All of a sudden, a strange scenario creeps in. You hear voices surrounding you, shouting in an unfamiliar way. You step out, worried, and see your fellow villagers in a rage. Before you can comprehend what’s happening, a hand reaches out from the crowd, grabs your hair, and drags you down. Countless sticks and feet start hitting you, your breath slowing, but you still don’t know why. You see your family being pulled out too, despairing, begging for your life, trying to protect you.

An aunt, who once sang you lullabies, pulls out a knife and cuts your hair with anguish. And amidst that disbelief, you hear a familiar voice, filled with disgust, shouting, “Daini (Witch), go away and die!”

“Burn her down!” the mob screams.

Eyes that once smiled at you now burn with hatred. Neighbours. Friends. People you once trusted are now a seething mob, armed and bloodthirsty, closing in.

They hang you in the middle of the village and burn you alive—reason— Superstitious belief.

This is not a fictional narrative but rather an outline of real-life cases of more than 2,500 innocent souls who died miserably, being vulnerable victims of ‘Witch-hunting’ at the hands of their people. According to the National Crime Report Bureau’s Crime in India Report 2022, nearly 85 individuals were murdered in witchcraft-related incidents in that year alone. Alarmingly, between 2012 and 2022, a total of 1,184 people lost their lives to witch-hunting violence across India.

Killing based on (superstition) suspicion has been practised in rural India for a very long time. It has been believed that any distress that takes place has to have been transcendental. Anyone with a distinctive characteristic was seen as dubious. Women have always been an easy target for this. Change in positive essence was upheld as a blessing, but a negative repercussion was a curse by someone. Many voices were cut down without justice based on intuition, and some with an underlying intention. Women are pestered more, be it to seize land, extract personal revenge, or legitimise acts of violence. Prime outrage of misinformed minds when given a false push can be tremendously harmful, and this has resulted in the deaths of many. All these would have been a part and parcel of our daily newspapers even today if not advocated by some strong leaders bearing the torch of light. One such inspiring being was ‘Birubala Rabha’.

Hailing from the village of Thakurvila in Goalpara district, Birubala Rabha lived her life as a fighter. With her father passing away when she was barely six years old, she dedicated her early years to helping her mother out. Once her son got immensely sick, and with the lack of access to healthcare, she was bound to visit a local quack healer. The sham made up some delusive story and declared her son to be dead in no time. Birubala Rabha, who was once a believer of such claims, was terrified by his remarks, but to her surprise, her son’s health improved. That is when she realised the misbelief that had been deceiving her and many others for ages.

Not letting her anguish go in vain, she tried to accumulate as many people as she knew to be vigilant. Formed the Thakurvilla Mahila Samiti, where the women of that village were entrusted to eradicate social evils from their district. More than 50 women were saved under her leadership. Seeing its pace, she insisted on taking the movement further by initiating Mission Birubala in 2012. This intent was a landmark movement to not only save girls from falling prey to social evils but also rehabilitate them with proper legal aid.

Though successful in her mission, it wasn’t an easy path for her. Large sections of people still condemned her for trying to break societal norms. Daini Hatya,(“Witch crafting”) has a mixed level of unfortunate acceptance in a very conservative society. A report on Contemporary Practices of Witch Hunting 2015, cited by the New York Times, states that the victims may be subjected to horrific abuses such as being forcibly stripped, paraded naked in public, having their head shaved off, faces blackened, teeth pulled out to “defang” them, eyes gouged, whipped and even gang raped, or forced to consume human excreta. In the most extreme cases, they are killed by hanging, hacking, lynching, or even being buried alive.

Birubala was herself branded a witch for forging her way out of repressive custom towards justice, her character questioned. But Birubala Rabha was determined to fight against all odds. She continued her work and, without any fear and hesitation, openly delivered speeches on social evils. Her persistence gained significant recognition, attracting notice of the powerful. Former Assam DGP Dr. Kuladhar Saikia joined forces with her in the campaign, lending a strong and authoritative voice to the movement against witch-hunting across the state. In recognition of her extraordinary contributions, she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Guwahati University and in 2021, she received one of India’s highest civilian honours—the Padma Shri. In 2017, she was also invited to speak as a panelist at the Witchcraft and Human Rights Experts Workshop hosted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. The following year, in 2018, she was honoured with a cash award by the Women’s World Summit Foundation in recognition of her efforts.

Birubala Rabha’s impact transcended grassroots activism. She became a catalyst for legislative reform in Assam. Her relentless advocacy was instrumental in the enactment of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention, and Protection) Act, 2015, a watershed decision that firmly criminalises the inhumane practice of witch-hunting. Under this stringent legislation, branding someone a “witch” can result in imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine reaching five lakh rupees. This powerful legal framework stands as one of the most robust measures in India against witch-hunting, a testament to Birubala Rabha’s unwavering courage and commitment to justice.

Unfortunately, last year, on May 13, 2024, this unprecedented warrior took her last breath battling cancer, but she left a legacy of successful deliberation towards women’s empowerment that lives on in every victim. What she did back then is today’s beacon of curbing social evils. Superstitious acts reduced significantly in Assam post her endeavour. Her fearless battle against the deep-rooted evil of witch-hunting not only led to historic legal reforms but also sparked a broader movement against superstition and ignorance at large. In her honour, the Assam Government has declared May 13 of every year to be observed as Anti-Superstition Day, a powerful reminder of her mission for all, to eradicate ignorance through awareness and empathy.

Though the shadow of witch-hunting still lingers in pockets of our society, we must not and never turn a blind eye or fall silent. Statistics do show a decrease in cases, but many evils go unreported in rural India. Birubala Rabha showed us that the fight against injustice begins with one brave voice and that voice can echo across generations.

As Birubala herself once said, “My mission is to end the menace of witch-hunting,” let us honour that, not just in words, but in action, so that no one has to wake up tomorrow and endure pain and fear at the hands of their own people.

(The author is an independent writer and research scholar focusing on rural India)

The post One woman against a thousand superstitions, Birubala Rabha’s battle against the superstition of ‘Witch-Hunting’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The poem did not name any religion or community but lamented injustice, questioned state power, and called for non-violence as a means of resistance. The complaint alleged it incited religious hatred and disturbed social harmony.

What was at stake was far greater than one poem or one politician—it was the scope of criminal law in regulating political speech, the meaning of “incitement”, and whether popular offence can override constitutional values.

Background: A poem, a platform, and a prosecution

On December 29, 2024, during a mass wedding programme in Jamnagar, Gujarat, organised by a local councillor, Imran Pratapgarhi recited a poem that was later posted as a video on his verified social media account on the platform ‘X’. The poem included verses such as:

“ए ख़ून के प्यासों बात सुनो
गर हक़ की लड़ाई ज़ुल्म सही
हम ज़ुल्म से इश्क़ निभा देंगे…”

Translated broadly:

“O you blood-thirsty, listen!
If the fight for rights brings injustice,
We will meet that injustice with love…”

The FIR accused the appellant of promoting enmity between communities and disturbing national harmony. Shockingly, he was charged under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the BNS—provisions dealing with incitement, hate speech, religious disharmony, and even abetment of violence. Through the FIR, it was alleged that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments. It was further alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community’s rights. It was claimed that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.

Key observations of the Court

1. Constitutional Voice vs. State Machinery: A foundational tension

At the heart of this judgment lies an old constitutional paradox: the State is both the guarantor and violator of fundamental rights. Justice Oka, with characteristic candour, begins by confronting this tension head-on:

“This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.” (Para 1)

In this opening salvo of the judgment, Justice Abhay S. Oka sets the tone for a judgment that is as much an indictment of institutional apathy as it is a reaffirmation of constitutional values. The observation that even after 75 years of constitutional existence, law enforcement remains either ignorant of or indifferent to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, reveals a profound structural dysfunction. This remark is not made in passing—it is a judicial rebuke aimed squarely at a State apparatus that defaults to coercion over constitutional engagement. By framing the issue as one of institutional disrepair rather than individual excess, the Court shifts the spotlight from the accused citizen to the accuser state, raising critical questions about how routinely—and with what legal illiteracy—criminal law is weaponised to suppress dissent.

What emerges from this framing is the Court’s role not as a mere adjudicator of facts, but as a constitutional conscience-keeper. Rather than balancing “free speech” against “law and order,” the judgment asserts that the State’s repeated resort to criminal prosecution for expressive acts is itself an affront to the constitutional order. This is not just about a misreading of a poem—it is about the State’s deep discomfort with metaphor, criticism, and resistance. The Court’s insistence that the rule of law includes a duty to respect rights, not merely regulate them, transforms the case into a referendum on how faithfully the State embodies the very freedoms it claims to guarantee. In doing so, the Court subtly but powerfully reclaims constitutional morality as an active, living principle—not a hollow preamble.

2. A Theory of Free Speech: From libertarian tolerance to affirmative protection

This judgment doesn’t merely shield speech—it underlines its necessity. Justice Oka, who had authored the judgment on the behalf of the Bench, frames Article 19(1) (a) as not merely a right but as a structural precondition for human dignity and democratic engagement, thereby locating it within the broader penumbra of Article 21:

“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.” (Para 38)

This convergence of Articles 19 and 21 reflects a distinctly substantive conception of liberty, moving beyond formal non-interference toward affirmative obligation. The State (including the police and judiciary) is thus required not just to refrain from suppressing speech but to actively ensure its flourishing.

“The reasonable restrictions provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1), including the right to freedom of speech and expression.” (Para 29)

3.  The law’s elasticity: From ambiguity to abuse

The charges levelled against Pratapgarhi under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represent an alarming instance of legal overbreadth being used as a political weapon. The BNS, like its predecessor IPC, contains clauses so capaciously worded (e.g., “feelings of enmity”, “disharmony”, “outraging religious beliefs”) that they leave room for subjective interpretation and state-led abuse.

Justice Oka (and J Bhuyan) cut through this ambiguity:

“By no stretch of imagination does it promote enmity… The poem refers to injustice and offers non-violence as a response. It cannot be seen as a cause of communal disharmony.” (Para 10)

This is a clear attempt to re-inscribe constitutional interpretation over statutory vagueness, requiring any criminal allegation under these sections to pass a high threshold of intent, clarity, and demonstrable harm.

4. From Lalita Kumari to BNSS: Rethinking FIR registration

The Court’s discussion on Section 173(3) of the BNSS is an important departure from earlier CrPC jurisprudence under Lalita Kumari.

Where Lalita Kumari limited the police’s discretion, the BNSS introduces a structured preliminary inquiry model for offences punishable by 3–7 years—like many speech-related provisions.

The Supreme Court insists that in all speech-related cases where this discretion is available, it must be exercised:

“If an option under sub-Section (3) is not exercised by the police officer in such a case, he may end up registering an FIR against a person who has exercised his fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) even though clause (2) of Article 19 is not attracted. If, in such cases, the option under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police under Article 51-A (a).” (Para 29)

This means the police must now interpret the text of the speech itself, not just the complaint—an approach that, while normatively sound, places interpretive responsibility on officers often untrained in the subtleties of metaphor, political critique, or artistic licence.

5. Institutional analysis: The High Court’s abdication and the Supreme Court’s role as rights sentinel

The Gujarat High Court, by deferring to the early stage of the investigation, abdicated its constitutional responsibility to scrutinise rights violations at the threshold.

The Supreme Court rebuked this stance:

      “We fail to understand how the High Court concluded that the message was posted in a manner that would certainly disturb social harmony. Thereafter, the High Court gave a reason that the investigation was at a nascent stage. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage.” (Para 37)

This reaffirms that judicial intervention in the early stages of political or speech-related prosecutions is not just permissible but necessary. The longer the case proceeds, the more the process itself becomes punishment. This view counters a dangerous trend: judicial evasion in politically sensitive matters, often under the guise of deference to procedure. Here, the Court restores its duty as a constitutional firewall, refusing to be paralysed by formalism.

6. The Reasonable Reader standard: Sedition, hate Speech, and judicial empathy

A key analytical move in the judgment is the revival of the “reasonable, strong-minded” observer standard from Bhagwati Charan Shukla:

“When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strongminded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.” (Para 33)

This interpretive lens displaces subjective offence with an objective, resilient baseline, thereby protecting robust discourse. It delegitimises state action based solely on hurt sentiments or perceived disrespect to power. This is especially important in India’s contemporary climate, where claims of communal hurt are often wielded as instruments of political repression.

7. Literature as democratic praxis: The place of poetry in the Constitutional Order

In recognising the poem’s form and context, the Court refrains from sterilising language into literalism. Justice Oka honours the metaphorical richness of poetic expression and its political function:

“…the poem does not encourage violence. On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love. It states that if our fight with injustice results into the death of our near and dear ones, we would be happy to bury their bodies.” (Para 10)

Poetry here is not ornamental—it is political speech in its most potent, imaginative form. The Court recognises that to penalise such speech is to criminalise dissent itself. This judgment contributes to an emerging jurisprudence where art is recognised as both speech and constitutional engagement, not as a diluted cousin of prose but as its fiercest challenger.

8. Toward a doctrine of “Constitutional offence”

Perhaps the most striking analytical thread is the Court’s suggestion that some state actions themselves verge on a constitutional offence:

      “Even while dealing with the performance of an obligation under sub-Section (1) of Section 173, where the commission of the offence is based on spoken or written words, the police officer concerned will have to keep in mind the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with an exception carved out under clause (2) of Article 19. The reason is that he is under an obligation to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals under the Constitution. The Constitution is more than 75 years old. By this time, the police officers ought to have been sensitized about their duty of abiding by the Constitution and respecting the ideals of the Constitution.” (Para 30)

Here, Justice Oka (and Justice Bhuyan) aren’t merely interpreting law—they are charging the State with constitutional delinquency. In doing so, they lay the groundwork for a potential doctrine where misuse of criminal process to silence dissent could itself be a rights violation subject to public law remedy.

This is not explicitly framed in the language of compensation or tort—but it hints at a growing judicial recognition that abuse of power is not neutral—it is a rights violation in itself.

Legal analysis of offences under BNS: A systematic dismantling

In the judgment, the Supreme Court, has also meticulously analysed the ingredients of each alleged offence and found all of them legally untenable.

1. Section 196 (Promoting enmity between groups)

      “The poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups. We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity. On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings.” (Para 12)

Based on precedent (Manzar Sayeed Khan, Patricia Mukhim, Javed Ahmad Hajam), the Court reaffirmed that criminalising speech requires a showing of deliberate intent (mens rea). Without it, the mere content of speech, however provocative to some, is not criminal.

      “Mens rea will have to be read into Section 196 of the BNS… it is impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant.” (Para 34)

2. Section 197 (Prejudicial to national integration)

Therefore, as the Supreme Court, read both facts and the law, the poem by Imran Pratapgarhi did not attract the offence under Section 197 as it:

• Did not cast doubt on the loyalty of any group.
• Did not assert the denial of citizenship rights.
• Did not jeopardise national unity.

      “…the poem does not make or publish any imputation and is not concerned with any religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not suggest that any class of persons have been denied rights as citizens because they are members of a religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not make or publish any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill will. The poem does not publish or make any false or misleading information.” (Para 16)

3. Section 299 & Section 302 (Religious insult or wounding religious sentiment)

The Court termed these charges “ridiculous”:

      “To say the least, it is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.” (Para 17)

4. Section 57 (Abetment by public)

      “We fail to understand, even if it is assumed that the appellant has committed some offence, how he has abetted the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten.” (Para 19)

The Supreme Court’s systematic dismantling of the charges against Imran Pratapgarhi reflects a jurisprudence grounded in constitutional fidelity and statutory precision. In addressing Section 196 of the BNS—concerning promotion of enmity between groups—the Court reiterates a long-standing doctrinal principle: that the mere capacity of speech to provoke cannot substitute for a demonstrable, deliberate intent to incite enmity. Drawing from precedents like Manzar Sayeed Khan, Patricia Mukhim, and Javed Ahmad Hajam, the Court makes it clear that mens rea—a deliberate, malicious state of mind—is essential for liability. The poem in question, devoid of any reference to religion, caste, or community, could not be interpreted as promoting group enmity, and to criminalise it would be a distortion of both the statute and the Constitution. The Court’s reading imposes a constitutional filter on the BNS provision, ensuring it cannot be misused to punish subjective offence or perceived disrespect.

This logic extends seamlessly to the rejection of charges under Sections 197, 299, 302, and 57. Under Section 197, which deals with acts prejudicial to national integration, the Court’s reasoning is particularly illuminating. Justice Oka dissects the elements of the offence and finds none fulfilled: the poem neither impugns any group’s loyalty nor suggests the denial of citizenship rights, nor does it propagate disinformation. Similarly, the invocation of Section 299 and 302 for religious insult is dismissed as “ridiculous,” with the Court recognising that the poem critiques state injustice, not religious belief. Most striking is the Court’s incredulity at the Section 57 charge—abetment by the public—highlighting not only the absence of any instigated act but also the absurdity of imagining that poetic expression could be interpreted as a generalised call to criminal conduct. This cluster of analyses reveals not only the hollowness of the FIR but also the deeper pathology of criminal law’s misuse: charges laid without regard for statutory thresholds, constitutional limits, or evidentiary plausibility. Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan’s reasoning is a potent reminder that law, especially criminal law, cannot be driven by sentiment, conjecture, or political expediency—it must be anchored in demonstrable harm, clear intent, and legal fidelity.

The Court as guardian of the Republic’s imagination

Imran Pratapgarhi judgement is not merely about poetry—it is about power, protest, and the place of dissent in India’s constitutional framework. This judgment revitalises the meaning of free speech in an age where criminal law is increasingly wielded to silence opposition. It teaches us that:

• Law is not merely a set of punishments but a moral language.
• Courts must defend expression, even if the State finds it discomforting.
• Poetry, critique, and satire are not seditious—they are the scaffolding of a free republic.

In this moment, the Supreme Court does not merely defend a poem—it defends the possibility of dissent itself. And that makes it one of the most important judgments on freedom of speech in recent Indian history.

To borrow the Court’s own words:

      “Courts, particularly the constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the Constitution and the ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.” (Para 39)

Conclusion: A Constitutional anthem for the right to dissent

The Imran Pratapgarhi judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that the Constitution of India is not a brittle document to be bruised by sentiment, nor a tool to be twisted by the might of the State. It is, instead, a living charter that guarantees not only the right to speak, but the right to disturb, to provoke, and to dissent—particularly through art, poetry, and political expression. Justice Oka’s reasoning does not merely rescue one man from a legally untenable prosecution; it reclaims the constitutional promise that the State cannot demand silence in exchange for citizenship.

By scrupulously dismantling every charge brought under the BNS and holding law enforcement accountable to constitutional ideals, the judgment delivers a rare, lucid defence of free speech in an era when such freedoms are frequently under siege. It goes beyond the judicial role of error correction and enters the moral terrain of democratic defence. This case is not just precedent—it is a call to conscience for the police, for the lower judiciary, and for civil society. In drawing a firm constitutional line between law and power, it sends an unequivocal message: poetic dissent is not criminal, and the Constitution does not flinch before uncomfortable truths.

Ultimately, this is not merely a judgment about the legality of a poem—it is a resounding assertion of the Republic’s constitutional soul. It reminds us that the true test of democracy is not how the State treats speech that flatters, but how it responds to speech that resists. On that test, the Supreme Court has spoken with uncommon clarity and courage.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025

“Nothing but an abuse of the process of law”: SC bars second Foreigners Tribunal case against same person, reinforces finality of citizenship verdicts

The post A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Siddharth Varadarajan, founder of The Wire, has condemned the actions against his platform and Bhasin’s account. He called the blocking of the website and account a clear violation of press freedom in India. Varadarajan’s statement read:

“Dear readers of The Wire, in a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to thewire.in across India.”

Dear Readers of The Wire In a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to https://t.co/BCdnZhucBj across India. + pic.twitter.com/YO0TlQkVVL

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) May 9, 2025

The Chennai Press Club has, in a strong statement condemned the blocking of both The Wire and Maktoob Media

The statement of the Chennai press club may be read below

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin, in strong words, condemned the action. “Silencing the media at a critical juncture undermines the spirit of democracy. I hope the Union government reconsiders and lifts the ban on @thewire_inLet not press freedom be strangled in the world’s largest democracy.

Silencing the media at a critical juncture undermines the spirit of democracy. I hope the Union government reconsiders and lifts the ban on @thewire_in.

Let not press freedom be strangled in the world’s largest democracy. https://t.co/qf1NyAyYTg

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) May 9, 2025

Comrade MA Baby, newly elected general secretary of the CPI (M) has strongly condemned the act of censorship in a tweet. “When media outlets that are continuously peddling fake news on #OperationSindoor are being allowed to run uninterrupted, credible news portals are being blocked. Such attacks on the freedom of the press are not acceptable, Baby wrote.

Strongly condemn the censorship of The Wire. When media outlets that are continuously peddling fake news on #OperationSindoor are being allowed to run uninterrupted, credible news portals are being blocked. Such attacks on the freedom of the press are not acceptable.@thewire_in https://t.co/hFc4MAqRUT

— M A Baby (@MABABYCPIM) May 9, 2025

Seema Chisty, editor at The Wire tweeted, “Why freedom of the Press matters to non-press janta is an essay. But briefly – because voices of the Press are canaries in the coalmine. What protects the Press in India is what protects the average citizen. Your allowing it to get gagged is allowing yourself to go down”

Why freedom of the Press matters to non-press janta is an essay.

But briefly – because voices of the Press are canaries in the coalmine.

What protects the Press in India is what protects the average citizen. Your allowing it to get gagged is allowing yourself to go down

— Seema Chishti (@seemay) May 9, 2025

Digipub Condemns Blocking of The Wire’s Website, CPI’s D. Raja Writes to Ashwini Vaishnaw

‘We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity.’

Following the government blocking users’ access to the website of The Wire, Communist Party of India general secretary D. Raja has written to Union minister of information and broadcasting while digital news body Digipub has condemned the move.

The Wire has learnt that the block on its website is according to the orders of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Various internet service providers are saying multiple things.

Raja’s letter

In his letter to minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, D. Raja has highlighted how misinformation was allowed to run rampant during ‘Operation Sindoor’.

I, on behalf of the Communist Party of India, register my deep concern over the inflammatory and misleading content being aired by several television news channels following Operation Sindoor. While the nation stands united against terrorism, we are witnessing a dangerous trend where certain channels are communalising the issue, spreading unverified claims, and promoting war hysteria—without any official confirmation from the Government or Armed Forces.

Raja said that such coverage creates panic and fear. Here, he mentioned that responsible news portals like The Wire have been blocked, in contrast.

Such coverage not only undermines responsible journalism but also poses a direct threat to national cohesion. Warmongering and targeting of communities erode trust, create fear among citizens, and play into the hands of those who seek to destabilize the country. Public anxiety is being inflamed, not addressed. Even public broadcasters have echoed this irresponsible tone, failing the basic duty of informing people with accuracy and dignity. The Armed Forces themselves had to counter claims made by such news channels on many occasions. At the same time, access to responsible news portals like TheWire.in has been blocked.

Raja noted that the CPI rejected attempts to turn the tragedy of Pahalgam into a spectacle of hate and division. “Conflict must not become a tool to distract from facts or delegitimize fellow citizens. The cost of such narratives is paid by ordinary people in the form of insecurity, polarization, and long-term damage to the democratic fabric,” he wrote.

He urged for decisive communication from the government.

We urge the Ministry to act decisively against channels and platforms that promote communal hatred and spread falsehoods. Access must be restored to platforms which are responsible and act to maintain national unity. We also call for coordinated and periodic, fact-based briefings from your Ministry, in consultation with the ministries of Defence, Home Affairs, and External Affairs, to counter misinformation and provide the public with credible updates.

Raja added that it is rightly said that truth is the first casualty of war, but “today, truth is being sacrificed even before a war exists—buried under noise, prejudice, and sensationalism.”

The airwaves must not become battlegrounds of distortion when the nation needs calm and clarity. We hope this urgent and pressing matter concerning national unity in challenging times will find your immediate attention.

Digipub statement

DIGIPUB, a group of digital news websites of which The Wire is a member, said that it strongly condemns the blocking of The Wire’s website. It said:

DIGIPUB’s founding member The Wire has released a statement on Friday, May 9 stating that the access to their website has been blocked by some Internet Service Providers following government orders. One of the ISPs says the block has been done by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the IT Act, 2000.

If the Indian government has indeed blocked access to The Wire, then it is a blatant attack on press freedom. Silencing independent media doesn’t protect democracy-it weakens it.

The statement noted that this “is a critical time for the nation and such actions impede rational thinking. The urgency and horrors of battle cannot be used as an excuse to silence independent journalism.”

It added that a free media is the best antidote to misinformation and fake news and said:

“We demand the immediate reversal of such censorship, the orders for which have not even been made public. The Indian Government must uphold constitutional values of free speech and restore unrestricted access to independent media democracy cannot survive in silence.”

Related:

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava

The post Censorship: The Wire, India’s credible news and analysis portal blocked, widespread condemnation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

X informed that “X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees.”

X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company’s local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025

Targeted accounts include international media and prominent users

According to X, the orders require blocking access to a broad range of accounts, including those belonging to international news organisations and prominent users on the platform.  Notably, the government has not provided specific details about the alleged legal violations committed by many of these accounts.

“The orders include demands to block access in India to accounts belonging to international news organisations and prominent X users. In most cases, the Indian government has not specified which posts from an account have violated India’s local laws. For a significant number of accounts, we did not receive any evidence or justification to block the accounts,” X said.

We disagree with the Indian government’s demands: X

To comply with the government’s directives, X stated it will withhold the specified accounts exclusively in India, ensuring they remain accessible from outside the country.

“We have begun that process. However, we disagree with the Indian government’s demands. Blocking entire accounts is not only unnecessary, it amounts to censorship of existing and future content…” X said

X raises concerns over censorship and transparency

While moving forward with compliance, X strongly criticised the nature of the orders. It emphasised that blocking entire accounts amounts to pre-emptive censorship and threatens the free flow of information. X reiterated the importance of transparency in such matters and expressed frustration that legal constraints prevent it from publishing the executive orders.

“We believe that making these executive orders public is essential for transparency – lack of disclosure discourages accountability and can contribute to arbitrary decision-making. However, due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders at this time,” it said.

Legal action and advice to impacted users

X also revealed that it is exploring all possible legal avenues to contest the government’s directives. However, it acknowledged limitations in challenging these orders under Indian law and urged affected users to seek redress through the courts.

“Unlike users located in India, X is restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges against these executive orders. However, we encourage all users who are impacted by these blocking orders to seek appropriate relief from the courts,” the post by X said.

We have no knowledge of the reason for the government’s arbitrary action: Maktoob

Following a government directive, X has withheld the X account of Maktoob Media in India. The platform has not provided a clear explanation, and the reasons behind this action remain undisclosed.

Aslah Kayyalakkath, founding editor of Maktoob Media, condemned the move, calling it an arbitrary act that strikes at the heart of press freedom.

“We have learned that @MaktoobMedia’s X account has been withheld in India in response to a legal demand. We have no knowledge of the reason for the government’s arbitrary action. It is an assault on press freedom,” he stated. He further added that publication’s continued commitment to independent journalism despite mounting pressure.

We have learned that @MaktoobMedia’s X account has been withheld in India in response to a legal demand. We have no knowledge of the reason for the government’s arbitrary action. It is an assault on press freedom. Maktoob pledges to continue its crucial work at a time when truth… pic.twitter.com/jjjggFt8ak

— Aslah Kayyalakkath (@aslahtweets) May 8, 2025

“Maktoob pledges to continue its crucial work at a time when truth is becoming a casualty. At this hour of crisis, we ask our allies to share links from our website to help people access our reporting. We are many, many more than them” he said

The withholding of Maktoob Media’s account comes amid a growing pattern of restrictions on digital media platforms, raising fresh concerns over freedom of expression and the silencing of critical voices.

X account of senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin suspended, TheWire also faces crackdown

The X account of senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, has been suspended. Bhasin, known for her independent and fearless reporting from Kashmir, has been a significant voice for credible journalism, often providing verified, on-the-ground information that challenges official narratives.

Along with Bhasin’s account suspension, The Wire, one of India’s few remaining independent digital news outlets, has been blocked nationwide. But later visible.

Journalist Mandeep Punia has raised concerns over the growing crackdown on independent voices. He criticised the suspension of Bhasin’s account and the blocking of The Wire‘s website, stating:
“Credible journalists are being blocked, while those spreading fake news are being promoted. The Wire’s website has been blocked, and senior journalist @AnuradhaBhasin_’s Twitter account, which consistently provided credible information, has also been suspended.”

सही ख़बरें दिखाने वालों को ब्लॉक किया जा रहा है और फेक न्यूज़ फैलाने वालों को प्रमोट. द वायर की वेबसाइट को ब्लॉक कर दिया गया है.

कश्मीर की सीनियर पत्रकार @AnuradhaBhasin_ का ट्विटर अकाउंट भी ब्लॉक कर दिया गया है, वह लगातार क्रेडिबल जानकारियां पहुँचा रही थीं. https://t.co/2sCAu4uOmR

— Mandeep Punia (@mandeeppunia1) May 9, 2025

Siddharth Varadarajan of The Wire responds to the crackdown

Siddharth Varadarajan, founder of The Wire, has condemned the actions against his platform and Bhasin’s account. He called the blocking of the website and account a clear violation of press freedom in India. Varadarajan’s statement read:

“Dear readers of The Wire, in a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to thewire.in across India.”

Dear Readers of The Wire In a clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, the Government of India has blocked access to https://t.co/BCdnZhucBj across India. + pic.twitter.com/YO0TlQkVVL

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) May 9, 2025

After post, X’s Global Affairs account temporarily withheld in India, later restored

After the Indian government directed the blocking of approximately 8,000 accounts on X (formerly Twitter), citing national security concerns, the platform made this information public through its official global affairs handle, @GlobalAffairs. The move sparked widespread discussion and debate across the internet about the nature and transparency of such governmental block orders. In a surprising development, shortly after these discussions gained traction, the @GlobalAffairs account itself was briefly withheld in India.

Reacting to the development, ALT News co-founder and fact-checker Mohammed Zubair posted on X, “Wait! @GlobalAffairs is withheld in India.”

Wait! @GlobalAffairs is withheld in India. pic.twitter.com/RkYbgC8CkE

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) May 9, 2025

However, the account became visible again soon after.

The account is now visible but the post is withheld now. https://t.co/rUDhqzi7UG

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) May 9, 2025

Pakistan-based news outlets blocked on X amid heightened India-Pakistan tensions

The X (formerly Twitter) handles of prominent Pakistan-based news organisations such as Dawn and GeoNews are currently inaccessible in India, marking a continuation of the government’s broader clampdown on digital content originating from across the border. This move comes in the wake of Operation Sindoor, India’s recent military action, and reflects a growing strategy of information control during times of national security concerns.

In a rare disclosure, X revealed the volume of content takedown requests issued by Indian authorities, shedding light on the expansive scale of censorship tied to the operation. The restrictions follow a similar move last month when, after the Pahalgam terror attack, the Indian government banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels—including major broadcasters like Dawn News, Samaa TV, ARY News, and GeoNews—accusing them of spreading provocative, communally sensitive content and disinformation targeting India and its security forces.

Disinformation surge on social media during ‘Operation Sindoor’

As Operation Sindoor unfolded in the early hours of Wednesday, platforms like X became a breeding ground for disinformation. Unverified visuals of airstrikes, exaggerated claims of retaliatory attacks, and even repurposed footage from video games were widely circulated, contributing to confusion and misinformation.

Pakistan Propaganda Alert!

A video showing a heavy MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket Systems) barrage is being falsely shared as a real Pakistani attack on India.#PIBFactCheck

The video is from a video game and has been online for over 3 years.

It has no connection to… pic.twitter.com/VXAE93YfXs

— PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) May 9, 2025

The Press Information Bureau’s (PIB) fact-check unit actively intervened, debunking several viral posts. One such claim involved a forged letter allegedly written by a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist about a supposed BrahMos missile failure—PIB confirmed the letter was fake and that no such scientist exists.

Fake Letter Alert

A letter undersigned by scientist AS Kumar from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is being circulated online alleging a failure in BrahMos missile components.#PIBFactCheck

The letter is fake

@DRDO_India has not issued any… pic.twitter.com/Spd2Hy0QTi

— PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) May 7, 2025

In another instance, old footage of a crashed aircraft was falsely linked to a recent Pakistani strike, alleging the downing of an Indian Rafale jet near Bahawalpur.

Propaganda Alert!

Beware of old images shared by pro-Pakistan handles in the present context!

An #old image showing a crashed aircraft is being circulated with the claim that Pakistan recently shot down an Indian Rafale jet near Bahawalpur during the ongoing #OperationSindoor… pic.twitter.com/LdkJ1JYuH0

— PIB Fact Check (@PIBFactCheck) May 7, 2025

PIB verified that the footage was outdated and the claim baseless.

Related:

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

The curious case of Twitter suspensions

Will Twitter fly away from India soon?

The post Following executive order from government, X asked to block 8000 accounts in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The objections were invited by a 25-member Joint Select Committee (JSC) comprising legislators from both houses. The committee is scheduled to deliberate on the objections at a crucial meeting on May 21, 2025 where it is also expected to hear from representatives of over 100 civil society organisations. These groups have strongly criticised the bill, calling it “anti-democratic” and unconstitutional.

Originally tabled in July 2024, shortly after the Lok Sabha elections, the bill was referred to the JSC for further scrutiny. Since then, the committee has convened two meetings, and officials now report that over 90% of the responses oppose the bill. Many submissions offer detailed, section-wise critiques, arguing that the legislation could have chilling effects on dissent and civil liberties.

The bill grants the state sweeping powers to act against individuals allegedly associated with or supporting “urban Naxalism”. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has publicly defended the bill, asserting that Naxalite activity is no longer confined to rural areas and has found its way into cities through frontal organisations. As reported by Hindustan Times, he maintains that these urban networks pose a serious internal security threat.

However, rights groups and legal experts warn that such legislation could enable state overreach, criminalise dissent, and be used to target activists, journalists, students, and others critical of the government. “The objections we’ve received have been categorised thematically and analysed section-by-section,” said a senior legislative official, as per the HT report. “More than 90% of submissions are in opposition, with detailed reasoning challenging the bill’s core provisions.”

Despite the opposition, the Mahayuti government appears determined to push ahead. According to Hindustan Times, officials in the home department confirmed that the government aims to get the bill passed in the upcoming monsoon session of the legislature, beginning June 30. One official claimed that many objections are based on “misinformation” about the bill’s intent. “Most of the feedback is repetitive and rooted in misconceptions,” the officer said. “The JSC will work to dispel these misunderstandings during the review.”

The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether Maharashtra’s government heeds the unprecedented civic response, or proceeds with legislation that critics argue could fundamentally weaken democratic freedoms in the state.

Widespread protests against Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill

On April 22, 2025, a state-wide protest against the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024 saw over 78 demonstrations across 36 districts. Citizens, civil society groups, and political parties united in opposition, denouncing the bill as anti-democratic and draconian.

Ulka Mahajan, state convenor of the Bharat Jodo Andolan, emphasized their continued resistance, citing a massive response to protests across the state. “This bill isn’t about public security; it’s a tool for suppression and autocracy,” she told Hindustan Times.

In Sindhudurg, a formal memorandum was submitted to the District Collector, calling for the bill’s withdrawal, citing its unconstitutional overreach and potential to stifle dissent. Similarly, Nanded witnessed a Satyagraha by the Jan Suraksha Vidhayak Virodhi Samiti, with leaders warning of the bill’s harmful impact on democratic rights. In Goregaon (West), protesters staged a dharna, denouncing the bill’s intent, while in Thane, workers and activists rallied outside the District Collector’s office, labelling the bill as anti-worker and anti-democratic.

The protests culminated in a call for a massive march to the Vidhan Bhavan on June 30, the opening day of the monsoon session, signalling ongoing resistance against the bill’s passage.

Details of the protests may be read here.

CJP raised concerns over the contentious Bill

On April 1, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) submitted detailed objections to the MSPS Bill, calling attention to its broad, ambiguous provisions that pose serious risks to civil liberties and constitutional rights. The bill, initially framed to enhance public security, is criticised for granting the state excessive powers of surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. CJP warned that the bill mirrors past laws like the UAPA and NSA, often misused to target marginalised communities and stifle opposition.

Key objections raised by CJP include:

1. Section 2(f) (i)-(vii): Overbroad definitions of “Unlawful Activity”

CJP highlighted that the bill’s vague definition of “unlawful activity” allows the state to label peaceful protests, strikes, and political dissent as security threats, potentially restricting fundamental freedoms.

2. Section 5(1)(2): Politicisation of the advisory board

The bill allows non-judicial figures, including retired judges and non-appointed officials, to be appointed to the Advisory Board. This, risks compromising judicial independence and allowing political influence in key decisions.

3. Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

CJP points out that Section 9 grants unchecked authority to evict people and seize property under the guise of public security, with minimal safeguards for vulnerable groups like women and children.

4. Section 10(1): Seizure of moveable property

The bill permits authorities to seize not just properties, but also moveable assets, including money and belongings, without clear legal safeguards. This could be used to financially harm activists and opposition groups.

5. Section 12: Denial of legal redress at district level

Section 12 restricts legal recourse for those arrested under the bill to the High Court or Supreme Court, bypassing the district courts and potentially barring access to justice, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals.

6. Sections 14 and 15: Blanket immunity for police and bureaucrats

These sections provide immunity to police officers and district magistrates from prosecution, even in cases of misuse of the law, promoting impunity and encouraging potential human rights violations.

CJP had urged the immediate withdrawal of the MSPS Bill, calling it a dangerous overreach that threatens fundamental rights and undermines democratic freedoms.

Detailed objections may be read here.

Related:

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

The post Maharashtra’s Special Public Security Bill, 2024 faces massive pushback, receives record 12,750 objections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Silencing the Messengers: A deadly environment for journalists

Two journalists were killed in the first quarter of the year—Mukesh Chandrakar and Raghvendra Bajpai—while four others were physically attacked. At least six were arrested, and five faced threats and harassment, according to FSC’s tracker. These incidents reflect not just isolated acts of violence, but a broader, systematic effort to target those who challenge the status quo.

The year began with the horrifying disappearance and murder of Mukesh Chandrakar, an independent journalist who ran the YouTube channel Bastar Junction in Chhattisgarh. He was found dead three days later, stuffed into a septic tank at the home of Suresh Chandrakar, a road contractor and relative who was reportedly enraged over Mukesh’s role in a report broadcast by NDTV on poor road conditions in Bastar. The autopsy confirmed he had been brutally beaten with a heavy object. Police acted only after sustained pressure from local journalists, eventually arresting the accused near Hyderabad. Mukesh’s death starkly illustrates the hazards faced by journalists reporting from India’s hinterlands, where entrenched corruption, state apathy, and local power nexuses operate with impunity.

Three other journalists continue to remain behind bars as of May 2025. These include Rupesh Kumar Singh from Jharkhand and Irfan Mehraj from Kashmir—both incarcerated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—and Maharashtra-based YouTuber Tushar Kharat, arrested on criminal defamation charges. Mehraj, a well-known journalist and researcher, was detained in March 2023 in a case related to alleged terror funding. Singh was taken into custody in April 2022 on accusations of aiding Maoist groups. Kharat, who runs the Marathi YouTube channel Lay Bhari, was arrested in March 2025 for allegedly defaming Maharashtra Rural Development Minister Jayakumar Gore. All three have been denied bail.

In another shocking case, at dawn on March 12, Telangana police arrested Pogadadanda Revathi, Managing Director of Pulse News, and reporter Thanvi Yadav in Hyderabad for broadcasting supposedly “abusive” content about Chief Minister Revanth Reddy. A third individual, a social media user with the handle NippuKodi, was also detained for sharing the video. The trio secured bail on March 17, following public outrage.

Meanwhile, in Assam, journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumder from The CrossCurrent was arrested on March 25 for reporting on protests concerning financial irregularities in the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank. Notably, the bank’s Board includes Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and BJP MLA Biswajit Phukan. Although released on bail a day later, Mozumder was immediately re-arrested in another case and only freed on March 29.

What links all these cases is the journalists’ association with independent digital platforms, particularly YouTube channels—signalling not only the increasing relevance of digital news spaces, but also the lack of institutional recognition and protection for those operating outside mainstream media networks. The chief ministers of the respective states—Sarma (Assam), Fadnavis (Maharashtra), and Reddy (Telangana)—have consistently denied suppressing press freedom. Sarma falsely claimed on X that no journalist had been arrested in recent times, Fadnavis accused Kharat of extortion, and Reddy outrageously called for “so-called journalists” to be stripped and beaten in public during an Assembly address.

Economic reprisal and legal harassment

The state’s hostility extended to the financial backbone of independent journalism. Two well-known investigative platforms—The Reporter’s Collective and Kannada news website The File—had their non-profit status revoked by the Income Tax Department, effectively paralysing their operations. Officials argued their journalism did not serve “public purpose,” a claim strongly refuted by the affected organisations. The Reporter’s Collective described the move as a grave setback to public interest journalism. Editors at The File maintained they operated an ad-free platform and rejected the government’s claim that it was a commercial venture.

These actions reflect a broader tactic known as ‘law fare’—the strategic weaponisation of legal and bureaucratic tools to undermine media freedom. FSC recorded at least five such cases filed against journalists during this period, cementing the notion that legal intimidation is now a key instrument of censorship.

Digital clampdown and regulatory overreach

The Pahalgam terror attack, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, triggered yet another crackdown on digital media. Journalists and commentators who raised valid questions about intelligence failures and security lapses found themselves targeted. Two YouTube news channels—Knocking News and 4PM News—were abruptly blocked, with the latter being accused of jeopardising national security.

Simultaneously, legislative threats to press freedom continued to mount. The Maharashtra government persisted with efforts to enact the controversial Maharashtra Public Security Bill, which proposes sweeping powers to curb undefined ‘unlawful activities’. Despite strong objections from more than a dozen journalist and civil society organisations, the bill is being pushed through. Critics argue its vague and expansive provisions are open to misuse and could criminalise legitimate journalistic work.

A wider assault on free expression

FSC’s documentation shows that attacks on free speech extend far beyond the press. Of the 329 violations tracked in the first four months of 2025, a massive 283 involved censorship of not just journalists, but academics, students, artists, comedians, and filmmakers. Among those targeted were satirists and social media commentators such as Neha Singh Rathore, Dr Madri Kakoti (aka Dr Medusa), Shamita Yadav (aka the ranting gola), and comedian Kunal Kamra—most of whom were booked under draconian sections of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Film censorship also saw an aggressive spike. Scenes from Empuraan and Phule were slashed just before or after their release, making a mockery of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) process. The situation worsened with multiple cuts ordered for Punjab 95, the denial of CBFC certification for award-winning films like Santosh, and heavy-handed censorship of foreign films on OTT platforms. The backlash culminated in violent incidents, including mob violence after a screening of Chhava in Nagpur and an attack on Dalit journalist Sanjay Ambedkar while recording public reactions to Phule in Prayagraj.

Pushback and the fight to reclaim rights

Despite the wave of intimidation, there have been determined efforts to resist. Journalists’ unions, civil liberties groups, digital rights advocates, and independent media organisations have raised their voices against these encroachments. Their interventions have kept the conversation on free speech alive and forced public attention onto the state’s shrinking tolerance for dissent.

The constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech and expression—Article 19(1)(a)—has come under sustained attack in recent times. The first few months of 2025 are a chilling reminder that India’s democratic fabric is fraying under the weight of censorship, intimidation, and state-sanctioned repression. But the fight to reclaim these rights continues, powered by the courage of independent journalists, artists, and citizens who refuse to be silenced.

Related:

Vanishing Media Freedom J & K, 2019-2024: Free Speech Collective

Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order

Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack

The post India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days leading up to the demolition, approximately 900 individuals—predominantly Muslims—were reportedly detained under similar suspicions of illegal residency. As footage of the operation began circulating on social media, images showed bulldozers advancing into the locality, razing makeshift structures and shanties identified as unauthorized dwellings.

This drive marks the city’s most extensive anti-encroachment effort since 2009, drawing both sharp criticism from civil rights groups and vocal support from local officials who framed the action as a step toward restoring law and order on public land. However, concerns have been raised over the timing, targeting, and potential communal implications of the operation, particularly given the absence of clear legal proceedings in many of the reported detentions.

#BREAKING

AMC demolishes illegal settlements near Chandola Lake #Ahmedabad

Joint CP (Crime) Sharad Singhal says majority of residents were Bangladeshis

Action comes amid ongoing drive against illegal encroachments#chandolalake pic.twitter.com/VvZaq86gXh

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) April 29, 2025

A persistent challenge around Chandola Lake

An Indian Express report provides context to the demolition drive, highlighting a long-standing pattern of encroachment in the Chandola Lake area. The last major clearance operation dates back to 2009, indicating that unauthorised construction and settlement have been an ongoing issue for over a decade. According to recent surveys conducted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), there has been a noticeable resurgence of informal settlements, especially around areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas. Authorities allege these shanties were primarily inhabited by undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants—an assertion that now forms a cornerstone of the rationale for the demolition.

Indian Express reported that, “the last demolition drive at Chandola Lake was carried out in 2009. Recently, a survey conducted by the AMC revealed that government land had been encroached upon again, and shanties were constructed around the lake. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants lived in areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas surrounding this lake.”

However, the sudden escalation and timing of the drive—just days after the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir’s Pahalgam—raise pointed questions. Is this a targeted security measure, or has the tragic event been used as a pretext to justify mass displacement without adequate legal safeguards?

Ministerial justification: called ongoing demolition as national security response

Gujarat’s State Home Minister and BJP MLA from Surat, Harsh Sanghavi, publicly endorsed the AMC’s operation. He presented it not merely as an alleged anti-encroachment effort but as a critical national security initiative. In a widely circulated statement on social media platform X, Sanghavi cited connections to terrorism, drug cartels, prostitution rackets, and forged document syndicates—all allegedly operating within the demolished settlements.

“Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!! The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals. Key Aspects of Demolition Drive: – Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells: The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been demolished. – Drug Cartels: Encroachments linked to numerous exposed drug cartels have been demolished. – Illegal Bangladeshi Residents: Encroachments of illegal Bangladeshi residents have been detained and demolished. – Prostitution Network: A major prostitution network operating from the area has been busted. – Forged Documents Nexus: A network creating false documents has been cracked down upon. Action Taken: – Over 2,000 policemen, 15 SRP companies, and municipal staff participated in the operation. – 74 JCBs, 200 trucks, and 20 electrician teams were deployed. – Approximately 2,000 hutments/encroachments, 3 illegal resorts, and parking units were razed. – The Chandola Lake area has been reclaimed” Singhvi wrote on X

Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!!

The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals.

Key Aspects of Demolition Drive:

– Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells:The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been… pic.twitter.com/GWGM1exWab

— Harsh Sanghavi (@sanghaviharsh) April 29, 2025

Arrest and investigation of Lala Mehmood Pathan

As per reports, the demolition campaign began with a focus on a farmhouse allegedly owned by Lala Mehmood Pathan, also known as Lallu Bihari. Authorities accuse him of facilitating illegal settlements by forging rental agreements and producing fraudulent identity documents, including Aadhaar cards. An FIR has been filed against Pathan, and police claim to have uncovered over 590 forged passports allegedly linked to undocumented migrants, as Times of India reported

While these allegations are serious and merit investigation, the broad demolition campaign that followed appears to conflate individual criminal activity with the legitimacy of an entire community’s residency. Moreover, the official narrative linking these findings to national security threats has yet to be backed by court convictions or an independent probe.

Gujarat High Court denies interim relief, cites illegality of construction

On April 29, as the demolition drive intensified, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant interim relief to the residents challenging their eviction.

Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition drive after observing the dwellings of the petitioners were on the periphery of the water body and as per section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, such structures can be razed by the government, petitioners’ lawyer Anand Yagnik said, reported the Indian express.

The court observed that since the petitioners are “illegal encroachers,” relief from demolition cannot be granted to them. The court further added that the petitioners had constructed their homes on notified lake land without obtaining the required permissions. As a result, the case fell outside the scope of the recent Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another vs. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (SLP/36440/2024) dated December 17, 2024, which mandates prior notice before eviction in cases where occupants have established long-standing residence. Citing this precedent, the High Court reiterated that prolonged unauthorised occupation does not create legal entitlements for encroachers.

Accordingly, the court ruled that no interim protection against eviction or demolition could be provided. However, at the request of the petitioners’ advocate, the case has been kept pending to allow for the filing of a rejoinder. The matter is now scheduled to be heard after the court’s vacation, leaving room for further legal arguments.

State’s argument: national security as override to due process

During the hearing, the Gujarat government argued that the demolition drive was not a routine civic action but a necessary response to “specific inputs” following the Pahalgam attack. The state claimed that the presence of suspected illegal immigrants in a sensitive area warranted urgent intervention, even if it meant suspending the usual procedural norms associated with eviction and demolition.

The High Court appeared to accept this argument, allowing the operation to proceed. However, this legal positioning—where “national security” overrides principles of natural justice—has sparked significant debate. Legal scholars and rights advocates warn that such reasoning risks setting a dangerous precedent, where vague or unverified threats can be used to sidestep constitutional protections.

Petitioner advocate’s critique: questioning identification and due process

Following the court’s order, petitioners’ advocate Anand Yagnik addressed the media, raising serious concerns about procedural violations and wrongful detentions. Advocate Anand Yagnik, in his statement to the media regarding the demolition drive near Chandola Lake, conveyed the High Court’s stance. He stated, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that these petitioners are apparently on the water body. Therefore, the judgment against demolition passed by the Supreme Court will not apply to them. They do not have any permission to put up construction on government land, which is otherwise a water body. Therefore, the court is not inclined to grant any interim protection against the demolition and permission to the petitioner to stay near the lake” as ANI reported

#WATCH | Ahmedabad, Gujarat | On the demolition drive near Chandola lake, Advocate Anand Yagnik says, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that… pic.twitter.com/gsNrjbPKLA

— ANI (@ANI) April 29, 2025

He also acknowledged the court’s interpretation of construction on lake land but emphasised that even if undocumented migrants were present, repatriation must be handled through the legally mandated process—via the Foreigners’ Tribunal.

Yagnik said that, “There may be Bangladeshi nationals among the residents of the (Chandola Lake) area, one does not deny that. But, these immigrants should be sent back as per the process of law, with orders of the Foreigners’ Tribunal with dignity and respect… But by the way, in the last four days, the state government of Gujarat has picked up 1,200-1,500 people by tagging them as Bangladeshis, and also released 90% of them as they were found to be Indian nationals and not Bangladeshis… Now, in a demolition drive the authorities are also bulldozing the homes of those, who have not been found to be Bangladeshi nationals” as the Indian Express reported.

Yagnik revealed a deeply troubling detail that of the estimated 1,200 to 1,500 people detained by the Gujarat police in the days leading up to the demolition, nearly 90% were subsequently released after being identified as Indian citizens. If accurate, this implies a staggering failure in the initial identification process—suggesting that hundreds of individuals may have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, and had their homes demolished under erroneous assumptions of foreign origin.

“Sensitive Input” trumps natural justice in urgent hearing

In its affidavit to the High Court, the Gujarat government maintained that the principles of natural justice should not obstruct actions taken to protect national security in the Chandola Lake area. During an urgent hearing convened on Tuesday afternoon for the petition filed by approximately 23 residents of Siasat Nagar, the High Court ultimately sided with the state. The court accepted the argument that the demolition was not a “regular drive against encroachment” but a targeted operation driven by “specific input” concerning illegal immigrants, thus denying the residents any interim relief.

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Gujarat HC refuses stay demolition, AMC launches massive demolition in Muslim-majority Chandola Lake area appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But they are not alone. In Lucknow, the newsroom of 4 PM, a digital Hindi-language outlet known for its critical reporting on the government, was forcibly taken off YouTube. Its editor, Sanjay Sharma, told Newslaudry that he had been asking government questions regarding national security, especially after the Pahalgam terror attack. Together, these incidents point to a growing climate of fear, where artistic expression, academic freedom, and independent journalism are seen as threats to national order rather than pillars of a healthy democracy.

The cases of Rathore, Kakoti, and 4 PM are not isolated. They are symptoms of a systemic assault on free speech, emboldened by a new legal regime—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—that revives colonial-era sedition in a new, more ambiguous form. This is not just about individual persecution. It is about the shrinking space for dissent in today’s India—and the urgent need to defend it.

‘Sedition’ for singing truths: Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore targeted

In a striking example of the state’s growing hostility towards dissenters and cultural voices that challenge official narratives, Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore has been booked under charges of sedition and digital offences in Uttar Pradesh for her social media posts on the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges come under Section 152 of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts “endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, and under various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR, registered at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow, stems from a complaint by one Abhay Pratap Singh. The complaint claims that Rathore’s posts could provoke communal tensions and alleges that her content is being picked up and circulated by social media handles associated with Pakistani political organisations. That a popular singer known for biting social satire has been accused of jeopardising national unity, based on speculation that Pakistani accounts shared her video, lays bare the sheer fragility of the state’s definition of “security” and “sovereignty”.

What did Rathore say? Legitimate questions, politically inconvenient: As per a report in The Quint, the complaint focuses on three tweets by Rathore and one by an allegedly Pakistan-linked handle that reposted her video. In one tweet, Rathore raised a straightforward question:

“Modi ji was scheduled to visit Jammu on 19 April, but his trip was postponed. Three days later, on 22 April, a terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, resulting in the death of 27 tourists. On what grounds was Modiji’s Jammu visit postponed? Was there a suspicion of a possible terrorist attack?” (Translated to English)

मोदी जी 19 अप्रैल को जम्मू जाने वाले थे, लेकिन उनकी यात्रा स्थगित कर दी गई.

तीन दिन बाद 22 अप्रैल को पहलगाम में आतंकी हमला हुआ और 27 पर्यटक मारे गये.

मोदीजी की जम्मू यात्रा किस बहाने से स्थगित की गई?

क्या किसी आतंकी हमले की आशंका थी?#PahalgamTerroristAttack #pahalgamattack… pic.twitter.com/VNYgigiuBZ

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 23, 2025

Another post urged people to question the narrative and look beyond the surface:

“Who could have orchestrated such an attack? Who stands to benefit from it? Think about it, think carefully! Use common sense and tell!”

पति की मौत का मातम मना रही औरत का कार्टून बनाने के लिए जितनी असंवेदनशीलता और बेशर्मी चाहिये…वो सिर्फ़ भाजपा में है.

अब बस दो बातें सोचिये-

1-ऐसे हमले से किसे फ़ायदा होगा?

2-हमले के तुरंत बाद “धर्म पूछा जाति नहीं” के पोस्टर किसने लगाये?

बहुत कुछ समझ में आने लगेगा.… pic.twitter.com/1qHm6wzfat

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 23, 2025

These are not inflammatory remarks but standard political commentary—critical in tone, but fully within the bounds of democratic discourse. Yet, they have been construed as seditious, dangerous, and anti-national.

The FIR also references a tweet by a Pakistani handle—believed to be affiliated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party—which reposted a video of Rathore where she called the Pahalgam incident “a failure of intelligence and security under the current administration” and alluded to similar historical instances where terror attacks were politically leveraged during elections.

पाकिस्तान के किसी ट्विटर हैंडल ने मेरा वीडियो शेयर कर दिया तो अंधभक्त मुझे देशद्रोही कहने लगे.

लेकिन मोदीजी पाकिस्तान जाकर बिरयानी खा लेते हैं तब भी देशभक्त हैं.

मैं ये बात बार-बार कहूँगी कि अगर बिहार चुनाव पहलगाम के मुद्दे पर हुआ तो बिहार के अपने मुद्दे साइड लाइन हो जाएँगे. pic.twitter.com/XVZhGQJuiz

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 26, 2025

देश के भीतर हिंदू-मुसलमान की जो आग आपने बीते दस सालों में लगाई है…देश उससे कमज़ोर हुआ है.

पत्रकार का काम सरकारों से सवाल पूछना है…उनकी चाटुकारिता करना नहीं.

है दम?

रही बात मेरी…तो मेरा पूरा परिवार भारतीय सेना में ही है…तो मुझे देशभक्ति मत सिखाइये.@chitraaum pic.twitter.com/7UrNDtl3is

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 27, 2025

The criminalisation of political dissent: The legal and political implications of this FIR are significant. Section 152 of the BNS, which replaces the colonial-era sedition law under the Indian Penal Code, was touted by the Union government as a modernised, rights-respecting alternative. In practice, however, the section is proving to be just as repressive, if not worse. The language of “sovereignty” and “integrity” has once again become a catch-all net to silence dissent, especially in politically sensitive moments like elections.

The FIR represents an increasingly familiar pattern in BJP-ruled states, especially Uttar Pradesh: anyone who challenges the government’s record—whether on security, governance, or civil rights—is branded a threat to national security, slapped with draconian laws, and subjected to relentless digital vilification. That this treatment is being meted out to a folk singer whose platform is built on satire, regional culture, and grassroots issues, shows just how wide the net of repression has been cast.

Neha Singh Rathore hits back: Rathore, undeterred, released a strong video statement on X (formerly Twitter), accusing the state of using legal intimidation to deflect from its failures:

“The government wants to divert attention by filing an FIR against me. This is not so difficult to understand. If you have the guts, go get the heads of those terrorists. Don’t put the blame of your failure on me.”

पहलगाम हमले के जवाब में अब तक सरकार ने क्या किया है? मेरे ऊपर FIR ?

अरे दम है तो जाइये…आतंकवादियों के सिर लेकर आइये!

सरकार मेरे ऊपर FIR करवाकर असली मुद्दों से ध्यान भटकाना चाहती है…क्या ये बात समझना इतना मुश्किल है? pic.twitter.com/mOuKPzYYoF

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 28, 2025

आतंकी हमला सरकार की नाकामी है और सरकार की नाकामी पर सरकार से सवाल पूछना होता है.

बहुत सारे लोग इस कॉमन सेंस से महरूम हो चुके हैं.

मैं सरकार से सवाल पूछ रही हूँ तो कुछ लोग मुझसे सवाल पूछ रहे हैं!

अगर सही समय पर सरकार से सवाल पूछा गया होता तो आज देश शोक में न डूबा होता.…

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 23, 2025

She further condemned the state’s practice of penalising those who ask questions:

“Their answer to every question is sending a notice, taking away our jobs, filing FIRs, getting us abused, scaring us, and humiliating us. If you call this politics, then what is dictatorship?”

सरकार को अपनी नाकामी का ठीकरा मेरे कपार मढ़ने की कोई ज़रूरत नहीं है.

पहलगाम हमले के जवाब में अब तक सरकार ने क्या किया है? मेरे ऊपर FIR ?

अरे दम है तो जाइये आतंकवादियों के सिर लेकर आइये!

जैसे लोकतंत्र में एक-एक वोट ज़रूरी होता है, वैसे ही एक-एक सवाल भी ज़रूरी होता है…और सरकार… pic.twitter.com/gMlayupQmd

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 28, 2025

In response to the coordinated outrage from the BJP IT cell, Rathore clarified that she has deep personal ties to the armed forces:

“They’re calling me anti-national because a Pakistani handle copied my video. Fourteen members of my family have served in the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. My brother is fighting Naxalites in Chhattisgarh and my uncle fought in the Kargil war.”

पूरी भाजपा के नेताओं के जितने बच्चे फ़ौज में होंगे…उससे ज़्यादा तो मेरे अपने परिवार के लोग सेना में अपनी जान दाँव पर लगा चुके हैं…

…लेकिन आज भाजपा का आईटी सेल मुझे देशद्रोही कह रहा है क्योंकि मैं बिना डरे सवाल पूछती हूँ.

प्रधानमंत्री से सवाल पूछना देशद्रोह है क्या?… pic.twitter.com/t6ImAbbZpX

— Neha Singh Rathore (@nehafolksinger) April 27, 2025

Her response not only highlights the absurdity of the charges against her but also exposes the selective patriotism of those who weaponise nationalism to silence dissent.

A pattern of targeting: This is not Rathore’s first brush with the law. In July 2023, she faced legal action for posting a cartoon on the horrifying Madhya Pradesh urination incident, where a dominant-caste man was seen urinating on a tribal labourer. Earlier in February 2023, she was served a notice by Kanpur Police for allegedly promoting enmity through the second version of her viral song ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’.

Her songs—rooted in Bhojpuri folk tradition—focus on social issues like unemployment, corruption, gender violence, the dowry system, and declining cultural values. Unlike the sanitised and often apolitical mainstream media and music industry, Rathore’s work is a rare voice of resistance, using wit and melody to speak truth to power.

Her 2020 hit ‘Bihar Mein Ka Ba’ and its 2022 counterpart ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’ gained massive traction precisely because they reflected the frustrations of ordinary people under a regime increasingly allergic to criticism.

Free speech or treason? A dangerous precedent: The booking of Neha Singh Rathore should worry anyone who values free speech, artistic expression, and the right to question authority. It illustrates how the new legal architecture under the BNS is no less authoritarian than the old colonial codes it claims to replace. Vague provisions like Section 152 are now being used not to protect India’s sovereignty, but to shield a powerful ruling party from public scrutiny—especially in moments when its security apparatus appears compromised.

Rather than launching a credible investigation into the Pahalgam attack, the state has found it more convenient to redirect public attention by persecuting artists and intellectuals. By doing so, it reframes criticism as subversion, dissent as sedition, and legitimate questions as threats to national integrity.

Neha Singh Rathore’s case is not an isolated incident—it is a warning. A democracy that cannot tolerate a folk song, a tweet, or a video is no longer secure in its foundations. And when the law is wielded not to protect citizens but to silence them, the real danger to the nation lies not in dissenting voices, but in those who seek to extinguish them.

Targeting the Professor: Dr Medusa booked for ‘sedition’ over social media posts

In a chilling development that underscores the shrinking space for academic and political dissent in India, an FIR has been filed against Dr Madri Kakoti—popularly known as “Dr Medusa” on social media—for posts questioning state actions following the terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges, filed at Hasanganj police station in Lucknow, include sedition-like provisions under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Dr Kakoti, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Lucknow University and a widely followed political commentator online, is accused of posts that allegedly threaten India’s “unity, integrity and sovereignty.” The complaint, filed by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) leader Jatin Shukla, claims she routinely uses terms such as “saffron terrorists” and that her remarks are being picked up by Pakistani social media handles like @PTI_Promotion—ironically the same handle cited in the FIR against singer Neha Singh Rathore earlier.

The posts that sparked the storm: Dr Kakoti’s recent posts have focused on the alleged atrocities committed against Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, and she has openly demanded the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for what she describes as an “unforgivable failure” of national security. Her posts include commentary on state excesses in Kashmir, communal impunity, and the co-option of terrorism for electoral benefit.

Protect the KASHMIRI PEOPLE living outside Kashmir.

DEMAND JUSTICE, NOT REVENGE. https://t.co/ZjhAbuRLVJ

— Dr.Medusa (@ms_medusssa) April 24, 2025

27 Indians are dead. RESIGN @AmitShah If you can not ensure the safety of Indians, YOU MUST RESIGN.

AND THE REST OF YOU LOT. OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE REALITY THAT HATRED ONLY BEGETS HATRED. pic.twitter.com/VVPGzOPFCA

— Dr.Medusa (@ms_medusssa) April 23, 2025

धर्म पूछकर गोली मारना आतंकवाद है।

और धर्म पूछकर lynch करना,
धर्म पूछकर नौकरी से निकालना,
धर्म पूछकर घर न देना,
धर्म पूछकर घर bulldoze करना, वगैरह वगैरह
भी आतंकवाद है।

असली आतंकी को पहचानो।

— Dr.Medusa (@ms_medusssa) April 23, 2025

While her critique is deeply political and sharply worded, it falls squarely within the realm of democratic free speech and academic independence—particularly in a country where public discourse is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a). Yet, the FIR alleges that her intent is to provoke unrest and “incite riots.” Such extrapolations from political critique to criminal conspiracy reflect an increasingly draconian trend.

पहलगाम में हुए नृशंस आतंकवादी हमले पर सरकार से सवाल पूछते वीडियो और ट्वीट के संदर्भ में मैं यह स्पष्टीकरण देना चाहती हूं:

मेरे द्वारा किए गए ट्वीट और बनाए गए वीडियो में आतंकवादी/आतंकी शब्द सिर्फ़ और सिर्फ़ पाकिस्तान द्वारा समर्थित और प्रायोजित आतंकवादियों के लिए है, जिन्होंने…

— Dr.Medusa (@ms_medusssa) April 29, 2025

Campus protests and disciplinary action: As her posts gained traction, ABVP-led student protests erupted at Lucknow University, demanding her dismissal. Protesters raised slogans, submitted a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor, and insisted that her remarks were “anti-national.” Under pressure, the University issued Dr Kakoti a show-cause notice, as per the report of Moneycontrol.com, demanding an explanation within five days and threatening disciplinary action.

This targeting of a university professor, using student mobilisation and administrative pressure, is a playbook that has become disturbingly common. Whether in the case of Delhi University’s Dr GN Saibaba, JNU’s Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, or now Dr Kakoti, universities are being turned into battlegrounds for ideological policing.

As per Times of India, Dr Kakoti, originally from Assam and known for her pointed satire and critique of majoritarian politics, responded to the outrage by stating that “What I said is a fact and 100% correct. There is nothing wrong in this statement. It is a general one, listing crimes which fall within the definition of causing ‘terror’. I can’t really take any responsibility for someone thinking it is about them.”

Weaponising patriotism, silencing dissent: The FIR and the university’s swift disciplinary response are indicative of a deeper rot: the weaponisation of nationalism to criminalise critique, especially from voices seen as Left-leaning, secular, or resistant to the Sangh Parivar’s ideological worldview. ABVP leader Shukla told Newslaundry: “People from Leftist ideology are working to divide society and the students. They are making this issue political, when there is a situation of war between India and Pakistan and your ideology wants to create a civil war in the country itself.”

This framing—conflating dissent with disloyalty, criticism with conspiracy—is emblematic of an authoritarian approach to governance. By invoking an external enemy (Pakistan) and branding all domestic critics as internal threats, the state and its allied organisations seek to delegitimise political opposition altogether.

While the colonial-era sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been suspended pending Supreme Court review, its spirit has found a new home in Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—a catch-all provision criminalising any act seen as “endangering India’s sovereignty, unity or integrity.”

Both Dr Medusa and Neha Singh Rathore have been booked under this vague and sweeping section. That their posts were allegedly shared by a Pakistani social media handle has been used to bolster charges of sedition—a dubious logic that essentially gives foreign propaganda the power to criminalise Indian citizens.

Silencing dissent: Blocking 4PM news channel on YouTube over ‘national security’ concerns

In a fresh blow to press freedom and digital journalism in India, the YouTube news channel 4PM has been blocked in the country following a government order citing concerns related to “national security or public order.” The move, which lacks transparency and a clear public justification, marks yet another instance of the state using opaque mechanisms to silence critical voices in the media space—particularly those asking uncomfortable questions.

The ban, communicated to the channel’s editor-in-chief Sanjay Sharma via email from YouTube on Tuesday morning as per Newslaundry, comes shortly after 4PM published a series of videos critically analysing the government’s handling of the Pahalgam terror attack. Sharma, a veteran journalist, has stated that the channel’s intention was not to undermine national interest but to hold the government accountable in a democratic manner.

Coverage that asked tough questions: Although the exact video or post that led to the blocking remains unspecified, the report of Newslaundry provided that 4PM had recently uploaded content with headlines such as:

• “Pahalgam hamle ka khul gaya raaz. Raaton raat kya hua ki hat gayi sena?”
• “Laal kaaleen par Amit Shah ka swaagat. Mritakon ko shraddhanjali dene gaye the ya tamasha banaane?”

These pointed headlines reflect the channel’s critical editorial line: questioning the sudden security lapses in Pahalgam, the removal of troops before the attack, and the political spectacle surrounding Home Minister Amit Shah’s visit to pay tributes to the victims.

Rather than engage with these questions, the government has seemingly opted for the digital equivalent of a blackout. At the time of writing, visitors to 4PM’s YouTube page are met with a notice that reads:

“This content is currently unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order.”

Opaque process, no due process: The removal of 4PM comes under the ambit of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allows the central government to issue blocking orders in “emergency” situations without providing the affected parties an opportunity to be heard beforehand. While the rules allow for post-facto hearings, critics argue this is largely a formality—especially when platforms comply without questioning or publicising the takedown.

No formal notice from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has been made public. The lack of transparency, both from the government and from YouTube, raises serious concerns about the misuse of national security as a blanket justification to suppress journalism that challenges the ruling dispensation.

A pattern of digital censorship: This is not an isolated incident. Over the past few years, India has seen a sharp rise in the blocking of YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, and news content critical of the central government, especially during sensitive moments such as the farmers’ protests, the Delhi riots, and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. Often, the reasoning given involves “public order” or “national interest”—but without explanation or recourse.

According to the Google Transparency Report of 2023, India has been among the top five countries in the world for government content takedown requests, with hundreds of URLs blocked citing national security. , these incidents signal a coordinated suppression of dissent in the digital sphere, particularly when it arises from independent or alternative media sources.

Democracy and the “Right to Know” at stake: 4PM is not a major corporate media house but a regional digital-first outlet with multiple sub-channels such as 4PM UP and 4PM Rajasthan. Its success lies in its direct communication with ordinary citizens, often bypassing mainstream narratives to highlight local grievances, administrative lapses, and political controversies. In doing so, it fulfils the media’s constitutional role of holding power to account.

By labelling such journalism as a threat to national security, the government not only criminalises scrutiny but also undermines the public’s right to information—a right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Conclusion: Policing speech, protecting power

The FIRs against Neha Singh Rathore and Dr Madri Kakoti, alongside the silencing of 4 PM, are not aberrations—they are part of a broader architecture of repression where dissent is equated with disloyalty, and grief is permitted only if it conforms to the state’s narrative. These actions came in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, a horrifying incident that claimed the lives of Indian soldiers and civilians. In moments like these, public mourning must be accompanied by public inquiry. People must be allowed to ask: How did such a breach happen in a heavily militarised zone? Were there lapses in intelligence? What accountability mechanisms are in place?

Instead of facilitating such democratic introspection, the state has chosen to clamp down on voices that seek it. Rathore’s Bhojpuri poem and Kakoti’s social media post did what responsible citizens should do in a constitutional democracy—they questioned state preparedness and response. Their criminalisation reveals a dangerous tendency: the shifting of focus from state failures to citizen ‘offences’.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with its vague and expansive clauses like Section 152, the state is increasingly equipped to prosecute dissent under the guise of protecting sovereignty. But as history shows, suppressing uncomfortable questions in the name of national security rarely leads to genuine safety—it leads to silence, impunity, and a brittle nationalism that cannot withstand scrutiny.

To defend freedom of expression today is to defend the right to grieve publicly, to question fearlessly, and to demand accountability relentlessly. The real threat to the republic is not a poem or a post—it is a government that treats questions as threats and critics as criminals. The price of dissent is rising—but so too is the cost of silence. And in the face of terror, it is not silence but scrutiny that keeps a democracy alive.

Related:

Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack

Complaint filed against VHP’s Chetan Jagdish Patel for inflammatory speech in Alibaug

Pahalgam attack sparks nationwide turmoil, Kashmiri students face a chilling wave of hate across India

SC leads the nation’s legal fraternity as it unites in grief & outrage over PahalgaSm terror attack

The post The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Valley remains steeped in grief, the ripple effects of the attack have reached far beyond Jammu and Kashmir, causing a fresh wave of anxiety and hostility towards Kashmiri students studying across India. Reports of targeted harassment and violence have surfaced, prompting urgent responses from community organisations and political leaders alike.

Advisory Issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA)

In light of rising tensions and threats following the attack, the Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) has issued an urgent advisory to all Kashmiri students pursuing education across various Indian states. The association appealed for restraint, advising students to remain indoors unless absolutely necessary, refrain from engaging in political discussions, and avoid posting sensitive content online.

Nasir Khuehami, National Convenor of JKSA, emphasised the volatile nature of the current environment. “We appeal to all Kashmiri students to maintain calm, avoid political debates or provocative content on social media, and not venture out unnecessarily,” he said through his social media account. The association also provided helpline numbers and has activated a dedicated response team to support students in distress and coordinate with local authorities where needed.

Pahalgam Bloodshed | J&K Students Association Issues Helpline & Advisory for Kashmiri Students

In the wake of the tragic Pahalgam attack that claimed over 28 innocent lives, the J&K Students Association (JKSA) has issued a safety advisory for Kashmiri students across India.

We… pic.twitter.com/Wf5acUieKA

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 23, 2025

Ummar Jamal, the National President of JKSA, condemned the terror attack unequivocally, calling it a “cowardly and inhumane act.” As per report of Rising Kashmir, Jamal reiterated that terrorism has no religion or justification and must be countered with unity and resolve. Expressing solidarity with the victims’ families, the association urged students to focus on their safety and academics, warning against being misled by those seeking to exploit the tragedy for political purposes.

Wave of Harassment against Kashmiri Students

In the immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, JKSA reported a disturbing spike in harassment, abuse, and violence targeted at Kashmiri students in several Indian states, including Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab.

• Uttarakhand (Dehradun): Around 20 Kashmiri students fled to Jolly Grant Airport after being threatened by members of the Hindu Raksha Dal. The group circulated videos threatening students with violence if they did not leave by a set deadline. Later, it was provided by Khuehami that an FIR has been registered against the members of the Hindu Raksha Dal, and arrests will follow shortly.

Uttrakhand:

I have spoken to the DGP of Uttarakhand, Deepam Seth Ji, regarding the open threats issued by members of the Hindu Raksha Dal to Kashmiri students, including an ultimatum asking them to vacate the state. I’ve been told FIR has been registered and arrests will follow…

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 24, 2025

Lalit Sharma of Hindu Raksha Dal has ordered Kashmiri Muslims to leave Uttarakhand by tomorrow. He claims that their ‘teams’ will go on rounds from tomorrow and deal with any Kashmiri Muslim in their own way. This comes a day after the #pahalgamattack pic.twitter.com/F75WrdRV3n

— Amil Bhatnagar (@AmilwithanL) April 23, 2025

• Himachal Pradesh (Arni University, Kathghar and Kangra): Kashmiri students were assaulted in their hostel rooms by individuals who forcibly entered, broke doors, and physically attacked them while hurling communal slurs and branding them as terrorists.

Now Himachal Pradesh.

The situation is turning grim and deeply concerning. We have received frantic distress calls from Kashmiri students from Arni University, Kathghar (Indora), in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh who are being harassed, abused, and physically attacked by right-wing…

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 23, 2025

• Punjab (Universal Group of Institutions, Derabassi, Chandigarh): Students were beaten up by a group of unidentified locals who stormed the hostel premises late at night armed with sharp weapons. One student suffered serious injuries; others were left shaken.

7th Incident:

Recieved Distress Calls from Universal Group of Institutions, Derabassi, Chandigarh, where Kashmiri students were brutally attacked inside the hostel premises during the night. Students said that, local individuals and other students forcefully entered the hostel… pic.twitter.com/QDf1iYjMlk

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 24, 2025

• Uttar Pradesh (Prayagraj): Reports emerged of students being asked to vacate accommodations by landlords and being forced to leave due to threats from local groups and police inaction.

Received multiple distress calls from Kashmiri students and youth in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Landlords are asking them to vacate immediately, citing security concerns. Some have already left under pressure. This is alarming. Prayagraj is a sensitive region, and there are…

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 23, 2025

• Noida (Amity University): As per The New Indian Express, a Kashmiri student was allegedly beaten severely on campus grounds. The matter has been brought to the attention of JKSA, which is in touch with university officials.
• Written threats to institutions (Dehradun): The Hindu Raksha Dal issued letters and warnings to various colleges, demanding the expulsion of Kashmiri Muslim students and threatening consequences if their demands weren’t met.

5th Incident: Now in Dehradun.

Hindu Raksha Dal and other Right Wing Elements has issued written threats to several colleges in Dehradun Uttrakhand, demanding the expulsion of Kashmiri Muslim students and setting a chilling ultimatum of 10 AM tomorrow. Just now, Around 20…

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 23, 2025

• Social media threats: Viral videos have surfaced showing fringe groups inciting violence against Kashmiris, with direct calls for assault, eviction, and boycott—contributing to a climate of fear.

Political leaders and civil society react

The severity of the situation has prompted appeals from political leaders and civil society groups. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah confirmed that the state government is in touch with counterparts in other states to ensure the safety of Kashmiri students. “I’ve requested my counterpart Chief Ministers to take extra care,” he said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

The J&K government is in touch with the governments of the states where these reports are originating from. I’m also in touch with my counterpart Chief Ministers in these states & have requested they take extra care. https://t.co/oMTx06o08Y

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) April 24, 2025

People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti also expressed deep concern. In a statement, she said she had spoken with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, offering condolences for the victims of the attack while urging his immediate intervention to protect Kashmiris facing threats in various parts of the country. She condemned the role of extremist elements in inciting hate and stressed the need for the Centre to act decisively.

Spoke with Home Minister @AmitShah ji to extend my deepest condolences & also express solidarity with bereaved families of the Pahalgam terror attack. We stand with the nation in this hour of mourning. Also requested him to intervene in the wake of certain elements openly…

— Mehbooba Mufti (@MehboobaMufti) April 24, 2025

Sajad Lone, President of the People’s Conference, echoed these sentiments, calling on the Union Government to protect the lives and dignity of Kashmiri students. “They are being bullied, beaten, and evicted.” he stated.

There have been many incidents across the country wherein Kashmiri students are being harassed, beaten up, bullied and even asked to vacate their residential premises.
I request the union government to please ensure the safety of Kashmiri students.

— Sajad Lone (@sajadlone) April 24, 2025

A targeted campaign of hate

JKSA convenor Nasir Khuehami strongly criticised the coordinated nature of these incidents. “This is not just about security. It is a calculated, targeted campaign of hate and vilification against students from a specific region and identity,” he said

I have spoken to the office of the Leader of Opposition, @RahulGandhi Ji, regarding the growing incidents of harassment, intimidation, and threat calls targeting Kashmiri students across the country. LoP has expressed deep concern over these disturbing developments and assured…

— Nasir Khuehami (ناصر کہویہامی) (@NasirKhuehami) April 24, 2025

With at least seven major incidents of violence or harassment reported since the Pahalgam massacre, the situation remains deeply alarming. The JKSA continues to monitor developments closely, provide support to those affected, and appeal to national and state authorities for immediate action.

Conclusion: Urging unity, not vengeance

In the face of tragedy, the JKSA as well as the politicians of Jammu and Kashmir have consistently called for calm, compassion, and community support. It has reiterated that violence cannot be met with hate and scapegoating. As the country mourns the victims of the Pahalgam attack, there is an urgent need for national unity—not only against terror, but against the communal rhetoric that threatens to unravel social harmony.

For now, the focus remains on ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable students. Helpline numbers are operational, and support networks are being strengthened. But unless state authorities act swiftly and decisively, the consequences of unchecked bigotry could spiral further, exacerbating the very divisions that terrorists seek to exploit.

Related:

A Tranquil Paradise Shattered: The Pahalgam terror attack

SC leads the nation’s legal fraternity as it unites in grief & outrage over Pahalgam terror attack

Muslims in Kashmir & across India strongly condemn Pahalgam terror attack

Indian Muslims, others, condemn the heinous massacre of tourists near Pahalgam, Kashmir

The post Pahalgam attack sparks nationwide turmoil, Kashmiri students face a chilling wave of hate across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Declared a ‘foreigner’ by Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 10 in Nagaon on October 31, 2016 (Case FT(D) No. 24/2015), Matleb had managed to secure bail from the Gauhati High Court in February 2017. But in September 2024, the same court upheld the Tribunal’s declaration. He was detained and sent to the Matia Transit Camp — Assam’s largest and newest detention facility — on December 5, 2024.

For five months, Matleb remained incarcerated in this high-security detention camp, far from his home in Hojai. He was seriously ill for much of that time of detention— taken to hospitals several times, even admitted for 17 days before Eid. Yet, according to his family, he had no serious health issues before his detention. Whatever illness consumed him began only after he was imprisoned. Even as he deteriorated, his family was never provided with a single medical record — neither during his detention, nor after his death.

On the evening of April 17, 2025, the family received a call from Matia officials. Matleb’s condition had worsened, they were told, and they should come see him. Given the long journey — over 300 kilometres from Hojai to Goalpara — the family asked if they could leave the next morning. The officials agreed. But just a few hours later, around 1 a.m., another call came. Matleb had been shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH).

His wife, Husanara Begum, and her brother, Sarmul Islam, immediately left for Guwahati at 3 a.m. They reached the hospital by morning. But instead of finding Matleb under treatment, they were met with silence and evasion. It wasn’t until 3 pm — after hours of waiting and pleading — that Sarmul was allowed into the morgue. That is where he finally saw his brother-in-law, lifeless.

Abdul Matleb was the sole breadwinner for his family — a wife and four daughters, three of them still in school. He worked as a rock breaker, a job his wife also took up to support the household. But now, caught in mourning rituals and with no son to assist her, she cannot return to work. The family is left with no income, no explanation, and no justice.

Even during his medical visits, Matleb was treated as a criminal. He was often taken to hospitals in handcuffs. “Where would he run in that condition?” his brother-in-law had asked the police once. Only then were the cuffs removed.

In the most heart-wrenching moment of this story, the authorities who had insisted Matleb was a Bangladeshi handed over his body to be buried in the land where he was born, lived, and worked all his life. Initially, the family refused to accept the body. “If he was Bangladeshi, send his body there,” they told the officials. But eventually, they relented. His daughters, they felt, should have the chance to see their father one last time.

He was buried in a small graveyard just a few steps from his home in Hojai — the same place his ancestors were buried. A man declared a foreigner by the State was returned in death to the soil of his birth.

This tragedy did not happen in isolation. Similar deaths have occurred in Assam’s detention centres — and in each case, the bodies were quietly returned to their families in India. These stories lay bare the moral and administrative collapse of the state’s ‘foreigner detection’ mechanism.

When a team from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) visited the family, there were no words that could make sense of the grief. Matleb’s youngest daughter, Abida, who studies in Class IV, could not speak. Her eyes were dry, her face blank. Her smile, her family said, has not returned.

Sarmul Islam, her maternal uncle, recounted the events while speaking to CJP Assam team, and said:

      “We got a call at 9 pm on April 17 saying his health was failing. We told them we’d come early next morning. They said okay.      Then around 1 am, they said he had been shifted to Guwahati. We left at 3 am. But when we reached, they kept us waiting for hours. Finally, after 3 pm, they showed us the body.”

      “We didn’t want to accept the body. If he was a foreigner, send him to Bangladesh, we said. But we thought of the girls. They should at least get to see him one last time.”

      “He never had a serious illness. All of this happened after he was taken to detention. He was taken to hospital four or five times. Only once was he in Guwahati for 13–14 days. They would call us, but never give us any reports. And every time, he was in handcuffs. Only once, after we requested, they removed them.”

“He had all his documents. This happened only because of two names — Abdul Matleb and Matleb Ali. That’s it. No one else in the family has a case. His parents, his relatives — all here. If he’s Bangladeshi, then they are too. But it was just him.”

Assam’s detention regime operates on a cruel paradox. People are declared foreigners on the flimsiest of grounds — spelling errors, document mismatches, legacy data discrepancies. They are then locked away in high-security camps, often far from their families, with little transparency, few legal safeguards, and no meaningful remedy.

Worse still, the system makes no sense even on its own terms. If Matleb was not Indian, why was his body given to his family in Hojai? Why was he buried in the local graveyard? The State has no answer. On behalf of CJP, a team of five set out early in the morning and travelled over eight hours to reach Abdul Matleb’s grieving family. But once there, we were left speechless. The pain in that home was beyond words, the moment beyond description. What can be said when a system, in the name of identifying ‘foreigners’, inflicts such relentless cruelty on its own people? Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals and detention camps have become a dark stain on our democracy—where those who belong are treated like criminals, and where justice is lost to bureaucracy and bias.

This issue has been raised repeatedly — by human rights organisations, especially CJP, in the national media, even in the Assam Legislative Assembly. Yet, the cycle of injustice grinds on.

Abdul Matleb was handcuffed in life and returned as an Indian only in death. In seeking to identify ‘foreigners’, the Indian State is erasing the dignity of its own citizens — and in cases like this, even their lives.’

Related:

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp appeared first on SabrangIndia.