The report identifies the reported disappearance and killing of journalist Mukesh Chandrakar in Bastar in early January as emblematic of the dangers faced by those who speak truth to power. Chandrakar had reported on poor-quality road construction in the region shortly before he went missing; his body was later found in a septic tank. The FSC notes that this incident set the tone for a year in which nine people were killed for exercising their right to free speech, including eight journalists and one social media influencer. It underscores that violence against journalists—particularly those working in rural and semi-urban districts—remains one of the most visible and brutal forms of silencing.

Journalists as primary targets

The FSC report records 40 attacks on free speech actors in 2025, of which 33 targeted journalists. It notes that reporters covering local corruption, illegal mining, liquor mafias, and administrative failures were especially vulnerable. In several cases, the police initially attempted to attribute killings or deaths to personal disputes, accidents, or intoxication, even when the journalists had recently published sensitive stories. The report highlights the case of Uttarakhand-based YouTuber Rajeev Pratap, whose body was recovered from the Bhagirathi, river days after he aired a video exposing liquor consumption inside a local hospital. Despite colleagues raising serious doubts, police claimed he had driven into the river while drunk.

The FSC further draws attention to the continued incarceration of journalists Irfan Mehraj and Rupesh Kumar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, noting that their prolonged detention without trial exemplifies the use of counter-terror laws to suppress journalism. Threats and harassment accompanied physical violence: at least 14 of 19 harassment incidents and 12 of 17 recorded threats were directed at journalists engaged in professional work. The report cites, as illustrative, a threat by TDP MLA Gummanur Jayaram to force journalists “to sleep on railway tracks” if they published allegedly false information about him.

The return of sedition and criminal lawfare

One of the most troubling findings of the report is the resurgence of sedition prosecutions, despite repeated assurances that colonial-era speech offences had been rendered obsolete under the new criminal codes. The FSC documents multiple sedition cases filed in 2025 against satirists, journalists, and political commentators for online posts questioning state action.

The report details how satirists Neha Singh Rathore, Madri Kakoti (Dr Medusa), and Shamita Yadav (Ranting Gola) were charged with sedition for social media commentary following the Pahalgam attack. It flags the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of Rathore’s anticipatory bail as a significant departure from earlier judicial reluctance to allow sedition prosecutions for speech. The FSC also records the filing of sedition FIRs by Assam police against the leadership and columnists of The Wire, including founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and consulting editor Karan Thapar, as well as against journalist Abhisar Sarma for a YouTube programme that relied on publicly available judicial observations.

According to the report, these cases exemplify “lawfare”—the strategic use of criminal law not necessarily to secure convictions, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critical voices through prolonged legal processes.

Mass censorship and platform control

The largest category of violations documented by the FSC in 2025 relates to censorship and internet control, with 11,385 instances recorded. The report highlights mass government takedown requests to social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter). In May and July 2025 alone, over 10,000 accounts were withheld in India. Citing X’s submissions before the Karnataka High Court, the report notes that the platform received 29,118 takedown requests from the Indian government between January and June 2025 and complied with the overwhelming majority of them.

The FSC identifies the Sahyog portal as a key institutional mechanism enabling decentralised censorship by allowing state agencies, district officials, and local police to issue takedown notices directly to platforms. Following the Pahalgam attack, numerous accounts belonging to journalists, news organisations, and international media outlets—including The Wire, Maktoob Media, Reuters, and many senior journalists—were withheld without public disclosure of reasons. The report notes that the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog portal effectively legitimised large-scale, opaque censorship of online speech.

The ‘Hidden Hand’: Self-censorship and corporate influence

Beyond formal orders, the FSC report devotes significant attention to what it terms the “hidden hand” of censorship: informal pressures, verbal directives, and institutional intimidation that rarely leave a documentary trail. The report cites instances of journalists receiving “friendly calls,” media houses quietly dropping stories, and investigative platforms being financially crippled through regulatory action, such as the revocation of The Reporter’s Collective’s tax-exempt status.

Corporate power, the report notes, increasingly intersected with state censorship. It documents the September 2025 ex-parte injunction obtained by Adani Enterprises leading to the takedown of over 200 pieces of online content critical of the company, as well as sustained attempts to suppress reporting on the Vantara wildlife project linked to Reliance Industries. Even where courts later set aside gag orders, the report observes that the chilling effect on media coverage persisted.

Academia, cinema, and the right to think

The FSC records at least 16 serious instances of censorship in academia, including the cancellation of conferences, denial of permissions, deportation of visiting scholars, and the revocation of OCI status of academics critical of the government. In Kashmir, the report notes, authorities banned 25 books on the region’s history and politics and raided bookstores.

In cinema, the report documents excessive cuts, prolonged certification delays, and outright denial of certification to films addressing caste violence, state abuse, or social injustice. It notes that even internationally acclaimed films and centenary classics were barred from screening, underscoring how certification had become a tool of prior restraint rather than classification.

An uneven judicial response

While acknowledging some notable judicial interventions in favour of free speech, the FSC concludes that the judiciary’s overall response in 2025 was inconsistent. The report contrasts strong Supreme Court observations protecting poetry, satire, and art with orders that imposed gag conditions, endorsed expansive censorship mechanisms, or demanded apologies from artists. This inconsistency, the report argues, has failed to provide a stable constitutional shield for free expression.

A shrinking democratic space

In its concluding assessment, the Free Speech Collective warns that the cumulative impact of violence, lawfare, mass censorship, corporate pressure, and regulatory overreach has fundamentally altered the conditions under which speech is exercised in India. The report cautions that free expression has not been extinguished outright, but increasingly conditioned, surveilled, and constrained, creating a climate in which self-censorship becomes a rational act of survival.

As the report starkly concludes, the “hidden hand” shaping India’s speech landscape in 2025 is no longer subtle—it has become structural.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:                                                            

The ‘Shastra Poojan’ Project: How the ritual of weapon worship is being recast as a tool of power and hate propaganda

MP, Odisha, Delhi, Rajasthan: Right-wing outfits barge into 2 churches ahead of Christmas, attack vendors selling X’mas goodies, tensions run high

No right to live, or die: Christians in Chhattisgarh, and India under attack

Kerala: Protests erupt after RSS-BJP man’s alleged attack on children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad

‘Brutal intimidation of Christians’ all India condemned: Bombay Catholic Sabha

The post Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We bring you the exclusive transcript of the latest episode of “Cross Bat,” the high-octane, metaphor heavy talk show hosted by the ever ebullient Balancedeep Sabchangasi. Known for his penchant for framing national crises through the nostalgic lens of 1970s Bollywood melodies and the technical nuances of a late-cut at Eden Gardens, Balancedeep attempts to find “balance” even when the pitch is clearly crumbling.

His guest is none other than Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala, a man who exemplifies the delightful charm of a bygone era. A veteran carpenter and restorer of vintage teak and rosewood, Cyrus operates from the old money enclave of Colaba. However, he is perhaps better known for his missives to the highest echelons of power, penned with the elegant precision of an antique dealer and the sharp wit of a seasoned observer. Cyrus represents the Model Citizen of the Amrit Kaal. He is a man who claims to be most law-abiding citizen, while using a strategic “naïve” voice to dissect the shenanigans of our times.

In this exchange, the duo tackles the controversial new MGNREGA Bill. The proposed legislation seeks to fundamentally transform rural employment by repealing the historic 2005 Act and replacing the legal right to work with a supply-driven, centrally capped model. This new framework shifts a significant 40% of the material funding burden to state governments and introduces mandatory 60 day work pauses during agricultural seasons, potentially curtailing the scheme’s responsiveness to local distress. Perhaps most symbolically, the bill removes the “Mahatma Gandhi” prefix from the program’s title, signalling a substantive ideological shift in India’s social safety net.

Cyrus, in his signature style, defends the government’s overhaul of the rural employment guarantee^, discussing key aspects such as democratic checks and socioeconomic security. ^.

The Transcript: Cross Bat with Balancedeep Sabchangasi

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: Welcome to Cross Bat! Today, we’re looking at the new MGNREGA Bill. Is it a masterstroke, a ‘Helicopter Shot’ over the boundary, or are we witnessing a hit wicket for rural India? To help us navigate this, we have the legendary restorer of both furniture and public discourse, Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala. Cyrus, the government says extreme poverty has fallen faster than a wicket on a green top pitch. Yet, they’ve extended free food grains to 800 million people under PMGKAY until 2028. Is this a classic Bollywood double role, or a contradiction that even Kishore Kumar couldn’t harmonize?

Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala: Balancedeep, may I call you BS? You approach the subject with the frantic energy of a bowler in the final over. Please, decelerate. In the hallowed halls of governance, this is not a contradiction. This is Strategic Surplus. You see, the world should see that the house is sturdy to maintain the shining veneer. Yet we keep the pantry stocked with 800 million bags of grain just in case the floorboards collapse^. It is a “pre-emptive philanthropy” that ensures the masses are sufficiently fed so they do not have the ungrateful urge to demand their “legal right” to work. We are polishing the image of prosperity while acknowledging, in a hushed whisper, that the wood may be a wee bit termite-ridden.  

BS: But Cyrus, let’s talk about the “repair” job. Social audits show that, post Digital reforms, misappropriation of funds is less than 0.3%. That’s a cleaner record than most mid table teams! Why do a complete structural overhaul and repeal the legal right to work when a bit of digital “varnishing” would have sufficed?

Cyrus: My dear boy, a legal right is a very cumbersome piece of furniture. It is like a heavy Victorian wardrobe that refuses to fit into a modern, streamlined apartment. It is unwieldy. By repealing the right and shifting to a centrally capped model, the government is merely practicing administrative minimalism. We are de-sanctifying the labour of the commoner. Why should the state be legally bound to provide work when it can simply offer normative allocations based on the prevailing mood in the capital? It’s about flexibility! Should the timber refuse to align with the Amrit Kaal décor, the state can simply withhold the varnish of central allocation.

BS: Flexibility? Studies show no widespread farm labour shortages, yet the bill introduces mandatory 60 day pauses during harvest seasons. Isn’t this like telling a batsman he can’t score during the Powerplay? You’re depriving workers of income exactly when they’re most vulnerable.

Cyrus: It is a rhythmic intermission. We must ensure the rural folk do not become addicted to the stability of a government wage. It spoils the entrepreneurial spirit of the impoverished! By forcing a pause, we encourage them to explore the “free market” of private exploitation, err, I mean, private enterprise. It is a lesson in character building. If they cannot find work in the fields, they can always practice coloured spit accuracy while chewing paan or while their time near garbage piles, which, as I have hitherto suggested, are the new benchmarks for a simplified citizenship.

BS: Let’s talk about the funding. The 60:40 split is a heavy bouncer for states like Punjab or Tamil Nadu. If a state is fiscally strained and can’t meet its 40% share, the workers suffer. Did the government model this risk, or is this “trickle-up” economics where the states are left to fend for themselves?

Cyrus: It is Fiscal Darwinism, BS. We are fostering a healthy competition in destitution. If a state cannot afford its share of the material costs, it simply proves that its administration lacks the visionary zeal of the centre. The Union Budget remains stagnant at ₹86,000 crore, while dues exceed ₹21,000 crore. This is a masterclass in aspirational accounting. We promise the glory of Amrit Kaal while ensuring the material reality is as thin as a cheap plywood veneer. It’s about the feeling of employment, not the actual payment.

BS: But what about the consultation, Cyrus? The original bill was debated for a year with unions and civil society. This one was passed in a midnight session amidst a walkout, debated for barely a few hours. Is this thorough scrutiny or a quick single taken while the wicketkeeper wasn’t looking?

Cyrus: Consultation is such a “pre-digital” concept. Why consult the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha or Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan when their views might cause a cognitive dissonance with the government’s perfect plan? Consulting a worker about a labour bill is like asking the rosewood if it wants to be chiselled. The wood has no macro-perspective. The carpenter knows best! Passing it after midnight is a stroke of nocturnal genius. It ensures that only the most law-abiding and awake citizens are present to witness the unanimous voice vote.

BS: Cyrus, opposition members have suggested looking at Brazil’s Bolsa Família, Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net, or similar schemes in Mexico and South Africa to mitigate concerns. Could we not have learned from these global best practices to build a more robust, less controversial bill?

Cyrus: Brazil? Ethiopia? My dear BS, those are foreign timbers. We are building an Atmanirbhar cabinet here. Why look at a South African model that might favour equity or transparency when we can have a uniquely Indian model of opaque benevolence? To learn from others is to admit that our unparalleled wisdom has a limit. We don’t need best practices from abroad. We have kick-ass creativity at home! Besides, international schemes often involve accountability, which is a very difficult stain to remove once it sets into the wood.

BS: Speaking of accountability, there were no time-bound, measurable goals added. No specific targets for poverty reduction or narrowing the inequality gap. Isn’t a bill without a deadline just a dead rubber match?

Cyrus: A time-bound goal is a trap for the unwary! If you set a goal, people expect you to reach it. That is very un-Sanskari! By keeping the goals vague and the rhetoric high, we maintain a permanent state of “becoming.” We are always about to reduce inequality. We are always on the verge of ending poverty. It keeps the privileged class, of which I am a senior member, in a state of comfortable anticipation while the “trickle-up” continues to the penthouse. Why have a poverty reduction target when you can have a glory expansion target? It also makes the Supreme Leader’s role easier.

BS: Finally, the name. Mahatma Gandhi’s name has been dropped. No discussion. Just a “symbolic” exit. Is this a substantive reform or an ideological renovation?

Cyrus: The Mahatma, with his spinning wheel and his truth, was a bit too austere for the high-gloss finish of the modern era. We needed something that reflects the supply-driven reality of our times. In fact, I have drafted a proposal for a new, more fitting acronym for the scheme: S.C.R.A.P.

BS: SCRAP?

Cyrus: Indeed! The “Strategic Centrally Restricted Allocation Program.” It is honest. It is efficient. And it tells the rural poor exactly what the government thinks of their legal rights, that they are bits of old wood to be scrapped and replaced with the shiny, hollow plastic of modern governance.

BS: Cyrus, as always, you’ve left us with much to polish in our minds. Whether this bill is a century or a duck remains to be seen, but the craftsmanship is certainly unique.

Cyrus: Just remember, BS, that in the Amrit Kaal, if you can’t fix the rot, you simply apply a thicker coat of varnish and call it an “antique”!

Balancedeep Sabchangasi: As we wrap up this intense session of Cross Bat, I find myself feeling like a batsman who’s survived a fiery spell from a vintage pacer like Malcolm Marshall. I feel bruised, bewildered, but certainly enlightened. What have we learned today from the inimitable Cyrus Behramji Puranafurniturewala? Is this the Amrit Kaal renovation of our rural safety net? Is it a complete structural overhaul that replaces legal rights with central discretion?  Is just the surface being polished to a high gloss finish? Is the underlying grain of security for the most vulnerable being shimmied down to nothing^? Is the 60:40 funding split a Fiscal Darwinism? How does one view the nocturnal efficiency of a midnight voice vote? Is the craftsmanship of this bill a sophisticated exercise in rhetorical engineering?

As the haunting notes of “Zindagi Kaisi Hai Paheli” echo in the background, I ask you, our audience: Is this new S.C.R.A.P. model a visionary leap toward efficiency, or are we simply applying a thick coat of varnish over a deepening crisis? Is accountability such difficult stain to remove? We want to hear your views. Please send us your feedback via our digital channels.

Don’t forget to support Cross Bat. Like a classic Kishore-da melody, we strive to hit the right notes, even when the lyrics are difficult. Stay balanced, stay questioning, and we’ll see you at the next delivery.

 (A regular contributor to SabrangIndia, the writer is a conscientious citizen and a man of science and letters)

Related:

The Cross Bat Conversation: Air, antiques and force majeure

The Nation needs an Ethanol Republic – A Satire

A Satirical Imperative Request (SIR) to the CEC of India

Cyrus Seeks a Right to Multiple Voter Ids

A Satirical Plea, Dripping with Envy, to President Xi Jinping of China

The post Out with MNREGA: Hitting the Poor for a Six appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This questionable decision was made during a meeting of the Chaudhary community held last Sunday in Gazipur village, Jalore district, chaired by Sujnaram Chaudhary, the president of the 14 pattis (subdivisions). The meeting was chaired by community president Sujanaram Chaudhary, with elders deliberating on mobile phone usage within families. The resolution was formally read out by Panch Himmataram and proposed by Devaram Karnol, community members said. The controversial “ban”, it is reported, will be enforced in villages including Gajipura, Pavli, Kalra, Manojia Vas, Rajikawas, Datlawas, Rajpura, Kodi, Sidrodi, Alri, Ropsi, Khanadeval, Savidhar, Hathmi ki Dhani of Bhinmal, and Khanpur, all of which fall within the Patti region of Jalore district.

It was while speaking to PTI, that Chaudhary said that Panch Himmtaram announced the decision. According to Himmtaram, after discussions among panch members and community members, it was decided that daughters-in-law and young women would exclusively use keypad phones for calling.

Besides this, school-going girls who need mobile phones for their studies may use them only at home. They are not allowed to take mobile phones to weddings, social events, or even to a neighbour’s house, Chaudhary further explained, Chaudhary mentioned further. No restrictions have been reportedly placed on boys going to school, however!

When he was questioned on the opposition regarding the panchayat’s decision, Chaudhary clarified that this measure was taken because children often use the mobile phones of women in their households, which may negatively affect their eyesight. He noted that some women give their phones to children to keep them distracted, allowing them to focus on their daily chores.

The New Indian Express reported how Jalore has witnessed similar controversial community diktats in the past. Last year, 2024, local elders ordered the social boycott of two families after a young couple entered into a love marriage, imposing a fine of ₹12 lakh for their re-entry into the community. The couple later approached the Bhinmal police, following which police intervened and facilitated a compromise with most elders, though a few continued to justify the boycott.

June 2025, Caste panchayat enforces social boycott of 55 families in Jalore

In another similar incident in June, a caste panchayat in Jalore announced a social boycott of 55 families over a long-standing dispute related to temple land between two factions of the same extended family. The diktat barred community members from attending weddings, social functions, and even funerals of the affected families. The panchayat also warned that anyone who raised objections would face excommunication and monetary penalties. A complaint in connection with the matter was subsequently lodged at the Bagra police station.

Related:

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

A right half won, evolution of women’s right to property under the Hindu Succession Act

Women, married or unmarried have the right to safe & legal abortion: SC

The post Rajasthan panchayat in Jalore district bans camera phones for daughters-in-law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Let there be Christmas to help us realise that Joseph together with his young, pregnant wife had to trudge a long distance to get themselves registered in Bethlehem due to a Roman decree by Caesar Augustus, which required everyone to return to their ancestral hometown for a census to account for taxation and lineage. Joseph was of King David’s line, so he had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (David’s city) with Mary. We live in a similar reality today in India: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) has disenfranchised innumerable citizens who belong to the minority communities and to the poorer sections of society. With Census 2027 on the threshold, the reality for the entire country will perhaps become even worse! So let there be Christmas which does not disenfranchise anyone!

Let there be Christmas when we humbly learn to accept that Joseph and Mary are migrants, who come from a different part of the country; they are kept out on the streets, very strongly told that “there is no place in the inn.” Later, with Jesus, they become refugees. Scripture tells us, “An angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to seek the child to destroy him.” Like so many today, the Holy Family of Nazareth becomes refugees overnight. The land that will provide them refuge and protect them, is Egypt – a pagan country. So let there be Christmas when we will accept and integrate migrants and refugees in our lives and treat them as family!

Let there be Christmas which makes us focus on the stable, the manger, the crib. The place Jesus is born! He is the Son of God! The Saviour of all mankind. He could have chosen a palace as his birthplace with its wealth and pomp, comfort and security. But Jesus choses the poverty and frugality of a stable: with its stench and squalour, the straw and swaddling clothes, the moos and the warmth of the animals housed there. So let there be Christmas which leads us to the frugal and simple, the poor and vulnerable of this world

Let there be Christmas so that we identify with the shepherds! They live in the rugged hills. They are simple, unlettered, marginalized folk, a minority community; their expertise was in tending sheep. Their life was difficult: with long nights spent in the open, biting cold. They are like our rural poor who are today deprived of the benefits of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). When the shepherds were given the “good news” of the birth of the Saviour they leave their sheep behind (their attachments) and ran in haste to worship him; their priorities are very clear: they had to be the first witnesses to the herald of the angels! So let there be Christmas for us to reach out to the excluded, the exploited, the minorities, those who live on the peripheries, the ‘others’, the ones who are denigrated and demonised, who are treated as ‘untouchables’!

Let there be Christmas when we are attune to the song of the angels and make it our own! It is not ‘Vande Mataram’ but “Glory to God in the highest and peace to all men and women of goodwill!”  A song of peace, a song which is inclusive and belongs to all!! It transcends narrowness and pettiness; xenophobia and jingoism; arrogance and divisiveness. So let there be Christmas when we live the song and   communicate its spirit to others and ultimately ensure that is peace is a reality in the lives of all people.

Let there be Christmas when we learn the openness and the persistence of the Magi. They lived in a distant land. They possessed wisdom and wealth. However, they had a singular mission in life: a relentless search for the truth and for the Messiah that would epitomise that truth. These were men who studied the ancient manuscripts. They were no pushovers; they knew their stuff. They go out of their way, find Jesus and give him of their best! They realise that having found the truth they have to take a stand for justice. They go back home by ‘another way’ thwarting the evil designs of a ruthless, jealous, fascist ruler. So let there be Christmas, when we are not afraid to seek truth and stand up for what is right.

Let there be Christmas to look for the Star. The Star which guided the Magi and which needs to guide us, always, particularly in this Jubilee Year, when we are called to be pilgrims of hope. That star is a lodestar that guides us when we are lost, when we are caught in the pitfalls of life (like the wiles of a dictator). If we are open to its directions, it will give us endless and relevant possibilities, to take a different path and to stand against the power of evil and injustice in this world. So let there be Christmas which gives us the prophetic courage to dream the impossible dream and to reach for the unreachable star!

Let there be Christmas when we search for what is right, what is just, what is holy! Like the ‘Anawim’ a broken people, who waited in patience and hope, searching for the Messiah; someone who would liberate them from their suffering, from the shackles of bondage.  Mary who sings the ‘Magnificat’; everyone respects her; no one dares pull out her ‘hijab’!  The relentless search of a people for truth, light and for a new tomorrow! It is a search by so many people for a meaning and fulfilment in life, that will have no end! So let there be Christmas when we awake to a new dawn, and bring hope to our brutal, broken world!

Let there be Christmas that gives us the honesty and authenticity, to live against the stream however difficult it is. Material celebration of a festival certainly has a place. But ‘Christmas has been relegated to vulgar materialism, crass commercialisation, unbridled consumerism, blatant hedonism, dancing and merriment, overeating and drinking, the vulgar display of opulence and wanton waste. All this throttles the real spirit and meaning of this festival! We must say an emphatic “NO” to all this. Besides, Christmas is today equated with Santa Claus and Christmas Trees, reindeers, sleighs and snow, with splurging, shopping and extravagance, with tinsels and baubles, mistletoes and holly wreaths. None of these, we all know, have anything to do with the birth of Jesus. Powerful, commercial and other vested interests have meticulously and manipulatively taken Jesus out from Christmas. Sadly, many, have succumbed to this trickery! So let there be Christmas when we truly celebrate the birth of Jesus!

When God our Creator, created the world, the Holy Bible tells us he said “Let there be Light…sky, water, earth, fish, animals….” He finally created man (Adam and Eve). Looking from above, he tells each one of us today, “Let there be Christmas!”

Are we listening?

19 December 2025

(The author is an internationally renowned human rights, reconciliation & peace activist and writer.)

The post “Let there be CHRISTMAS…”! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

December 13, 2025 also marks two decades (twenty years) of the passage of this historic law that was enacted after nearly a decade or more campaign by forest rights’ and Adivasi groups across the country. On this occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the Forest Rights Act, national campaign coordination organisations (like NRCCJ) have extended extend our heartfelt appreciation to all those, including, parliamentarians, intellectuals, and organisations whose collective efforts made this landmark legislation possible. The Act stands as a historic step to redress past injustices and to democratize forest governance and management, ensuring dignity, rights, and justice for forest-dwelling communities.

The FRA 2006 formally came into force on December 31, 2007, but initially excluded Jammu & Kashmir. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the Act was extended to the Union Territory on October 31, 2019 through the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019. Formal implementation began in September 2021, and the State Forest Department was designated as the nodal agency. While the extension of the Act was welcomed by local groups and intellectuals, concerns were raised about entrusting implementation to the Forest Department, given its questionable historical role in restricting customary and traditional rights of forest dwellers.

Union of India’s contradictory stances over two decades

To recall these contradictory pulls, when the Government of India was drafting legislation to recognise tribal forest rights, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change made several attempts to be the nodal ministry. However, the Campaign for Survival and Dignity—a coalition of tribal groups and intellectuals—strongly opposed this, arguing that a ministry associated with past injustices should not oversee the Act. Their advocacy led to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) being designated as the nodal ministry in 2006, through amendments to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961.

Despite this, in many states and UTs, Forest Departments continued to act as shadow nodal agencies. The consequences have been stark:

• Out of 4.79 million Individual Forest Rights (IFR) claims, 1.47 million were rejected.
• For Community Forest Rights (CFR), the rejection rate stands at 9.56%, with states like Uttarakhand and West Bengal recording rejection rates above 90%.
• In states/UTs including Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, more than 50% of IFR claims have been rejected.

These figures highlight how the lack of awareness has enabled Forest Departments to dismiss or dilute claims, undermining the spirit of the Act.

In this context on the twenty years anniversary of this historic law, these steps by administration’s like Jammu and Kashmir (J and K) remain significant.

The Notification by the J and K administration may be read here

Letter dated December 3, 2025 by AIUWFP to District Magistrate Ms.Indu Kanwal Chib, District Bandipora J&K regarding the Implementation of Forest Rights Act in District Bandipora J&K may be read here. (https://dipr.jk.gov.in/Prnv?n=21737)

Related:

AIUFWP helps Dudhi villagers file Forest Land Claims under FRA

Forest Land Claims filed in Chitrakoot: AIUFWP and CJP make history!

Struggle for Forest Rights in India stretches from East to West

The post 20 years of FRA 2006, J and K appoints Tribal Ministry as Nodal agency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the minister, between 2022-23 and 2024-25, Pune, Mumbai, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Nagpur, Amravati, Akola and Yavatmal districts collectively reported 14,526 child deaths. This high figure includes infants and children under five admitted to government facilities, as well as cases of severe malnutrition. The minister also said that 138 infant deaths have been recorded in the tribal-dominated Palghar district. Palghar has always been high on hunger, deprivation and infant mortality figures.

Speaking in the assembly in response to a question and citing from the state health department’s data as of November 2025, Abitkar said 203 children were identified as suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) and 2,666 from Moderate Acute Malnutrition. The proportion of underweight children was recorded at 0.23 per cent, while 1.48 per cent fell in the moderately underweight category.

The minister also referred to the Sample Registration System 2022, released by the Registrar General of India, which estimated Maharashtra’s neonatal mortality rate at 11 per 1,000 live births, lower than the national average of 23. In defence, Abitkar said the state government has adopted multiple measures under the Integrated Child Development Services programme to reduce malnutrition. These include regular health examinations, the Dr A P J Abdul Kalam Amrut Aahar Yojana for pregnant women, targeted interventions for SAM children, the Nutrition Campaign, the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana and the ‘Suposhit Maharashtra’ initiative.

(This is based on a report by PTI)

Related:

India ranks first in child deaths under 5 years of age: UNICEF report

5% rise in infant and child deaths in Mumbai

BRD hospital records 433 child deaths in a month. Should Kerala still follow UP?

The post Maharashtra: Seven districts saw 14,526 child deaths in three years says Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Gandhian to the core, an uncompromising anti-liquor campaigner, a spellbinding orator and Principal of Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram, Manmathan was a contemporary of Mannath Padmanabhan, the visionary founder of the Nair Service Society which went on to build an empire of educational and medical institutions.

I had the privilege of hearing him once at my alma mater, St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry. He was invited to speak on a subject that was electrifying campuses across the world at that time: students’ unrest. American universities were convulsed by protests against the Vietnam War.

From Berkeley to Columbia, students were questioning imperialism, racism and militarism. Europe, too, was aflame with agitation—Paris 1968 had already entered history as a revolt of ideas as much as of streets.

Prof Manmathan began by extolling the courage and moral seriousness of students in the West.

Then, with his trademark mix of irony and sting, he turned to Kerala. “There, students earn their living to fund their education. They have skin in the game. Here, parents pay the fees, feed the children, clothe them and even buy their bus passes. What stake do they have in the education system? Nothing,” he said.

Then came the coup de grâce: “They enjoy strikes because colleges close and they can sit at home.” For many students, strikes were less about revolution and more about recreation.

Many years later, that long-ago speech came back to me while watching a video clip of S. Gurumurthy, a chartered accountant-turned-ideologue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Ideologically, Gurumurthy stands at the opposite pole from Prof Manmathan’s Gandhism. Yet, in an odd way, they converged on the same sociological truth.

Gurumurthy narrated an anecdote from a lecture he delivered at a prestigious American university. Listening to him, I was reminded of my own long-held view that institutions there recognise talent more readily than we do in India, where caste and community considerations often intrude.

The much-publicised case of Harvard inviting Lalu Prasad Yadav to speak on how his unconventional ideas rescued Indian Railways from financial free-fall comes to mind in this context.

Then came Gurumurthy’s experiment. He asked all the students in the audience to raise their hands if their education was fully funded by their parents.

Without exception, every Indian student raised a hand.

Then he asked who among them had taken bank loans to finance their education. Every American hand went up—black and white, men and women alike. That, he said, revealed who had real stakes in their education.

Listening to Gurumurthy, I was reminded instantly of Prof Manmathan’s cutting question: what real right did Indian students have to speak of “students’ unrest” when so many of them had no financial stake in their education or in the system that sustained it?

When Neighbouring Nations Rise — and India Doesn’t

Recently, The Economist carried an article that asked a troubling question: why are young men and women in India so curiously unmoved by political and social upheavals that would have set generations elsewhere on fire? The magazine contrasted India’s political quietism with the turbulence in its immediate neighbourhood.

Take Nepal. For years, the country had suffered under a political class steeped in corruption and cynicism. Public institutions withered while politicians bickered and bargained. When students took to the streets against corruption and misgovernance, it was not mere tokenism. Campuses became nerve centres of resistance. The agitations were sustained, creative and relentless.

The protests snowballed into a wider public movement. The government, cornered by the moral authority of the youth and the pressure of the streets, was finally forced to step down.

Young Nepalis discovered something transformative—that protest could actually produce political change. They were not merely shouting into the void.

Sri Lanka offers another powerful example. For decades, an oligarchy ruled the island nation, entrenching itself through corruption, nepotism and economic mismanagement. By 2022, the economy had collapsed, fuel and food were scarce, and ordinary citizens were pushed to the brink.

It was the youth who lit the spark. Students, professionals and ordinary citizens poured into the streets.

They occupied public buildings, camped outside official residences and refused to budge. The protests were largely peaceful but unwavering.

The President Gotabaya Rajapaksha was forced to flee the country. Power slipped from the hands of a seemingly invincible ruling elite. Today, Colombo has a new leadership, born out of the anger and aspirations of a mobilised citizenry.

In Bangladesh too—whether one approves of the outcome or not—the youth uprising changed the course of politics.

Students and young citizens protested against what they saw as high-handed governance and shrinking democratic space. The unrest grew in intensity and scale.

The Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was eventually forced to flee the country and seek asylum in India. That this happened at all is testimony to the disruptive power of youth-driven politics in our neighbourhood.

Crises Without Rebellion: India’s Strange Silence

India, meanwhile, has witnessed convulsions far more severe—yet without comparable mass upheaval.

Consider demonetisation. In one stroke, Prime Minister Narendra Modi invalidated high-value currency notes.

The stated objective was to strike at black money and counterfeit currency.

What followed was chaos. The informal economy collapsed overnight. Millions of workers lost their jobs. Small businesses shut shop. Daily-wage earners were reduced to penury.

People stood in serpentine queues outside banks and ATMs to withdraw their own money, only to be told that the cash had run out. Deaths occurred in queues from exhaustion, anxiety and despair.

And yet, there was no nationwide uprising. There was anger, yes; private misery, certainly; public rebellion, hardly.

Then came the pandemic. Without warning, Modi announced an all-India lockdown. The decision may have been justified as a public health emergency, but its execution was brutal in its insensitivity.

Tens of millions of migrant workers lost their jobs overnight.

With no income, no food and no certainty about when the lockdown would end, workers from Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh—dismissed casually as “laggard states”—began walking home from cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Nagpur.

They walked hundreds of kilometres under the scorching sun, with children on their shoulders and belongings on their heads. Many were lathi-charged for violating Covid norms.

Some died on the roads. The images were heart-rending. The suffering was biblical in scale. Yet again, there was no nationwide revolt. No sustained student movement. No paralysing civil disobedience.

At that time, someone remarked to me with chilling resignation: “We are like that. We won’t rebel. We won’t protest.”

There is a crude joke often made about Indians and sex—that they are obsessed with it in private but prudish in public. Perhaps something similar can be said about protest: we complain endlessly in private but submit meekly in public.

The Weight of Fatalism on a Nation’s Conscience

We are, at bottom, a deeply fatalistic people. Fatalism is the belief that everything is preordained, that human will counts for little, that destiny rules supreme. It is a worldview that teaches acceptance rather than resistance, endurance rather than struggle.

The great poet Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer captured this worldview in his celebrated poem Premasangeetham. In one stanza, he surrenders completely to divine choreography:

“Salutations to You, the Giver of my life, Lord of Dance, Supreme Soul!

In this world-stage of humanity, I am but a small part of Your dance troupe.

What role I am to play is Yours to decide, O Lord;

My duty is to dance as You will, with devotion and grace.

Be it as a servant or a player upon the stage.

To portray joy or sorrow, I am here to fulfil Your purpose.

You, the unseen Director, guide my every step like the wind.”

This is fatalism at its most lyrical—and its most paralysing. Man becomes a puppet, God the unseen puppeteer. Responsibility dissolves into resignation.

This worldview is profoundly at odds with the doctrine I believe in. According to the Biblical vision, God created man in His own image.

Man is not a puppet but a moral agent. He is sovereign in the limited sphere granted to him. He can choose the right path or the wrong one. Even Adam and Eve had that choice. History is not just enacted upon humanity; it is shaped by human decisions.

Man has the power to transform his life. Let me illustrate with two small stories from my own life. My wife and I were fond of a boy who used to visit our home to play with our grandson. His father pressed clothes for a living.

My wife offered to support the boy’s education. But the father had other ideas. He wanted his son to fetch clothes, return the ironed garments and collect money. Education was seen as a distraction.

The boy was not encouraged to study. He inherited his father’s trade. Today he earns Rs 5 per piece of clothing he irons. Fate did not destroy his prospects; choices did.

In contrast, when I admitted my elder son to a school in Kayamkulam, one of my neighbours—a barber by profession—admitted his son to the same school. Our children travelled in the same school bus. That boy studied diligently, became an engineer, went to the Gulf and today is far richer than my son. Education transformed his life, just as its denial froze the other boy’s.

Last week, while delivering the Justice P. Subramonian Poti Memorial Lecture at the Kerala Club in New Delhi, Prof S. Sivakumar narrated another telling story.

A rich man was extremely liberal in helping his servants with money for festivals, marriages and childbirths. But he steadfastly refused to support the education of their children. His logic was chilling in its candour: if they got educated, they would no longer work as servants.

Is it any wonder, then, that a small shipload of Portuguese soldiers could capture power in Goa, then ruled by Muslims over a predominantly Hindu population? They were the first Europeans to establish a lasting presence in India. They ruled for over 500 years without facing sustained mass resistance.

How many Mughals came to India initially? A few hundred at most.

Yet they ruled India for nearly 700 years. Under Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire reached its territorial zenith—larger than present-day India. In 1700, India accounted for 25 percent of the world’s GDP. Aurangzeb died peacefully of old age, not at the hands of a revolutionary mob.

Today, Modi’s supporters take pride in the fact that he has ruled for 11 years. In contrast, the British ruled India for about 200 years. The British population in India never exceeded one lakh. Yet they governed a subcontinent of hundreds of millions with astonishing ease.

When Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency, I was in Delhi. There was not even a whimper of protest initially.

Her police rounded up Opposition leaders with ruthless efficiency—Morarji Desai, Jayaprakash Narayan and countless others disappeared into jails.

Civil liberties were suspended. The press was muzzled. And the people accepted it, contrary to later claims of universal resistance.

Today, we encourage poor youth to indulge in rituals rather than reflection. They walk hundreds of kilometres to fetch holy water. Along the way they are fed with food, beverages, fruits and sweets. They also receive intoxicants. Meanwhile, the children of their leaders go abroad for higher studies.

From Opium to Algorithms: A New Age of Distraction

The colonial rulers used opium to keep the Chinese subdued. In India today, there is a new intoxicant: the mobile phone.

Nowhere in the world is the Internet so cheap. Tens of millions are addicted to their screens.

Yesterday, I saw an autorickshaw driver watching video clips on his mobile, neatly fixed at the centre of his steering handle. He seemed almost pleased when the traffic signal turned red—it gave him uninterrupted viewing time.

Algorithms work with perverse efficiency: if you watch nonsense, you are rewarded with an endless torrent of more nonsense.

Hands chained to mobile phones, symbolising digital addiction and how smartphones control modern life.

Smartphones have become the new chains—an addiction more potent than opium.

Grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, servants, drivers, cleaners, workers—each is sealed inside a personalised digital cocoon, scrolling in splendid isolation.

How can people hypnotised by viral trivia be bothered about price rise, unemployment or the cynical manipulation of public sentiment?

The colonial rulers had opium; we have the smartphone—and it is far more lethal because we swallow it willingly.

Courtesy: The Aidem

The post Mobile as Opium: A Nation Sedated By Screens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On 4 December 2025, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (BHC), comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha R. Bhonsale granted bail to Hany Babu, more than five years after his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020. The court also refused the NIA’s request to stay the bail order pending appeal.

The bail has been granted principally on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial, and pending framing of charges or discharge applications. The bench relied on the ruling in UOI vs K.A.Najeeb, which held that the constitutional courts could grant bail, despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA when the fundamental rights are at stake. This decision, after repeated earlier bail rejections under the stringent anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is widely seen as a watershed moment, and marks a potential turning point in how courts deal with prolonged UAPA detentions.

Case History: From 2018 onwards, the arrests

The flashpoint was the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima (1818), an event of deep historical significance for Dalits. On 31 December 2017, a public event called Elgar Parishad was held at the historic Shaniwarwada Fort in Pune, reportedly attended by tens of thousands, with speeches, cultural performances, slogans, etc.

The following day, 1 January 2018, in an entirely unconnected sequence of events, violence broke out near the memorial at Koregaon Bhima, between sections of the far Hindu right Maratha and Dalit Communities, which led to stone-pelting, mob clashes, along with several injuries.  Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)  has traced the actual sequence of events and the manner in which the narrative was twisted to protect supremacists. This may be read here. The initial and first crimes recorded in the FIRs were against Milind Exbote and other extremists, details of which may be read here.[1]

Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Within weeks of the filing of the first FIR dated January 2, 2018, later that month, a Pune-based businessman with controversial leanings filed a First Information Report (FIR) blaming revolutionary speeches made at the Elgaar Parishad for the January 1 Bhima Koregaon violence, in which one person was killed. Youth leader and MLA from Gujarat, Jignesh Mevani and student leader, Umar Khalid, approached the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIRs filed against them. Details can be read here. On April 22, 2018, one of the key witnesses of the violence, a 19-year-old Dalit woman who had lost her house in the violence was found dead in a well. Her family alleged that she was being pressured to withdraw her statements in the case. What followed was a spate of arrests of activists and advocates including Professor Hany Babu. Details of the sequence of arrests may be read here.

While the immediate event was treated as anti-Dalit violence, later, even the police under the Fadnavis government and then the NIA investigations invoked an alternate narrative: that the Elgar Parishad was not a benign cultural gathering, but part of a broader “conspiracy aiming at destabilisation of the government.

After the first FIR in January 2018 by a ‘Pune-based businessman’, and on November 15, 2018 the Pune Police filed the first chargesheet. On January 24, 2020, the case was transferred to the NIA, which thereafter treated this as a terror/conspiracy case under UAPA, rather than as caste or communal violence.

Over time, a total of 16 individuals; a mixture of activists, academics, lawyers, and cultural performers; came to be known as the accused group in this case, widely referred to as “BK-16”.

These included: Hany Babu (associate professor at Delhi University), Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Tatyarama Gorkhe, and other lawyers, socio-cultural activists from groups like Kabir Kala Manch (a Dalit cultural troupe), and writers/academics.

Timeline of Key Arrests and Legal Steps

The Allegations & Charges: What the State Has Claimed

The prosecution’s theory (as advanced by NIA), presented the Elgar Parishad event as a front for an “urban Maoist conspiracy” aimed at destabilising the State, fomenting caste-based violence, and reviving the banned CPI (Maoist). The accused (BK-16) were allegedly engaged in organising, recruiting, propagating ideology, and planning activities in consultation with Maoist leadership.

In Hany Babu’s case, Frontline reports that NIA alleged that he had “deep involvement” with CPI (Maoist) and purported front organisations such as Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). They accused him of facilitating coordination, communication, and perhaps recruiting or organising under the guise of academic/social-justice work.

On July 28, 2020,  Hany Babu was arrested on the accusation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121, (waging, attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India) , 124A (Sedition), 153A ( promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, place of birth, etc) , 115 (Abetment of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life- if not committed), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18A (organising of terrorist camps), 20 (being member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (membership of terrorist organisation) and 39 (support given to terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (Read Sabrang’s previous coverage on Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members)

On 19 September 2022, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices N. R. Borkar and N. J. Jamdar) rejected Babu’s regular bail plea, alleging his ‘direct involvement’ in the.  Babu then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India (SC). However, on 3 May 2024, he withdrew the SLP, opting instead to approach the Bombay High Court again, in light of changed circumstances, namely that several co-accused had since been granted bail.

After a reversal of order on 3rd Oct, 2025, BHC finally granted bail on 4th December, 2025.

Contentious Forensic Evidence

One of the most contentious and legally critical aspects of the case is the reliance on digital evidence, particularly materials allegedly recovered from the laptops/computers of the accused persons.

The Caravan, in an interview with Hany Babu, reports how only 2 books were seized from his bookshelf, which were books related to GN Saibaba’s arrest.

For analysing the integrity of the digital evidence, Independent forensic firms, notably a US-based firm, Arsenal Consulting, engaged by the defence, concluded that at least some of the devices seized were compromised well before seizure, via remote-access malware. In particular, the device of co-accused Rona Wilson was found to have been infected by a remote-access trojan (RAT) which could have allowed third-party actors (hackers) to plant incriminating files without the user’s knowledge.

Experts have also pointed to the absence of proper forensic safeguards: no contemporaneous hash-value recording at time of seizure, no secure chain-of-custody protocols, and repeated vulnerabilities in how the state forensic labs handled the data.

This raises a fundamental question: if evidence may have been planted remotely, can it form a reliable basis for charging people with terrorism, conspiracy or membership of banned organisations? Critics argue the answer should be no, or at least the court must insist on independent re-forensic audits. Many civil-society, digital-rights and human rights organisations, as well as academics, see the case as a stark example of “investigative overreach.”

Procedural History, Bail Denials and Relief to the Accused

Over the years, other accused have secured various forms of release: bail, medical bail, house arrest, or default bail. Some key examples:

• Sudha Bharadwaj — granted bail by special NIA court in December 2021 after over three years in jail.
• Varavara Rao (elderly poet-activist) — granted medical bail in May 2021.
• Anand Teltumbde — granted bail by Bombay High Court in November 2022.
• Gautam Navlakha — released on house arrest (later bail) per Supreme Court order in 2024.

These developments reflect a gradual, though uneven, judicial acceptance that indefinite pre-trial detention under UAPA may not be sustainable, especially given long delays, weak evidence, and possible procedural or forensic infirmities.

Significance of the 2025 Bail Order for Hany Babu – Legal & Political

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Hany Babu represents a legally and politically significant moment in the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions, particularly given the long pattern of bail denials under the UAPA, where courts have often accepted the prosecution’s case at face value at the pre-trial stage. By intervening after years of prolonged incarceration, the order signals a renewed judicial willingness to treat personal liberty as a substantive constitutional guarantee rather than an abstract principle that must yield to the severity of the charges.

It also reinforces a growing line of jurisprudence visible in recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions that recognises that under UAPA, where trials can stretch over decades, pre-trial detention must not be permitted to operate as de facto punishment. Politically, the decision comes at a time when the foundational claims of the Bhima Koregaon investigation have been shaken by multiple independent digital forensic analyses indicating that key incriminating files on co-accused devices were likely planted through sophisticated malware attacks.

Against this backdrop, the bail order may be read as an acknowledgement of the dangers of excessive reliance on contested digital evidence and the need for heightened judicial scrutiny in cases built around electronic material. More broadly, the ruling underscores enduring constitutional anxieties around the criminalisation of dissent, surveillance-driven investigation, and the shrinking space for academic freedom and civil liberties. In doing so, it places the spotlight back on the core democratic concern that national security laws must not be used to stifle legitimate political expression or to detain individuals indefinitely without trial.

The bail order granting bail to Hany Babu may be read here.

Broader Constitutional and Human Rights Concerns

The Elgar Parishad case, and the recent bail order for Hany Babu, raise profound constitutional and human-rights questions:

1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   • The prolonged pre-trial detention of Hany Babu under the UAPA directly implicates Article 21, which has been repeatedly strained as incarceration stretches into years without trial.
   • The case underscores how UAPA’s stringent bail conditions risk converting pre-trial custody into punishment.
2. Article 22 – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest & Detention
   • The heavy procedural restrictions under the UAPA dilute safeguards envisioned under Article 22, including timely production before a magistrate and meaningful opportunities to seek bail.
   • The difficulty of challenging the prosecution’s case at the bail stage restricts the accused’s ability to exercise constitutional protections.
3. Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) – Freedom of Speech, Assembly & Association
   • Many accused, including Babu, were engaged in academic, human rights, or cultural work—activities protected under Article 19.
   • The characterisation of dissent, research, social justice advocacy, or association with civil liberties groups as “Maoist links” raises concerns about criminalising constitutionally protected expression.
4. Academic Freedom as Part of Article 19(1)(a)
   • Babu’s position as a university professor brings into focus the chilling effect such prosecutions have on academic inquiry and the freedom to engage with controversial or critical political ideas.
   • Criminalising academic networks or scholarly communication undermines the constitutionally recognised value of intellectual freedom.
5. Article 14 – Equality Before the Law & Protection Against Arbitrary State Action
   • Allegations of planted evidence and compromised digital devices raise serious questions about arbitrary or unfair investigative practices.
   • Article 14 requires investigations to be free of bias, fabrication, and selective targeting—standards potentially violated in the Bhima Koregaon probe.
6. Due Process & Fair Trial Rights (Articles 14 & 21 read together)
   • Extraordinary delays in filing chargesheets, framing charges, and commencing trial jeopardise the right to a fair and timely trial.
   • The case exemplifies systemic concerns over investigative overreach, reliance on contested digital evidence, and inadequate judicial oversight; issues that collectively erode due process protections.
7. Risk of Criminalising Dissent & Shrinking Civic Space
   • The prosecution narrative reflects a broader pattern where activists, lawyers, academics, and cultural workers face national-security charges for political or ideological opposition.
   • This drift signals a constitutional danger where UAPA becomes a tool to suppress dissent rather than genuinely combat terrorism.

In conclusion, the case highlights systemic faults in India’s criminal justice system when dealing with UAPA: over-broad charges, misuse of digital evidence, poor forensic standards, unlimited pre-trial detention, delayed trials, and weak institutional safeguards. While the Hany Babu bail marks a turning point in the history of pre-trial detention cases, the real challenge arises when the trial begins. Mere bail does not lead to acquittal. Ultimately, the case is emblematic of the tension between national security discourse and constitutional democracy: a test of whether India’s liberal democratic institutions can resist attempts to criminalise dissent.

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

[1] This hate-spewing supremacist surfaced once again after a period of relative silence—17 years to be precise– on January 1, 2018 when the violence unleashed against peaceful Dalits assembled at Bhima Koregaon to commemorate 200 years of the battle, was reportedly provoked by the machinations of extremists of the Hindutva brigade. Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members

Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Hany Babu to remain in pvt hospital till June 15

Seek court’s permission before discharging Hany Babu: Bombay HC

Not Proscribed, Not Prima Facie: The labyrinth of bail under UAPA

The post Bombay HC bail for Hany Babu signals a critical reassessment of the Bhima Koregaon Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bulk of entries flagged so far fall into the categories that commonly prompt removal of deceased voters, those who have shifted addresses, untraceable names and duplicates.

The state’s electoral roll, as last certified on October 27, 2025, lists 7,66,37,529 registered voters. In proportion, the provisional 50-lakh figure represents a significant chunk of the electorate. Election officials and the Chief Electoral Officer’s office have stressed repeatedly that this is a provisional outcome of the digitisation exercise and must be understood in the administrative sequence that follows publication of the draft list, notices, hearings and disposal of claims and objections, and finally the ECI’s checks and permission for the final roll.

The draft list was scheduled for publication on December 16, 2025, with hearings and verification to follow before any name is finally deleted.

According to The News Minute, the officials working at the CEO’s office provided a breakdown of the roughly 50-lakh provisional cases: more than 23 lakh were classified as “deceased,” over 18 lakh as “shifted,” and more than 7 lakh as “untraceable,” with the remaining entries attributed to duplicates or other removal reasons. These categories mirror the normal administrative reasons that electoral rolls are pruned; however, the speed and scale of the flags — not just the categories themselves — have alarmed voters, civil society groups and political parties alike.

The final numbers will depend on hearings and verifications scheduled between mid-December and early February 2026.

How SIR became a public crisis

Petitioners challenging the SIR in the Supreme Court have argued on December 2 that the Special Intensive Revision is illegal and unconstitutional, claiming that the scale, timing and manner of its implementation violate established electoral norms. Despite the pendency of these challenges, voter-list revision remains, on its face, a routine democratic duty that both the State and the Election Commission of India are obligated to maintain accurate rolls so that eligible voters are neither omitted nor counted more than once.

Even so, aspects of the present exercise — its pace, concentrated timelines, the extensive door-to-door verifications carried out by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), and the near-real-time visibility of digitisation flags — unfolded in an environment of heightened public attention, leading to widespread anxiety among sections of the population. Social media circulation, intense political scrutiny and fragmented information channels further contributed to confusion about what provisional flags meant, particularly among vulnerable citizens.

In several districts, police and administrative logs recorded citizens who said they feared losing their names or being confronted with legal consequences because of missing paperwork. Interviews collected by reporters from families of victims described panic, confusion and, in some cases, pre-existing vulnerability — old age, lack of regular identity documents, migratory labour status or poor literacy — as the factors that turned an administrative notice into a cause of intense personal distress. The pattern of panic is not unique to this revision: previous national episodes where large administrative drives intersected with inadequate public outreach have produced similar outcomes. What made the present wave distinct was the speed with which thousands of provisional deletions became visible and the proliferation of alarming claims — anecdotal and political — across platforms, The News Minute reported

Field staff reported pressure, and the death of a few BLOs earlier in the exercise crystallised wider concerns. Employee associations, local administrators and civil society groups told reporters that the compressed timeframes required an exceptional workload from BLOs, who must complete verifications under deadlines, often with server or app issues, poor transport or unclear instructions. The tragic deaths reported during this period sparked urgent questions about whether adequate staffing, mental-health support and realistic timeframes accompanied a process of such scale.

#WATCH | Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala | BLOs across the state boycotted work in protest over the suicide of a BLO in Kannur. They marched to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer
In other districts, protests were held at the District Collectorates. The protest was jointly… pic.twitter.com/i7vhS7VEsc

— ANI (@ANI) November 17, 2025

The tally of deaths and the state’s response

In the last weeks of the SIR exercise, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) compiled and presented lists of deaths they allege were linked to SIR-induced panic. The TMC delegation took such lists to the Election Commission and made repeated public claims that dozens of people, including BLOs and ordinary citizens, had died as a direct or indirect result of the SIR exercise. The party’s public figures described the deaths as a humanitarian crisis and a political failure of the SIR implementation. The TMC tabled “40” or “39” as the number of deaths in various submissions and press interactions, as the Times of India reported

On December 2, 2025, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee announced a Rs. 2 lakh ex gratia payment for the families of 39 people she said had died due to “SIR-panic,” and Rs. 1 lakh for persons whose condition worsened during the verification exercise but who survived. The announcement was presented by the state as a humanitarian step to assuage grief and to remind citizens that the SIR process is not punitive in itself. The CM and state officials insisted the measure was necessary given the scale of distress and to underline the government’s role in supporting affected families.

For years, Delhi’s Bangla-Birodhi cabal has sat like vultures on Bengal’s rightful dues worth ₹2 lakh crore. And today, the same BJP that weaponised the Election Commission to ram SIR down Bengal’s throat is suddenly pretending to care about BLOs’ honorarium.

If the Centre had… pic.twitter.com/JaAJvMGKq0

— All India Trinamool Congress (@AITCofficial) December 1, 2025

The TMC also submitted lists to the Election Commission during a delegation meeting in New Delhi where party leaders voiced sharp criticism of the ECI and its conduct of SIR in West Bengal. The party accused the ECI of being insensitive to the emotional and social consequences of the drive, citing the deaths and hospitalisations reported from various districts. The TMC’s demonstrations and delegations intensified public and media focus on the human consequences of the revision exercise.

Sharing herewith my today’s letter to the Chief Election Commissioner, articulating my serious concerns in respect of two latest and disturbing developments. pic.twitter.com/JhkFkF6RWs

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) November 24, 2025

The ECI, meanwhile, has responded to the allegations in court and in public statements. According to The Hindu, in affidavits and hearings before the Supreme Court, the Commission described claims of mass disenfranchisement as “highly exaggerated” and maintained that the SIR is a constitutionally mandated and transparent administrative exercise intended to maintain accurate electoral rolls. The ECI also warned political parties against intimidating BLOs and stressed that any names flagged during digitisation will get due process in the notice, hearing and objection windows before final deletion.

These institutional exchanges — TMC’s claims and ECI’s rebuttals — unfolded in parallel to the state government’s relief announcements.

What the ECI says and what courts are hearing

The ECI’s defence of SIR in the Supreme Court highlighted that digitisation trends alone do not determine final deletions and that the statutory safeguards of notice, hearing and disposal of objections must play out. In written affidavits, the Commission argued that allegations of systematic disenfranchisement were factually unfounded and politically motivated, pointing to the processual safeguards embedded in electoral law. The Commission’s public posture included cautionary notices to political actors to avoid intimidation of field officers and to allow BLOs to complete verifications unhindered.

At the same time, political delegations from West Bengal argued before the ECI and in the media that the pace, the timing and the perceived motives behind SIR risked alienating communities and that the ECI needed to exercise greater sensitivity. These tensions — legal, administrative and political — set the terms for the weeks leading up to and following the publication of the draft roll on December 16, 2025.

Mamata’s public outreach: ‘May I Help You’ camps and rallies

In response to the surge of panic, and framed as a rights-protection measure, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee announced a large-scale outreach plan. Beginning on December 12, the state government will set up “May I Help You” camps across every block in West Bengal.

The stated objective of these camps is to assist people whose names are flagged in the draft roll, help them assemble or correct documentation, guide them through the claims and objections process, and ensure that no genuine voter is removed simply for lack of paperwork. The camps are also meant to offer a visible and immediate reassurance to citizens that the state will actively support them during hearings and verifications.

Mamata has deployed these announcements in public rallies and district visits where she has framed the SIR process as being politically charged and pushed by the Centre.

‘কোটিবার বাংলা ভাষায় কথা বলব!’ — বিজেপিকে চ্যালেঞ্জ জননেত্রী মমতা বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়ের।#MamataBanerjee pic.twitter.com/xhYemx9K5K

— Banglar Gorbo Mamata (@BanglarGorboMB) December 3, 2025

In rallies, she has warned against “weaponising” the revision and has called on party workers and local officials to assist citizens in the help camps. The CM’s public speeches have combined administrative directives (the establishment and staffing of camps) with political claims about motives and effects, aiming to both reassure vulnerable residents and mobilise political solidarity ahead of the assembly elections scheduled for 2026.

Mamata’s own account on X (formerly Twitter) amplified the compensation announcement and the help-camp plan: her verified handle posted the government’s decisions and appealed for calm, signposting the administrative steps being taken in the coming days. Official state and party handle also circulated schedules for district-level visits, helpline numbers and details of local camp venues as these were finalised.

It is sad and unfortunate that we have lost 29 precious lives due to disruption in health services because of long drawn cease work by junior doctors.

In order to extend a helping hand to the bereaved families, State Government announces a token financial relief of Rs. 2 lakh…

— Mamata Banerjee (@MamataOfficial) September 13, 2024

Helplines, camps and the practicalities of the relief plan

State officials described the “May I Help You” camps as a three-part intervention as immediate assistance to citizens flagged in digitisation (document checks and form help); facilitating representation at ERO hearings by informing registered claimants about hearing dates and rights; and providing limited financial relief where deaths or serious health deterioration could be credibly linked to SIR-induced distress.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has firmly addressed feⱥrs around the ongoing SIR (Special Identification and Registration) exercise, assuring the public that “no one will go to Bangladesh.” She announced “May I Help You” camps beginning December 12 across the state,… pic.twitter.com/LQWhKNBleI

— The Logical Indian (@LogicalIndians) December 4, 2025

The camps are to be staffed by government clerical personnel, local health-and-welfare officers and — in places — TMC volunteers, according to state releases. The efficacy of these camps will depend heavily on local logistics: transport to block headquarters, staffing levels, coordination with electoral officers and clear public communication about timelines and required documents.

The state said the payments for bereaved families — the Rs. 2 lakh ex gratia — would be expedited and administered through district disaster relief desks or equivalent welfare channels. For survivors who suffered severe illness during the SIR period, officials said a Rs.1 lakh assistance would be made available upon verification of medical records and circumstances. The practical implementation — how quickly families will receive money, whether the assistance will be disbursed as one-time grants or routed through existing welfare programmes — will be closely watched by the media and rights groups in the weeks ahead, as the Times of India reported

Moreover, the SIR exercise in West Bengal encapsulates a difficult administrative paradox that electoral rolls must be accurate to preserve democratic fairness, yet the processes that produce that accuracy must be implemented in ways that avoid causing social harm. The provisional flagging of nearly 50 lakh names created a public crisis because the mechanical outcome of digitisation met a social reality where millions of citizens — some undocumented, some mobile, some vulnerable — lacked reassurance about what a provisional flag meant for their legal rights.

The West Bengal government’s compensation for families and the creation of block-level “May I Help You” camps are immediate, targeted responses to the humanitarian fallout; the ECI’s court submissions and processual guarantees are the institutional reassurance that legal safeguards remain in place. Whether these parallel interventions will restore confidence will depend on the quality of on-ground implementation: transparent hearings, accessible help desks, rapid disbursement of relief where appropriate, and a clear, plain-language public information campaign explaining rights and remedies.

Related:

SIR exercise leaves trail of suicide across states as BLOs buckle under pressure and citizens panic over citizenship

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

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

The post Nearly 50 lakh names flagged for deletion in West Bengal, state government announces Rs. 2 Lakh relief for SIR-linked deaths, CM Mamta Banerjee launches ‘May I Help You’ block camps appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision came during the hearing of special leave petitions filed by the Union challenging two Calcutta High Court orders of September 26–27, which had directed the return of six individuals deported to Bangladesh and mandated an opportunity to them to establish their Indian citizenship. Sunali and her child are among those six deportees, whose removal from India has since raised troubling questions of due process, legality, and the treatment of vulnerable individuals caught in verification drives.

A family caught in a deportation sweep

The case originated from a habeas corpus plea filed by Bhodu Sekh, Sunali’s father, who told the High Court that his family hailed from West Bengal but had migrated to Delhi for better livelihood opportunities. According to Sekh, Sunali, her husband, and their son were detained on June 21 during an identity-verification campaign initiated under a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification dated May 2. Within five days, the family was produced before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and deported to Bangladesh on June 26.

In its September rulings, the Calcutta High Court noted the “hot haste” of the proceedings and criticised the Union and Delhi Police for effecting deportation without a fair hearing or adequate inquiry. The court observed that the names of the deportees’ grandfathers appeared in the electoral rolls of West Bengal—an important indication of Indian lineage. It also highlighted that the May 2025 MHA memo allows immediate deportation only under emergent circumstances following proper inquiry, finding that such procedural safeguards were “conspicuously absent.”

Detailed reports on the said case may be read here, here and here.

Humanitarian Intervention by the Supreme Court

At the recent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Union had, after consultations, agreed to bring back Sunali and her child because of her advanced pregnancy and the need to avoid separation between mother and minor child. He clarified that the gesture:

• was not an admission concerning their citizenship,
• would not set a precedent,
• and would be accompanied by appropriate surveillance upon their return.

As the deportation was conducted formally through official channels, Mehta requested that the court incorporate the Union’s undertaking into its written order to expedite diplomatic coordination with Bangladeshi authorities. The Bench complied, ensuring that the repatriation process could begin without administrative obstacles.

Significantly, as per the report of Livelaw, the court remarked: “These are cases where law has to bend to humanity. Some of these cases require a different outlook.”

The order marks a crucial assertion of judicial discretion in situations where rigid enforcement risks inflicting disproportionate harm on vulnerable individuals.

Directions ensuring medical and social support

Accepting requests from senior advocates Kapil Sibal (appearing for the State of West Bengal) and Sanjay Hegde (for Bhodu Sekh), the Supreme Court directed that Sunali be allowed to reside temporarily in Birbhum district, where her family lives. As per Livelaw report, the Bench further ordered:

• Free and comprehensive medical care for Sunali, including all delivery-related services;
• Full assistance and day-to-day care for her minor son;
• Immediate coordination between the Union, West Bengal authorities, and medical officials to ensure safe return and treatment.

The Bench noted that since Sunali was picked up from Delhi, she may initially be brought back to the national capital before being shifted to her native district.

Citizenship Inquiry: Biological link may be pivotal

Justice Bagchi raised a crucial legal issue: if Bhodu Sekh is indeed an Indian citizen—as the High Court record suggests—then Sunali, as his biological daughter, and Sabir, as her child, would also qualify as Indian citizens. The Court urged the Union to undertake an inquiry into Sekh’s citizenship in accordance with principles of natural justice, signalling that the broader dispute over nationality remains very much alive.

Contempt proceedings and Union’s concerns

The Solicitor General informed the Court that a contempt petition was pending before the Calcutta High Court against the Union Government for non-compliance with the repatriation directions. While Mehta requested protection, the Bench said that since the Supreme Court was now seized of the matter, the High Court would not proceed independently. It declined to formally stay the contempt proceedings but indicated that the issue would not trouble the Union in light of ongoing Supreme Court supervision.

Remaining Deportees: Union maintains they are Bangladeshis

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that four other deportees named in the High Court’s September orders remain in Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal requested that the Union take instructions regarding their return as well. The Solicitor General resisted, insisting that the remaining individuals were “Bangladeshi nationals” and that the Union had a serious contest to their claims of Indian citizenship.

The Bench has directed the Union to return with its instructions at the next hearing, signalling that the nationality dispute for the remaining individuals is far from settled.

Backdrop of procedural lapses

The High Court’s criticism of the June 2025 deportations remains a crucial backdrop. The Delhi Police, FRRO and central agencies executed the arrest-to-deportation timeline in five days, a speed the High Court deemed incompatible with fair procedure. It held that:

• no adequate inquiry was conducted,
• no meaningful opportunity to be heard was given,
• and the exercise violated the Union’s own procedural guidelines.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these legal defects, its present orders focus on preventing further harm while preserving the Union’s right to contest the High Court’s findings.

A limited but crucial relief

While emphasising that its directions do not prejudice the Union’s legal arguments on the merits of the deportation, the Supreme Court made clear that humanitarian imperatives could not be ignored. The Court will resume hearing the matter on December 12, when it will also consider the status of the remaining deported individuals.

For now, the Court’s intervention ensures that a heavily pregnant woman and her young child will not be left without medical care or family support across an international border—sending a powerful message that judicial oversight remains vital where citizenship, deportation and human dignity intersect.

Order can be read here.

Related:

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

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

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

The post SC secures return of pregnant woman and child deported to Bangladesh, says ‘law must bend to humanity’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.