauxite mining. Please do not let his voice be buried in a sub-jail.

Amplify this, demand due process, and demand the immediate release. Please sign in this form to show solidarity: https://t.co/cgLIoEXExG

If anyone can help out in this situation please reach out to Medico Friend Circle – https://t.co/OT2D2E3DuW

— TheLiverDoc (@theliverdoc) October 20, 2026

The Jan Swasthya Abhiyan has also condemned the arrests, describing them as an attack on people working to address the social and health consequences of mining. The organisation has demanded the immediate release of Sequeira and Naik, withdrawal of the cases and an independent inquiry into allegations of intimidation.

Meanwhile, the Mumbai-based Watchdog Foundation has approached the National Commission for Minorities, seeking scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding Sequeira’s arrest and whether the necessary legal safeguards were followed. Its representation, as reported by the Free Press Journal, specifically flagged the fact that Sequeira was arrested months after the April incident despite not being named in the original FIR.

The Foundation has clarified that the absence of a person’s name in an original FIR does not automatically establish innocence or render a subsequent arrest unlawful. However, it has called for scrutiny of whether the investigation is supported by credible evidence and whether constitutional and procedural safeguards have been respected.

Sequeira’s parents, Alex and Nancy Sequeira, have expressed distress over their son’s incarceration, while maintaining faith in the judicial process. In a statement to Article 14, they said that, to their knowledge, he had dedicated his professional life to serving poor and marginalised communities and hoped that he would receive a fair hearing and be reunited with his family.

Criminalising those who refuse to look away

The question raised by Sequeira’s arrest extends beyond the fate of one doctor. What does it mean when a physician working in areas with little access to healthcare is accused of instigating the very communities he has spent years treating? What does it say about the priorities of a government when those who draw attention to the health and environmental consequences of mining are treated as threats to public order?

For the Adivasi communities of Kalahandi and Rayagada, Sequeira was a doctor who came when hospitals were too far away, who treated their children and who understood that their health was inseparable from the land they inhabited. His arrest has now placed that relationship under the shadow of criminal prosecution. A physician who spent years travelling through forests to reach patients is now confined to a jail cell. And while the state questions whether he was really practising medicine or instigating dissent, the communities he served are left confronting the same questions of healthcare, land and survival, alongside the fear that those who stand with them could be next.

Related:

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Forced pregnancy tests for Adivasi women students in Maharashtra’s hostels, Rahul Gandhi registers strong protest

Why Adivasis seek to re-assert their traditional identity

I raise my voice for Adivasis, am I a Traitor?

Telangana: Stop forcible ‘re-location of Chenchu Adivasis from Amrabad Tiger Reserve

The post From treating Adivasi communities to being branded an instigator: Odisha jails doctor Randall Sequeira appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Students celebrate at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) as the university agrees to finalise and approve the students’ union constitution by May 15, 2027, with elections to be held within six weeks of the next academic session’s commencement. A victory for sustained student resistance!

— Vijay Thottathil (@vijaythottathil) October 29, 2026

Jamia Millia Islamia administration set a timeline for restoring its students’ union, after the protesters refused to end their hunger strike without the university putting a date to its assurance over holding elections. https://t.co/dQghSXyCn1

— Peek TV (@PeekTV_in) October 29, 2026

Jamia Millia Islamia erupts in celebration as the administration agrees to all the students’ demands.

@tarunzero reports for @thewire_in https://t.co/PZK9aiATjZ

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 29, 2026

| VICTORY MARCH AT JAMIA|

A Victory March will be held today at 4:00PM at Gulistan-e-Ghalib Lawn, Gate No. 7, Jamia Millia Islamia, to celebrate the historic restoration of the Jamia Students’ Union after nearly 20 years.

Students will come together to mark this landmark achievement, celebrate their collective struggle and reaffirm the spirit of student unity, democratic rights and campus democracy.

Location: JMISU Union Office, Gulistan-e-Ghalib Gate 7, Jamia Millia Islamia

#Jamia #JamiaMilliaIslamia

@RahulGandhi @kaushikrj6
@vidyarthee @Pawankhera
@RanaAyyub @zoo_bear @aishe_ghosh
@Saurabh_Unmute @ajitanjum @sushant_says @neha_aisa @mehartweets @waglenikhil

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) October 30, 2026

Peaceful resistance paces its way to another historic victory at Jamia Milia Islamic University last night.

Students celebrate at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) as the university agrees to finalise and approve the students’ union constitution by May 15, 2027, with elections to be held within six weeks of the next academic session’s commencement.
#JamiaMilliaIslamia
#StudentsProtest
#StudentsProtests

— Pragnya Gupta (@GuptaPragnya) October 30, 2026

The agreement marks a significant development in a struggle for democratic representation that has continued for years at the university, where the students’ union has remained dissolved since March 2006. The administration has also agreed to withdraw all disciplinary action initiated against students in connection with the agitation, including show-cause notices, disciplinary proceedings, rustication and suspension orders, as well as campus bans.

“We had received 3 demands from students…We have accepted all 3 of their demands”: Registrar of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), Mahtab Alam Rizvi https://t.co/rkAU3XqHRi

— The Wire (@thewire_in) October 29, 2026

According to the university’s October 29 order, once the constitution is approved, the election notification will be issued in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines of the Lyngdoh Committee. The elections are expected to take place within six weeks of the next academic session, scheduled to commence around July 16, 2027.

The administration’s commitment to a specific deadline addresses one of the central objections raised by the protesting students. Earlier, students had rejected a communication from the university that promised elections after the constitution was approved but failed to establish a concrete timeline for completing the approval process. Without a deadline, students argued, the promise of restoring the union risked becoming another indefinite assurance.

The latest agreement emerged following negotiations between a four-member student delegation and university authorities. Registrar Professor Md Mahtab Alam Rizvi confirmed to ANI that the administration had accepted all three major demands raised by the students.

According to Deccan Herald, the administration has also outlined the proposed process for drafting and approving the constitution. Student representatives, alongside professors and legal experts, will participate in the exercise, with representation from different faculties. The draft constitution will be circulated among stakeholders for suggestions before undergoing legal scrutiny. It will subsequently be placed before the Academic Council and Executive Council before being forwarded to the Visitor’s nominee for final approval. This process will be crucial in determining whether the promised restoration translates into a genuinely representative and democratically functioning students’ union.

The Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and the road to elections

The university’s decision to conduct elections under the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations is particularly significant given the prolonged absence of elected student representation at Jamia. The Lyngdoh Committee was constituted following a Supreme Court directive on December 12, 2005, to examine concerns surrounding campus elections, including the growing influence of money and muscle power, political interference and violence in student politics. As reported by The Hindu, the committee was tasked with recommending a framework to ensure free, fair and transparent student elections.

Among its principal recommendations was that universities and colleges should ordinarily have elected student representatives, with nominations permitted only as a temporary arrangement where circumstances made elections impracticable. Institutions relying on nominated representatives were expected to establish an election-based system within five years. The committee also recommended that student elections be held annually, preferably within six to eight weeks of the commencement of the academic session. The entire electoral process, including nominations, campaigning and the declaration of results, was to be completed within 10 days.

The recommendations permit direct, indirect and hybrid election systems, depending on the size and structure of the institution. Direct elections were favoured for smaller, single-campus universities, while indirect elections were suggested for larger universities with multiple campuses.

For Jamia, the commitment to follow these recommendations is an important step towards restoring an institutional mechanism through which students can participate in university affairs and hold the administration accountable.

Nearly two decades without student representation

The JMISU was dissolved in March 2006, following repeated incidents of violence, clashes between student groups, attacks on teachers and disruptions to academic activities. The university administration had also raised concerns about student representatives allegedly interfering in administrative matters.

However, the dissolution of the union effectively left generations of students without an elected representative body. The absence of an institutional platform for collective student representation became the backdrop to the current agitation, with students demanding not merely an assurance of elections but a definite commitment to restoring democratic participation on campus.

The latest protest began on October 12 and gradually escalated into an indefinite hunger strike. Despite the university announcing that elections would be held within 15 days of the constitution’s approval, students continued their agitation, pointing out that the administration had not specified when the constitution itself would be approved.

The standoff also unfolded amid increasingly restrictive measures on campus. The university shifted academic activities to the online mode, citing security concerns and disruptions arising from the protests. The decision to move classes online, while subsequent announcements extended the online arrangement and shifted examinations away from the physical mode.

Detailed pieces may be read here, here and here.

Congress hails students’ victory

Congress general secretary (organisation) K. C. Venugopal described the outcome as a victory for student power. In a post on X, he said, “The students of Jamia Millia Islamia Central University have won!” Venugopal alleged that the BJP-controlled administration had attempted to divide and discredit the protesting students, and claimed that NSUI leaders had been sent to Tihar Jail for participating in the agitation. “In the end, the fascists had to bend before student power. Democracy was hard-fought but was won eventually!” he wrote, saluting the students for their non-violent struggle.

The students of Jamia Millia Islamia Central University have won!

In the end, the fascists had to bend before student power. Democracy was hard fought but was won eventually!

The BJP-controlled Administration tried every method to divide and defame the students. They even went to the extent of sending out NSUI leaders to Tihar jail for protesting for this cause.

We salute the students for their non violent struggle, and this should serve as a bitter lesson for those who try to suppress the youth’s voice.

Jai Hind!

— K C Venugopal (@kcvenugopalmp) October 29, 2026

The agreement came on the occasion of Jamia’s 106th Foundation Day, lending particular significance to a development centred on the restoration of democratic participation within the university. While the students have called off their agitation, the agreement is only the beginning of a longer process. 

The tree of revolution will blossom with the sweat and tears, courage and commitment of every new generation!

Congratulations to the students of Jamia who fought day and night to keep democracy alive! https://t.co/zG740eJsi8

— AISA (@aisa_official_) October 29, 2026

It is the season of victories!
JMI has shown us the way…

What a fight! What a great and long awaited victory! https://t.co/9usZs6vhot

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 29, 2026

Huge win for student power.

Congratulations Jamia for forcing the administration to bring back student union elections after almost two decades!

But the battle isn’t over. Let’s not forget our NSUI boys, Faizan and Zeeshan, are still in judicial custody at Tihar just for demanding these exact democratic rights.
Celebrate the victory, but keep the pressure on until they’re free.

No celebration is complete while student activists remain behind bars!!

— Gurmehar Kaur (@mehartweets) October 30, 2026

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

The post Nearly two decades without elections, Jamia students’ agitation forces administration to set deadline for union revival appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protests in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh today against the Upper Siang Dam and the state govt’s militarisation of the area. https://t.co/u9Ta1u3vB2

— Nitin Sethi (@nit_set) October 29, 2026

Scores of people took part in a protest in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, on Thursday against the proposed 11,000 MW Siang mega dam, calling for the release of detained anti-dam activists.

The demonstrators marched from Akashdeep to IG Park, chanting slogans against Chief Minister Pema Khandu. They opposed the project over its potential effects on local communities and the region’s ecology.

The rally followed a police crackdown after recent violence in Pasighat. Protesters demanded the release of those detained and reiterated their opposition to the project.

#ArunachalPradesh #SiangMegaDam #Itanagar #AntiDamProtest #SiangRiver

— Northeast Now (@NENowNews) October 29, 2026

Yet, despite the expanding security presence and the threat of criminal prosecution, the protests have not subsided. Instead, resistance has spread beyond the directly affected villages, with solidarity demonstrations in Itanagar and renewed opposition to other proposed hydropower projects. The message from the protesters is increasingly clear: the threat of arrest, intimidation and state action will not persuade communities to surrender their land, rivers and ancestral identities without being heard.

GenZ Protest Intensifies Over Siang Upper Hydropower Project in Arunachal Pradesh. WE WILL OPPOSE THE DAM PROJECT
AS LONG AS WE CAN

SIANG नदी को बहने दो
Itangar, Arunachal
#nosump https://t.co/mzZEsAMkjg

— CJP Gems | (@GameonNewbie) October 29, 2026

Hundreds Rally in GenZ Protest against SIAM Dam Project. Its Our Land

Siang Will Flow
#SaveArunachal https://t.co/XvY6iSHIA2

— CJP Gems | (@GameonNewbie) October 30, 2026

Locals today took out a massive protest march in Arunachal Pradesh’s state capital Itanagar against the alleged detention and arrests of activists demonstrating against the proposed SUMP dam project over the Siang river. @thewire_in https://t.co/BDzwvvjnf1

— Deep Mukherjee (@manwithaquill) October 29, 2026

The slogans raised during the protest march against the Siang Dam will give you goosebumps. The passion, the conviction, the spirit of the people.

Well done, Arunachal. https://t.co/YGgyWeiMCe

— Saurav Choudhury (@sauravv123) October 29, 2026

The crackdown has also extended to journalists, lawyers and those associated with the anti-dam movement. In a move that has raised serious concerns over press freedom and the right to legal representation, Arunachal Pradesh Police has sought search warrants against four people, including Tongam Rina, Deputy Editor of The Arunachal Times, advocate Sunny Tayeng, and activists Otul Jerang and Tajong Talom. In an application submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of East Siang on October 27, the investigating officer sought permission to search their residences and seize mobile phones, digital devices, photographs, video recordings and clothing allegedly connected to the violence in Pasighat. The application was filed under Section 96 of the BNSS, 2023, and the court’s decision was not immediately available.

The inclusion of Rina’s name has triggered strong objections from the Arunachal Pradesh Union of Working Journalists, the Arunachal Press Club and the Arunachal Publishers and Broadcasters Guild. The press bodies have warned that investigative powers must not become instruments to intimidate journalists reporting on contentious public issues. Meanwhile, Tayeng has expressed concerns about alleged surveillance and the implications for the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications. As Scroll.in reported, Rina has said that the alleged intimidation would not stop her from writing or pursuing her activism.

The immediate flashpoint was the violence that erupted in Pasighat on October 23, following a 12-hour bandh called by organisations opposing the proposed project. An NHPC office and a police station were allegedly set on fire, while the residences of political leaders, including two MLAs and the state BJP president, were vandalised. However, the events in Pasighat cannot be understood in isolation from the prolonged conflict over the project, the government’s attempts to facilitate preliminary surveys despite local opposition, and the growing resentment over the militarisation of affected villages. More importantly, alleged violence cannot become a justification for indiscriminate arrests, the criminalisation of an entire movement or the suppression of legitimate political and journalistic expression.

What are the protests about?

At the centre of the agitation is the proposed 11,200-megawatt Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, a massive hydropower and water-storage project on the Siang River, which flows into Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet and eventually becomes the Brahmaputra in Assam. The project, proposed by the Union government’s policy think tank NITI Aayog in 2017, is being advanced by the Centre as a strategic necessity in response to China’s proposed 60,000-MW hydropower project on the Yarlung Tsangpo, the river that enters India as the Siang. The government argues that the proposed dam would strengthen India’s water security, provide flood moderation and help counter the potential consequences of China’s upstream infrastructure.

Scores of people rallied in Arunachal Pradesh’s Itanagar on Thursday to oppose the proposed 11,000 MW Siang mega dam and demand the release of detained anti-dam activists.

The protesters marched from Akashdeep to IG Park, raising slogans against Chief Minister Pema Khandu and expressing concerns about the project’s potential impact on the region’s ecology and communities.

The rally also came amid a police crackdown following recent violence in Pasighat. Protesters called for the release of detainees and reiterated their opposition to the proposed dam.

#ArunachalPradesh #SiangMegaDam #Itanagar #AntiDamProtest #SiangRiver

— Northeast Now (@NENowNews) October 29, 2026

However, for communities living along the Siang, the project represents a threat that cannot be reduced to questions of hydropower generation or national security. Residents of more than 27 villages have raised concerns about the possible submergence of ancestral settlements, agricultural land, forests and culturally significant sites. The Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF) has warned that the project could affect approximately 1–1.5 lakh people. The potential consequences extend beyond displacement in its conventional understanding. For the Adi community, the river, known as Ane Siang or Mother Siang, is deeply connected to its cultural identity, spiritual beliefs, agricultural practices and collective memory.

The river is not merely a resource to be harnessed for electricity or strategic advantage. It is central to a way of life sustained across generations. The possibility of losing ancestral land, burial grounds, terraced paddy fields, forests and religious sites therefore raises questions about the survival of indigenous culture itself.

In an interview with Frontline, residents and activists described the project as a threat to their relationship with the land and river. One young protester emphasised that the community’s identity was inseparable from the Siang, while Tadak Nalo of the Arunachal Frontier Tribal Front questioned the government’s approach to obtaining consent from affected residents.

Environmental concerns compound these anxieties. The proposed project is located in a highly seismic region of the Himalayas, with the Siang Valley falling in Seismic Zone V. Environmentalists and dam experts have warned that large infrastructure projects in ecologically fragile and earthquake-prone regions require independent and comprehensive assessments of their environmental and social consequences.

Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, told Frontline that the adverse consequences of large dams have become increasingly evident and called for an impartial assessment of the proposed project. Supreme Court senior advocate and transboundary water law expert Mohan Katarki also cautioned against treating a counter-dam as an automatic solution to the risks posed by China’s upstream project, emphasising the need for bilateral engagement and a joint environmental impact assessment.

The government’s national security argument, therefore, does not resolve the questions being raised by affected communities. Nor does invoking China’s hydropower ambitions establish that the proposed project is environmentally sustainable, socially just or acceptable to the people whose lives would be directly affected.

The resistance has also been fuelled by the manner in which preliminary survey activities have been pursued. The government maintains that the pre-feasibility report (PFR) is only an initial exercise to assess the technical, geological and hydrological viability of the project and does not constitute final approval for construction. Residents, however, fear that allowing drilling and survey machinery onto their ancestral land would effectively pave the way for the project.

ThePrint reported from Komkar that villagers had erected barricades to prevent drilling equipment from reaching the proposed sites. For residents, the issue is not simply whether a dam has received final approval. It is whether the state can proceed with activities that could fundamentally alter their land before their objections have been meaningfully addressed.

The controversy has deepened further over allegations that villagers were misled into signing documents connected to the proposed project. Some residents have alleged that they were asked to provide Aadhaar cards and bank account details and sign documents under the impression that they were enrolling in a government livelihood scheme. They subsequently suspected that their signatures had been used in connection with memorandums of understanding relating to the PFR. These allegations have not been independently verified.

ThePrint also reported that Upper Siang Deputy Commissioner Ashok Tajo acknowledged that the administration had failed to adequately explain the livelihood scheme and the associated documents to residents. The Rs 350-crore Special Development and Livelihood Programme, announced by the Centre and the state government, had not resulted in any disbursement when he spoke to the publication. Tajo admitted that the administration’s approach to communicating the scheme had contributed to the present situation, telling ThePrint: “If the approach was right, then this situation would not have come.”

Such an admission raises serious questions about the government’s insistence that the opposition is primarily the result of misinformation. When residents do not understand what they are being asked to sign, when promised assistance remains undisbursed and when survey activities proceed amid sustained objections, the resulting mistrust cannot simply be dismissed as an information deficit.

The protesters have repeatedly maintained that they are not opposed to development. Their demands include better roads, schools, hospitals and access to essential services. What they reject is a model of development that requires them to sacrifice their land, livelihoods and cultural existence while having little control over decisions that directly affect them. As one young protester told Frontline, the government repeatedly invokes national interest, but the interests of the people living in the region must also count.

Arrests, hunger strikes and the use of anti-terror legislation

Rather than resolving the underlying conflict through sustained consultation, the government’s response has increasingly relied on policing and criminal proceedings. Following the allaged October 23 violence, the East Siang police initially reported the arrest of 26 people, including five juveniles, and the detention of six others for questioning. Eight cases had been registered in connection with the incidents, according to a statement issued by East Siang Superintendent of Police Pankaj Lamba on October 26.

The scale of the crackdown subsequently appeared to widen considerably. As Scroll.in reported, Inspector General of Police Hibu Tamang stated that 69 people had been arrested and four detained in connection with the violence. Police had registered 55 cases across Upper Siang, Siang and East Siang districts. The arrests and detentions were being pursued under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014 (APUAPA).

The distinction between those arrested in connection with specific incidents of violence and those detained for their participation in the wider anti-dam movement is crucial. The existence of criminal offences warrants investigation, but it cannot provide the state with an unrestricted mandate to treat opposition to a development project as a threat to national security.

The use of the APUAPA is particularly alarming. Four activists from Geku, Adum Tayom, Omak Paron, Okut Paloh and Oson Paron, were detained under the state law on October 9 for opposing the pre-feasibility studies. The detention of activists under anti-terror legislation in connection with opposition to preliminary survey activities raises fundamental questions about the threshold being applied by the authorities and the distinction between dissent and criminal conduct. ThePrint reported that the administration had confirmed the government’s approval of detention orders against four people under the APUAPA, with their cases scheduled for review by an advisory board headed by a retired judge.

Invoking a law carrying the language and implications of unlawful activities against people resisting a proposed dam is not an ordinary policing measure. It risks transforming a dispute over land, consent, displacement and environmental protection into a question of security and public order, where the people raising objections are increasingly treated as potential threats rather than citizens exercising their democratic rights.

The allegations emerging from Geku are especially disturbing. Young protesters have told ThePrint that they fear being picked up from their homes or detained while going about their everyday activities. Some have alleged that they face multiple FIRs, with certain individuals claiming to have as many as 25 cases registered against them. Others have reportedly started staying in surrounding forests to avoid arrest.

Residents have also described frequent security checks, restrictions on movement and the questioning of people travelling to their agricultural fields. One resident told ThePrint that villagers could not even carry their traditional dao, a farming tool routinely used to clear vegetation and harvest crops, without attracting suspicion.

The security presence has fundamentally altered everyday life in these villages. The deployment of forces is no longer experienced merely as an arrangement to prevent violence. For many residents, it has become an intrusive presence in spaces that have historically been their homes, fields and community lands. The scale of deployment is significant. According to police accounts reported by Scroll.in, 30 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, alongside three companies of the Assam Police and Arunachal Pradesh Police personnel, were deployed across the affected districts. ThePrint also reported the deployment of additional Rapid Action Force personnel following the violence.

The Centre further rushed two RAF companies to Arunachal Pradesh on October 24. As reported by PTI, approximately 250 personnel were flown out of Navi Mumbai in an Indian Air Force aircraft. For residents who have spent years opposing the project, the sight of such a substantial security deployment has reinforced the perception that the government is attempting to facilitate the survey through force rather than consent.

The situation has also taken a deeply troubling turn with the arrests of activist and lawyer Ebo Mili and youth leader Otul Jerang. Both surrendered at Pasighat police station on October 24, reportedly to condemn the violence and appeal for restraint among young protesters. They subsequently began hunger strikes while in police custody. According to Down To Earth, Mili continued his hunger strike in custody, while Jerang ended his fast after his health deteriorated. Jerang, who has pre-existing health conditions and requires prescribed medication, had reportedly been fasting since October 25.

Their detention and the hunger strikes underline the extent to which the confrontation has moved beyond the immediate question of the dam. The release of detainees, withdrawal of police cases and removal of additional security personnel have become central demands of the movement. The protesters are not simply demanding that the government abandon the project. They are also demanding that the state stop treating opposition to it as a law-and-order problem.

Journalist Tongam Rina brought into police investigation

The crackdown has also raised serious concerns about the independence of the press and the ability of journalists to report on a movement that has become politically sensitive. The inclusion of senior journalist Tongam Rina in a police application seeking search warrants is particularly disturbing. Rina, Deputy Editor of The Arunachal Times, was among four people named in an application submitted by the investigating officer of Pasighat Police Station before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of East Siang on October 27. The application, filed under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, sought permission to search the residences of Rina, advocate Sunny Tayeng, activist Otul Jerang and Tajong Talom.

The police sought permission to seize clothing allegedly worn during the violence, mobile phones, digital devices containing photographs or videos and other materials considered relevant to the investigation. According to the application, these materials could help establish individual roles, reconstruct the sequence of events and corroborate witness statements. The court’s decision on the application was not immediately available. The question, however, is why a journalist known for reporting on governance, indigenous rights and environmental issues has been included in an investigation into the violence.

There has been no publicly established evidence in the material available linking Rina’s journalistic work to the alleged offences. The inclusion of her name in a search-warrant application therefore warrants immediate scrutiny, particularly when the investigation concerns protests on an issue of significant public interest.

Arunachal Pradesh police applies for search warrants against one of state’s most respected journalists, Tongam Rina, associate editor @arunachaltimes_ and lawyer Sunny Tayeng who represents environmental activists Ebo Milli, Otul Jerang and Tajong Talom.

#SiangUpperMultipurposeProject #Siang

— Nitin Sethi (@nit_set) October 29, 2026

The Arunachal Pradesh Union of Working Journalists (APUWJ) and the Arunachal Press Club (APC) strongly condemned the move, warning that it could amount to an attempt to intimidate the press and misuse investigative powers. The organisations made it clear that reporting on protests cannot itself be treated as criminal conduct. While condemning the violence and destruction in Pasighat, they insisted that investigations must remain evidence-based and must not become instruments to suppress critical reporting.

The complete statement may be read here.

The Arunachal Publishers and Broadcasters Guild (APBG) also expressed serious concern, calling upon the police and state government to ensure that any investigation involving a journalist is conducted with transparency and appropriate safeguards. The Guild emphasised that a journalist’s professional responsibilities cannot, by themselves, become grounds for suspicion or punitive action. It also raised concerns about the protection of confidential sources, unpublished reporting and journalistic material during searches.

 The complete statement may be read here.

The implications extend beyond Rina. If journalists reporting on an agitation can be drawn into criminal investigations without clearly established grounds being made public, the message to the rest of the media is unmistakable: reporting on state action, questioning official narratives or documenting the experiences of protesters may expose journalists to investigative scrutiny.

Frontline also reported allegations by young protesters and local journalists that social media accounts had been restricted or suspended while they were sharing information about the agitation. Some young people claimed that their content remained visible outside India but was inaccessible within the country. These allegations require independent verification, but they add to the concerns about the shrinking space available for reporting and communication.

In a conflict where residents allege intimidation, arbitrary detention and restrictions on movement, independent journalism becomes especially important. It is journalists who document the ground situation, question official accounts and ensure that the experiences of affected communities do not disappear behind government statements and police briefings. Targeting or intimidating journalists at such a moment risk depriving the public of precisely the information it needs to assess the government’s actions.

From Siang to Itanagar, resistance refuses to retreat

The government’s increasingly coercive response has not contained the movement. Instead, the agitation has acquired a wider political and social character. On October 29, members of several youth and social organisations gathered at Indira Gandhi Park in Itanagar for a solidarity rally in support of the Adi community and those opposing the proposed SUMP.

A #solidarityrally for the people of #Siang is underway in #Itanagar, with organisers calling for the #protection of rivers, land, Indigenous identity, and the rights of local communities. The #SiangValley has been the scene of violent confrontations because the state has militarised the area to conduct a pre-feasibility study for the #SiangUpperMultipurposeProject, which the Adi Indigenous communities strongly oppose. VC: Tazael

— The Arunachal Times (@arunachaltimes_) October 29, 2026

Locals today took out a massive protest march in Arunachal Pradesh’s state capital Itanagar against the alleged detention and arrests of activists demonstrating against the proposed SUMP dam project over the Siang river. @thewire_in https://t.co/BDzwvvjnf1

— Deep Mukherjee (@manwithaquill) October 29, 2026

As reported by The Hindu, the demonstrators demanded the release of detained protesters, withdrawal of security personnel from the affected region and scrapping of the proposed project. They raised concerns about the protection of ancestral land, rivers, indigenous identity and fundamental rights.

The mobilisation was significant because the opposition was no longer limited to villages directly affected by the proposed reservoir. The movement had travelled to the state capital, drawing support from organisations and citizens who view the government’s response as a broader question of democratic rights. Protesters insisted that they were not opposed to development but rejected the idea that the government could impose a project with potentially devastating consequences on indigenous communities without their meaningful participation.

One representative of the affected communities told The Hindu that they were fighting for their land, culture, fundamental rights and existence, but were being treated like second-class citizens. The solidarity rally also demanded the withdrawal of security personnel deployed to facilitate the PFR surveys. The protesters argued that the state was attempting to conduct preliminary studies by militarising the region.

Protests in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh today against the Upper Siang Dam and the state govt’s militarisation of the area. https://t.co/u9Ta1u3vB2

— Nitin Sethi (@nit_set) October 29, 2026

The Arunachal Christian Forum has also appealed to Chief Minister Pema Khandu to initiate meaningful dialogue with the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum and other concerned stakeholders. Along with the Arunachal Indigenous Tribes Forum, it has offered to facilitate discussions between the government and the protesting organisations.

The spread of the movement is also evident in the opposition to the proposed 1,605-MW Subansiri Upper Hydroelectric Project, popularly known as the Menga Dam, in Upper Subansiri district. On October 26, a 12-hour shutdown called by student and community organisations led to the cancellation of a public hearing. Violence was also reported from Daporijo and other areas, according to The Hindu.

The widening protests suggest that the conflict is no longer being viewed solely as a dispute over one hydropower project. It is increasingly about how decisions concerning land, natural resources and indigenous communities are being made, and whether those communities can meaningfully challenge the state without facing the threat of criminalisation.

The politics of fear is meeting its limits

Perhaps the most significant development in the Siang movement is that the growing threat of state action has not produced the silence that the security-heavy response might have been expected to create. There is no denying that the crackdown has generated fear. Young protesters have reportedly changed their phone numbers, become reluctant to appear on camera, restricted their online activity and avoided returning home because they fear arrest. Some have allegedly faced repeated FIRs, while others have questioned whether they can continue their daily lives without being monitored.

Yet the protests continue.

From road blockades in Komkar and Geku to solidarity demonstrations in Itanagar, the movement has continued to find new forms of expression. The arrest of activists has not ended the mobilisation. The detention of young people has not extinguished opposition. The deployment of additional security forces has not convinced residents to abandon their demands.

This resistance is particularly significant in a region where the relationship between land, identity and community is inseparable. For the people opposing the dam, the threat is not limited to the loss of individual homes or agricultural holdings. It is the possible destruction of an entire cultural and ecological landscape.

The message emerging from the villages is that the fear of illegal or arbitrary state action cannot be allowed to become a substitute for consent. The possibility of arrest cannot determine whether people are entitled to question a government project. Nor can the invocation of national security automatically render every objection suspect.

A democratic government cannot demand that citizens demonstrate their patriotism by remaining silent about decisions that threaten their homes and livelihoods. Indigenous communities do not cease to be citizens when their concerns conflict with the state’s infrastructure or strategic priorities. Their rights cannot become conditional upon their willingness to accept a project.

The government has repeatedly invoked the importance of the SUMP in countering China’s upstream hydropower ambitions. But national security cannot be understood exclusively through infrastructure and strategic competition. It must also account for the security of people living in border regions, their livelihoods, their cultural continuity and their confidence that the state will protect rather than intimidate them. A government that seeks to strengthen India’s position along its international borders cannot afford to alienate the very communities whose lives and lands sustain those regions.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu has expressed concern over the violence and offered to hold discussions with protesting groups. He has also stated that the project would proceed only with public consent. Such assurances, however, must translate into a credible process in which affected communities can question the project, access independent information, examine its environmental and social consequences and participate in decisions without coercion.

Dialogue cannot be meaningful when one side is negotiating under the threat of detention, criminal cases and a heavy security presence. Nor can consent be considered genuine when villagers remain uncertain about the documents they have signed, the purpose of the surveys or the implications of the project.

Related:

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

The post Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance appeared first on SabrangIndia.