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

Court steps in after couple disappears post-hearing

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

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

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

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

‘No justification for illegal detention’: HC

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court further added:

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

Police officers may face action

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

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

Background of the case

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

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

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

Court keeps matter open

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

The cases — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India — were filed after both men, who had been released under Supreme Court-mandated COVID bail in 2021, were suddenly picked up again in May 2025 despite consistent compliance with all bail conditions. They have since been lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. CJP has been providing legal aid in both these cases.

State’s New Claim: “They were once sent back”

At the hearing, the FT counsel, appearing for the State, told the Bench that “the government is ready to deport them,” but added that “a stay order by this Court” prevented immediate action. The counsel went on to state that “the factual position is that they were once sent back. They came back. Now they are kept in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.”

This was the first time such a claim had ever been made in the proceedings — no previous affidavit, submission, or oral statement had suggested that the two men had been “sent back” to Bangladesh before.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta immediately objected: “This is being said for the first time, My Lords. It was never mentioned before.”

Petitioners demand proof of verification

Dutta pressed that before any talk of deportation, the government must first demonstrate factual and documentary verification of nationality, and clarify through which process and destination country deportation is being contemplated:

“Let them show the Court that they have completed the verification. If they have been able to verify, that is different. But they need to show where they will deport and how they will deport. Otherwise, my submission is that the detention is illegal.”

The argument underscored a crucial point — verification of nationality is a precondition to deportation, not a justification for continued detention. Yet, despite repeated demands for such evidence since June, the State has produced no records of nationality confirmation or communication from Bangladesh.

Bench Avoids Two Key Questions: Deportation claim and verification process

Despite the gravity of the new claim, the Bench did not press the State for supporting documentation or clarification on when and how the alleged earlier deportation occurred, or through which process. Nor did it examine the petitioner’s long-standing demand for production of verification records confirming nationality — a prerequisite under both domestic and international law before any lawful deportation can occur.

Instead, the Court recorded that submissions had been heard from both sides and directed that orders will be delivered on October 24, 2025.

By not engaging with either issue — the alleged “previous sending back” or the requirement of verification — the Bench left unresolved the two fundamental questions that have defined this case since its inception:

1. Can persons released on Supreme Court-granted bail be re-detained without bail cancellation, solely on the State’s readiness to deport?
2. Can deportation be initiated without verification or proof of nationality — or, as now alleged, after an unexplained earlier “sending back”?

Legal and factual uncertainty deepens

The State’s assertion that both men had once been “sent back” — without any affidavit or documentary trail — now sits uneasily alongside its claim that they are being held “pending deportation.” The petitioners have maintained throughout that the detention is illegal, since both men were released under valid judicial bail orders, and no court has recalled or varied those directions.

The Bench’s decision to step back from addressing either the alleged prior deportation or the absence of verification records leaves a grey area — a vacuum between State assertion and judicial scrutiny, where neither legality nor process is yet established.

Background: From bail to re-detention

Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in 2018 and 2019. After over two years in detention, both were released on bail under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 order in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1 of 2020, which allowed long-term detainees to be freed under conditions of weekly reporting. For nearly two years, both complied — signing attendance registers at Kajolgaon and Goalpara Police Stations every week — until their sudden re-detention in May 2025.

Their families’ petitions have challenged these arrests as unconstitutional, arguing that bail orders remain valid until recalled and that “verification” cannot justify re-incarceration. The State has since argued that deportation efforts, halted during the pandemic, have now resumed — though it has yet to produce any official verification or communication with Bangladesh confirming nationality.

Their petitions, filed by their relatives, argued that detention without recall of bail orders is unconstitutional, and that any “verification” could be undertaken without custody. The State, however, has maintained that it is reinitiating deportations and that detention in holding centres is lawful pending such deportation.

Previous detailed reports may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post “They were once sent back”: Court refrains from probing State’s claim as Assam seeks to justify continued detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The primary objective of the International Day of Rural Women is to recognize and honor the contributions of women in rural areas to agriculture, food security, natural resource management, and rural development. The United Nations General Assembly formally established this day on October 15, 2007, following a proposal at the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference. Being celebrated one day before World Food Day (October 16), it underscores the crucial role rural women play in food production and security.

​Rural women constitute approximately 43% of the global agricultural labor force. They are the backbone of farming, livestock rearing, water harvesting, seed conservation, and local food systems. Despite their tireless efforts, they often lack equal access to land ownership, education, healthcare, credit, and technology.

​In India, this day provides an opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of women farmers (Mahila Kisan), Self-Help Groups (SHGs), rural entrepreneurs, and voluntary organizations. India has made numerous constitutional, legal, social, and economic efforts towards women’s empowerment. The Constitution guarantees women equal rights and opportunities, such as Article 14 (equality before law), Articles 15(1) and 15(3) (prohibition of gender-based discrimination), Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment), Article 39(a) and 39(d) (livelihood and equal pay for equal work), and Article 42 (maternity relief and just work conditions).

​Key legislation like the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (amended in 2017) have been enacted to protect women’s rights and safety. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments mandate one-third reservation for women in Panchayats and municipal bodies, with several states increasing this to 50 percent. Furthermore, the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), passed by the Parliament, will ensure 33 percent reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies after the next census and delimitation exercise.

​Women are the most critical link in the context of food security. They are pivotal not only in producing food but also in balancing storage, processing, nutrition, and consumption. They are actively involved in sowing seeds, weeding, harvesting, animal husbandry, vegetable farming, and dairy work.

​Many rural women conserve traditional seeds essential for local food diversity and organic farming. Several women farmers run organic farms, kitchen gardens, and community seed banks, contributing to both food security and environmental balance. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that if women were given the same resources as men, agricultural yields could increase by 20–30 percent, reducing the number of people suffering from hunger. This knowledge is proving vital for future food supply and climate change resilience.

​According to ‘The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World’ Report 2024, India has the highest number of undernourished people globally, affecting 195 million. Furthermore, the UN Food Waste Index Report 2024 highlights that 19 percent of the total annual food production—about 1.052 billion tonnes—is wasted globally, while 783 million people go to bed hungry. Therefore, all food security schemes, including the Public Distribution System (PDS), must be transformed into universal and decentralized systems of local production, procurement, storage, and distribution.

​Approximately 70% of India’s total female population resides in rural areas. Under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission, over 80 million women have joined Self-Help Groups (SHGs). Relief from the chore of collecting firewood or fetching water has allowed women, especially in rural areas, to engage more in agriculture and allied sectors. Women constitute 55% of Jan Dhan account holders, providing them access to banking facilities and credit. As of March 2023, the Stand-Up India scheme has disbursed ₹40,710 crore in loans, with 80% going to women entrepreneurs, promoting economic independence.

​In Madhya Pradesh, with a total population of 72.7 million, over 52.5 million people live in rural areas, including 25.4 million women and 27.1 million men. Currently, the state has over 500,000 active SHGs, with approximately 6.2 million women members. So far, ₹648.67 lakhs has been disbursed as a 2% interest subsidy to 30,264 women groups and 12,685 women entrepreneurs.

​The Ladli Bahna Yojana is providing financial aid of ₹1551.86 crore monthly to 12.7 million sisters’ bank accounts. Under this scheme, over ₹35,329 crore has been provided to 12.7 million women so far. Additionally, over ₹882 crore has been provided to 2.5 million women for gas cylinder refills at ₹450. This scheme is not only economically empowering women but also encouraging savings within their families.

​Despite economic progress, traditional social taboos discourage women from participating in salaried work, restricting them to the domestic sphere. On the other hand, NCRB reports indicate a continuous rise in crimes against women in Madhya Pradesh, with the state ranking third in rape cases nationwide. In 2023, 468 dowry death cases were registered, alongside thousands of cases of domestic violence and harassment. Madhya Pradesh is among the top states for crimes against women.

​The Global Gender Gap Report 2023 ranks India at 127th out of 146 countries in economic participation, pointing to severe inequality and gender biases. According to the Economic Survey 2023, over 90% of women workers are considered unemployed, indicating a lack of available work. The National Crime Record Bureau Report for 2022 shows that over half of the women who committed suicide between 2020 and 2022 were homemakers. Despite government efforts, most women are employed in the unorganized sector, lacking permanent employment, fair wages, and social security.

​While maternal and child mortality rates have declined in rural areas, they remain higher than in urban areas. Anemia and malnutrition are significant problems among rural women. Lack of access to health services, clean water, and sanitation are also serious concerns. Social evils like child marriage, domestic violence, dowry, and gender-based discrimination still persist.

*​Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association

Courtesy: CounterView

The post The unsung architects of food security: India’s rural women demand recognition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recording the sequence of events and observations on the current events unfolding in TISS, Mumbai, from students’ perspective

What is the price of political engagement and learning in a higher educational institute in India? It seems that young people who seek to read, talk to each other and understand any issue slapped with FIRs before they can fully make up their minds on what stance to take.

On Sunday, 12 October 2025, students at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai gathered to read a few poems written by Professor GN Saibaba to mark his death anniversary. They gathered in a peaceful manner, read the poems, placed a few candles around a photograph of Professor Saibaba and dispersed—all in about ten minutes. For many of the students, this year has been the first time they have learnt of the scholar and activist’s life, work, and death. The gathering came as a spontaneous response to discovering his poems.

The event then drew attention online when a group of students opposed to the idea—allegedly part of a group called Democratic Secular Students Forum—tweeted photographs that they took of the gathered students without consent and tagged the Maharashtra CM and police. This brought the police into campus premises around 10pm on Sunday night itself, questioning both students and admin officials at the late hour.

The TISS administration has been reported to have quickly registered a complaint against the gathering, without the slightest attempt to first resolve the matter internally. The students, many of whom are young Dalit and queer, have been reportedly booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to “causing prejudice to the nation”, “causing enmity between various groups”, and unlawful assembly, among other charges.

On the night of 13 October, Trombay police questioned a student for hours and detained him on campus premises, not allowing him to return to his hostel room till the early hours of Tuesday. Students allege that his laptop and phone have been confiscated and done without any warrant or explanation. Others who were with the student at the time of being detained were also intimidated and stopped from having any conversation with the detained student, even if they had nothing to do with Sunday’s gathering. Others gathered too have been called by authorities to provide their home addresses and appear for questioning by the police, all of it amounting to great mental and physical distress for the students.

Emerging reports on the incident cite the police and others claiming that the gathered students raised slogans unrelated to G.N. Saibaba. There is no proof brought forth on the same. The students deny engaging in any kind of sloganeering and are steadfast that these are false claims. Reports are also varied, unverified, and misleading, claiming that several students have been detained. The lack of clear communication from the institute is causing panic and divides among the students.

Professor Saibaba was a writer and human rights activist. He was imprisoned for a decade for allegedly having links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) but was acquitted first in October 2022 by the Bombay High Court. The order that overturned the life imprisonment sentence of 2017, pointed to procedural lapses in securing appropriate sanctions and in the seizure of the alleged electronic evidence from the accused person(s). After a Supreme Court stay that was brought on the order, and presented before the court once again, he was re-acquitted of all charges in March 2024 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.

However, Professor Saibaba, with 90% disability and wheelchair bound had suffered various illnesses in the prison, and his fragile health gave way only a few months after his release. Many scholars, writers, social workers, human rights advocates, and students across the country mourned his death. University spaces around the world held talks and discussions in his honour.

Academic debate and learning
At the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, scholars have often held gatherings to commemorate events of cultural and political importance, birth and death anniversaries of thinkers and writers. Student groups have called for attention to students and youth concerns, providing a space for younger students to hear and evaluate information. In the last year or so, these gatherings and discussions have reduced to nearly zero, with no information about the protocol to be followed to hold any event on campus premises.

In January 2024, students received a circular by email that restricted all student activities until further notice. Over the course of the year, several events have been held by schools and student groups alike, some being reprimanded by the administration and others being encouraged. However, official protocols to seek permission for student led events are still unclear and elusive to most students. In fact, a former official had once allegedly sought to unofficially stop a gathering from reading the works of Annabhau Sathe on his birth anniversary, questioning the poet’s credentials and relevance. Such incidents have left us, the student community, feeling afraid of any kind of engagement with the realities of the world both past and present.

Educational institutions are spaces that ought to nurture healthy debate, allow for students to search and re search on all matters that surround them, the mirco and macro processes that make up their everyday lives. TISS too has a long legacy of standing up for what is right and speaking truth to power. In 2011, students boycotted their own convocation, protesting the then proposed Jaitapur nuclear power point, as the chief guest was the then Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. The protesting students were not penalized for their efforts, rather had a conversation with. Such engagements are the reason that TISS alumni have been able to contribute to the professional world, enrich advocacy and governance efforts, work alongside the state and even enter formal politics.

For the last few years, this spirit of debate and discussions has waned due to bureaucratic and external pressures that have threatened the security that students are promised in spaces of learning.

TISS has always, until 2024, had a democratically elected student union to represent and address the needs of the larger student body. However, for the last two academic years, the process of elections has all but been forgotten by the administration. The students navigate academic demands and challenges that living in a large city can bring – from hostel, library and dining hall irregularities to personal struggles – through informal, non-elected class representatives or hastily put together Whatsapp groups for crisis management. Events and talks held by student groups have been routinely penalized in the last few months, the latest occurrence of which has been the gathering in honour of GN Saibaba.

This drastic step by the TISS administration against its own students needs to give pause for anyone who is interested in the growth and development of young minds in the country. The administration ought to reconsider its role in the lives of students, and begin a meaningful conversation with the student community, rather than close its doors on them, especially those from already marginalized communities by putting their careers at stake. The students, many of whom have little to no support from family and are in fact the only support for their families.

The poems they read on Sunday evening have inspired many a student to question their own biases and prejudices and seek justice where it is routinely denied. This act should not be punished but understood as their seeking to understand the world. When punishment is what reading is met with, we must ask what Professor GN Saibaba asked:

Why Do You Fear My Way So Much?
O Pundit,
O Mulla,

I’m not an atheist
for I don’t preach ungodliness
as my profession.

I’m not an agnostic
for I don’t carry a basketful
of doubts on my head.

I’m not your secularist
for I don’t stand
at the crossroads of all religions.

I’m not a rationalist
for I don’t use
the logic of pure reason.

I’m not a heretic
for my business isn’t
to chase after your orthodox ways
to worship and life.

Kabir says,
He’s a messenger of love for people
Why do you fear my way so much?

(*The identity of the author of this report is withheld to protect them.)

Courtesy: Free Speech Collective

The post When a spontaneous gathering of students is criminalised – A report of the TISS students’ meeting to commemorate Prof GN Saibaba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The core of this legal battle rests on the historical injustice faced by the Tharu community, a Scheduled Tribe residing in the village of Kajaria, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. This is the story of Santari Ram Rana and Sadai, two representatives of the ancient Tharu Scheduled Tribe, who brought the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the High Court of Allahabad in 2025. Their petition is a meticulously documented protest against what they describe as the arbitrary, illegal, and mechanical denial of their fundamental rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. It is a desperate legal appeal to halt the continuous, systematic erasure of a forest community’s identity and livelihood. Notably, the said petition was filed through Advocate Rajat Srivastava and Advocate Nandini Verma and also involved local activist Rajnish Gambhir. The matter remains sub-judice in the Allahabad High Court.

The Tharu’s have deep, recognised roots in the forest lands:

• Official recognition: The Tharu community was officially recognised and notified as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India on June 24, 1967.
• Vested rights: Their village, Kajaria, was included in the 1982 Action Plan of the Wildlife Conservation Organization, acknowledging it as a village inhabited by the Tharu community. Furthermore, the land was granted or reaffirmed as a revenue village in 1975 and 1976 through two different Government Orders. The petition argues the community has been living in these forests for more than a century.

The Legal Framework: The Forest Rights Act

The petitioners base their claim on the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). This Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights for forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, like the Tharu, who were subjected to “historical injustice”.

The FRA is more than a statute; it is a restorative justice measure. The petition meticulously details how the District Level Committee (DLC) vitiated the very spirit and procedure of the Act. The FRA mandates a strict, three-tier democratic process to verify and vest rights:

1. Village Level (Gram Sabha/FRC): The community, the initial authority, verified and accepted the Tharu claim in 2013.
2. Sub-Divisional Level (SDLC): This tier is tasked with resolving disputes and forwarding verified claims.
3. District Level (DLC): The final legal authority for granting the title.

The Eight-Year Ordeal: Claiming community rights

The petitioners’ journey to secure their Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights—which include collecting firewood (jalauni lakdi), phoos, and cattle grazing—began over a decade ago and was marred by years of official inaction:

• 2013: The Village Level FRC, constituted by the Gram Sabha of Kajaria, accepted the petitioners’ claims under the prescribed Form C.
• 2013-2020: The seven-year stalling: The verified claims were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) on July 31, 2013. For the next seven years, the SDLC allegedly failed to decide the claims due to “repeated objections” and “baseless and frivolous technical and procedural objections” consistently raised by the Forest Department. The petitioners assert that this was a deliberate attempt to deny their rightful claims.
• December 26, 2020: Conditional approval: Finally, the SDLC approved the claims and forwarded them to the District Level Committee (DLC) for the final decision.

The arbitrary rejection

The climax of the ordeal came with the decision of the highest administrative body:

• March 15, 2021: Impugned order: The District Level Committee (DLC), the final authority, rejected the community’s claims in an order the petition deems “illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires”. The rejection order was a stereotyped and mechanical rejection, similar to those passed for approximately 20 other Tharu villages on the same grounds.
• Violation of due process: The rejection was passed unilaterally, without granting the petitioners a mandatory opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the due process established by the FRA and its accompanying Rules.
• Flawed grounds for rejection: The DLC is accused of basing its rejection on “extraneous and irrelevant material”. For instance, it considered that the village had been granted revenue status and was receiving government welfare benefits, ignoring the fact that the FRA explicitly confers forest rights regardless of the revenue status of the village. The rejection also relies on a misinterpreted interim order of the Supreme Court (Thirumal Kapad v. Union of India), which the petitioners argue cannot override their statutory rights under the FRA.

A plea for justice and protection

The petition details the petitioners’ desperate attempts to seek justice post-rejection:

• Lack of redressal: The petitioners submitted multiple representations (e.g., on August 15, 2021, and November 25, 2021) to the DLC, SDLC, and the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC). The SLMC, whose statutory function is to monitor the recognition process, failed to act on the grievances.
• Ongoing harassment: The non-recognition of their vested rights is causing the petitioners to face “continuous harassment and threats from forest officials”. They allege they are subject to adversity and even forged FIRs when attempting to exercise their basic rights, such as collecting firewood.
• Failure of the monitoring body: The petitioners’ repeated appeals to the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC)—the statutory body created to oversee and correct the FRA implementation—were ignored. The SLMC’s failure to perform its duty is highlighted as a further example of the State’s abdication of responsibility.

The petition concludes that the non-conferment of forest rights is a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights (Article 21) and a continuation of the historical injustice that the FRA was specifically designed to remedy.

The relief sought

The petition is, therefore, a fervent appeal to the High Court to restore the sanctity of the FRA and the fundamental rights of the community. They seek:

1. Quash the impugned order: Issue a writ of Certiorari to set aside the arbitrary rejection order of the District Level Committee dated March 15, 2021.
2. Order reconsideration: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the District Level Committee to reconsider and decide the claims afresh in a time-bound and legal manner, in full accordance with the FRA.
3. Ensure oversight: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the State Level Monitoring Committee to perform its statutory monitoring functions.
4. Grant interim relief: Allow the petitioners to immediately exercise their community forest rights (for jalauni lakdi, phoos, and grazing) during the pendency of the writ petition.

This writ petition is a powerful judicial attempt to dismantle bureaucratic tyranny and ensure that the “historical injustice” recognised by Parliament is finally undone for the Tharu people of Kajaria.

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

The post The Fight for Ancestral Forest Rights: Tharu tribe challenges seven-year administrative blockade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The order, issued by the Senior Judicial Magistrate of the Sadar Court in Chapainawabganj on September 30, pertains to two families from Birbhum district, West Bengal, including 26-year-old Sunali (Sonali) Khatun, who is in her final trimester of pregnancy, her husband Danish Sheikh, their eight-year-old son Sabir, Sweety Bibi (32), and her two sons aged six and sixteen.

According to The Indian Express, the magistrate concluded that all six individuals are Indian citizens, citing their Aadhaar card numbers and residential addresses in West Bengal as documentary proof. The order was transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for “appropriate diplomatic action.”

Families pushed out after police sweep in Delhi

As The Quint and The Times of India reported, the families were detained from Delhi’s Rohini area in June 2025, during a police drive against “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.” Despite presenting identity documents, Delhi Police allegedly ignored their Aadhaar cards and work records, branding them as foreigners. They were then forcibly pushed across the border in Assam on June 26, where they were arrested for “unlawful entry” and have since remained in Chapai Nawabganj jail.

Sunali’s father, Bhodu Sheikh, had filed a habeas corpus petition before the Calcutta High Court, expressing fear that his daughter’s unborn child would be rendered stateless. On September 26, a Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that the Centre’s deportation order was illegal, castigating authorities for acting in “hot haste” and ordering the government to bring the families back within four weeks.

In Bhodu Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., the Calcutta High Court quashed the deportation of three West Bengal residents — Sunali Khatun, her husband Danish Sheikh, and their minor son Sabir — who had been picked up by the Delhi Police during an “identity verification drive” on June 24, 2025, and deported to Bangladesh within forty-eight hours. The petitioner, Bhodu Sheikh, a resident of Birbhum, argued that his daughter and her family were Indian citizens by birth with roots and landholdings in West Bengal, and that Sunali was pregnant when she was detained. He alleged that the deportation was carried out without any inquiry, in violation of the Ministry of Home Affairs memo dated May 2, 2025, which mandates a 30-day verification process through the home State before any repatriation.

The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, contended that the detainees had confessed to being Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India illegally in 1998 and had failed to produce documents proving citizenship. Rejecting this defence, the Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that “suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof,” and that a confession before a police officer “without any safeguards would be a direct infringement of Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution.” The Court pointed out glaring contradictions in the interrogation reports, noting that Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN cards showed she was born in 2000, making it impossible for her to have entered India “illegally” in 1998.

Holding that the MHA memo was blatantly disregarded, the Court described the deportation as having been carried out “in hot haste,” and ruled that such acts “cripple the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness.” It emphasised that “the lifestyle of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice versa,” and warned that executive discretion cannot be unfettered or whimsical. Consequently, the Court set aside the detention and deportation orders dated 24.06.2025 and 26.06.2025, directing the Union, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the family within four weeks through the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. A plea for stay was considered and rejected outright, underscoring the Bench’s message that liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.

Details of the said case may be read here.

“The People We Branded Bangladeshi Have Been Declared Indian by Bangladesh”

Reacting to the Bangladesh court’s decision, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam, who also heads the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, said the verdict exposed the Central government’s anti-Bengal bias and linguistic profiling.

“The very people whom our own country tried so hard to brand as Bangladeshi have now been proven to be Indians — not by us, but by Bangladesh. In a landmark verdict, a Bangladeshi court has not only declared them Indian citizens but even cited their Aadhaar card numbers and residential addresses as proof. The court’s order has been officially sent to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, directing that all of them — including the pregnant woman from Birbhum, Sonali Khatun — be safely sent back to India” Islam wrote on X, sharing a copy of the judgment.

His social media post may be read below:

Islam confirmed that his office arranged legal aid for the families in Bangladesh and that a copy of the judgment has already reached the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. However, he noted that the six remain jailed despite the clear directive for repatriation.

Pregnant woman’s plight deepens

Social worker Mofijul Sk, who has been coordinating their case from Chapainawabganj, told The Times of India that Sunali Khatun has been crying and pleading to return home. “She kept asking, ‘How long will I have to stay here? What is our fault? Please tell them I have a daughter waiting at home,’” Mofijul recounted.

Sunali reportedly fell and injured herself in jail but was denied an ultrasound since the prison hospital lacked adequate facilities. “She is depressed and physically weak,” said Mofijul, adding that the local Indian Deputy High Commission in Rajshahi has been informed of her condition.

Diplomatic delays and legal tangles

An Indian government official told TOI that repatriation may take time, arguing that “an Aadhaar card is not proof of Indian citizenship” and that a flag meeting between the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) will be necessary before the transfer.

However, lawyer Saikat Thakurata, representing Sunali’s family in the Calcutta High Court, said the process cannot be delayed on “technical excuses,” as a Bangladeshi court itself has verified their Indian nationality. “Diplomatic coordination is needed, but every day of delay worsens their suffering,” he said (TOI, Scroll).

Pattern of targeting Bengali-speaking migrants

As Citizens for Justice and Peace has noted, this case forms part of a broader pattern since May 2025 when thousands of Bengali-speaking workers—mostly Muslims—were rounded up across BJP-ruled states, including Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh, and asked to prove citizenship. Many were detained and deported without due process, based solely on linguistic identity.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing before the Supreme Court, had earlier described these deportations as “grossly unconstitutional.”

“This lady has been pushed out forcibly from the country while pregnant, without any proof that she is a foreigner,” Bhushan had argued before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul Pancholi. “Authorities are treating the Bengali language itself as evidence of foreignness.”

Detailed reports on such illegal deportations may be read here, here and here.

Families await return amid bureaucratic silence

Meanwhile, Sweety Bibi’s brother Amir Khan told The Quint that the families have not heard any official update. “All she does is cry helplessly. No one from our village now dares to go to Delhi for work. But if we stay here, there is no work either,” he said.

Civil society activists, including Arnab Pal of the Migrant Workers’ Unity Forum, have urged the Indian government to expedite the repatriation, warning that delay could amount to criminal negligence, especially with Sunali nearing childbirth.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The post Bangladesh Court declares six deported Bengalis as Indian citizens, orders their repatriation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Express reported that the video shows a man seated on a chair gripping a young boy by his hair, tearing out handfuls of it, and throwing the hair into a dustbin — all while laughing. The boy, visibly terrified, pleads for the abuse to stop. The person seen committing the act has been identified as a sanitation worker employed at the station, while the video was allegedly filmed by a police constable posted there.

Police have now registered an FIR under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — including Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 198 (willful disobedience of law with intent to cause injury), and Section 54 (abetment while present). The case also invokes Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which criminalises cruelty towards a child, according to The Indian Express.

The incident and the complaint

According to the FIR, the incident occurred last month after the boy — a minor — was detained in an assault case. The complaint, filed by his grandmother, states that he had been picked up by the police following a neighbourhood altercation that left one person injured in an alleged knife attack. The police then detained the boy and subsequently sent him to a juvenile remand home, where he remained for about 16–17 days before being released, as per Indian Express.

Initially, the youth did not disclose the abuse he suffered in custody. His grandmother told The Indian Express that he became withdrawn and fearful after being released. It was only when the video surfaced on social media several weeks later that he revealed the truth — that during his detention, he was humiliated, beaten, and had his hair forcibly pulled out while police officers looked on and one recorded the act on his phone.

The grandmother then approached community leaders for help, and together they drafted a formal complaint. This complaint named four persons: the sanitation worker, the constable, the station’s police inspector, and an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).

Community intervention and representation

Mujahid Nafees, Convener of the Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), wrote to Gujarat DGP Vikas Sahay on behalf of the family, demanding immediate disciplinary and criminal action against the officers involved. The application was formally forwarded to Rajkot Police Commissioner Brajesh Kumar Jha, reported The Indian Express.

With the assistance of local community members, the youth’s grandmother also submitted a separate written representation to the Police Commissioner. However, when the FIR was finally registered, it named only two accused — the constable and the sanitation worker — omitting the senior officers originally mentioned.

According to sources close to the family, reported The Indian Express, the police presented what they described as “convincing evidence” that both the Inspector and ACP were not present at the police station when the incident occurred. This led to their exclusion from the FIR, though activists have criticised the decision as premature and lacking transparency.

Official statements and inquiry

When contacted, Rajkot City Police Commissioner Brajesh Kumar Jha was unavailable for comment. DCP Zone-2 Rakesh Desai told The Indian Express that the FIR had been filed based on the grandmother’s complaint. “In the case of the video of a minor whose hair is being pulled out, his grandmother has given a complaint and we have filed an FIR,” Desai said. “The accused police constable has been transferred to headquarters, and the sanitation worker has been removed from his job.”

When asked about the inspector and ACP who were named in the initial complaint but not in the FIR, DCP Desai said, “Our inquiry has found that they were not involved.”

The preliminary inquiry has now been assigned to ACP (West) Radhika Bharai, who confirmed to The Indian Express that she has recorded statements from all involved and will submit her final report shortly. The criminal investigation into the FIR will be handled by a Police Sub-Inspector from another chowki under the same jurisdiction to ensure impartiality.

A second case of custodial torture against a minor

This latest incident in Rajkot comes on the heels of another horrifying case from Botad district, Gujarat, where four police constables were booked for the alleged torture and sexual assault of a 17-year-old boy in custody in August 2025. The case has attracted national attention due to the boy’s critical condition and the Supreme Court’s involvement.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the sister of the victim filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). As provided in the petition, the boy was picked up by police officers of Botad Town on August 19, 2025, from a local fair on suspicion of theft. He was illegally detained for over nine days — from August 19 to August 28 — during which he was brutally assaulted and sexually abused by four to six officers.

The plea alleged multiple violations of procedural law:

• The minor was not produced before a Juvenile Justice Board or magistrate within 24 hours,
• No medical examination was conducted,
• His grandfather was also detained and tortured, and
• Officials later attempted to coerce the family into signing false statements.

On September 1, as per Bar & Bench, police told the family that the boy was suffering from an “insect bite” and required specialised medical attention. He was transferred to Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad, where doctors found that he had suffered severe kidney damage requiring dialysis, temporary blindness, and seizures resulting from trauma.

The petition further stated that the boy remained in the ICU, and during this time, police officials allegedly forced his signature on certain documents and compelled family members to sign papers claiming that his injuries were due to a bicycle fall. The hospital refused to share the toxicology report or medical details with the family.

Supreme Court’s directions

The matter reached the Supreme Court in early October. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the petition on October 7, 2025. As per LiveLaw, the bench refused to entertain the case directly, directing the petitioner to first approach the Gujarat High Court for relief.

Justice Nath observed: “Our sympathy is with your case, but the proper way is to go to the High Court.” Justice Mehta added that the petitioner could return to the Supreme Court if the High Court failed to take adequate steps.

The petitioner’s lawyer, pleaded for urgent directions to preserve the CCTV footage of the police station and to constitute a medical board from AIIMS, citing fears that crucial evidence might be destroyed. The Court, however, declined to issue immediate orders, stating, “It won’t be destroyed if you go to the High Court timely.”

Civil society response and pattern of abuse

The Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), which has taken up both the Rajkot and Botad cases, has called for the immediate suspension of the accused officers, registration of additional offences under custodial violence statutes, and judicial monitoring of the investigations.

Human rights advocates and legal experts have expressed grave concern over the emerging pattern of police violence against minors, particularly Muslim youth from marginalized backgrounds. They point out that both cases involve illegal detention, denial of medical access, and attempts at cover-up, indicating a culture of impunity within the state’s policing system.

Bhatt, who represented the Botad victim’s family, told Bar & Bench that these incidents “demonstrate a systemic disregard for due process and a chilling normalisation of custodial violence against minors.”

Conclusion: The urgency of accountability

The two back-to-back incidents — in Rajkot and Botad — lay bare a disturbing continuity of abuse within Gujarat’s police system, particularly against young Muslim males. Both cases reveal a pattern of dehumanizing violence, institutional protectionism, and token disciplinary actions that stop short of real accountability.

While Rajkot police have limited their action to transferring one constable and dismissing a sanitation worker, such cosmetic measures do little to restore public faith. Rights organizations have called for:

• Independent investigations under judicial supervision,
• Immediate forensic preservation of CCTV footage and medical records,
• Prosecution of officers under sections related to custodial torture and juvenile protection, and
• Oversight by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

As has been documented, these incidents are not isolated excesses — they are symptoms of a systemic crisis. Unless the Gujarat government ensures structural accountability and enforces zero tolerance for custodial brutality, these cases will fade into the familiar pattern of viral outrage followed by institutional silence.

Related:

CJP files complaint to Maharashtra DGP, SP Jalgaon over police participation in communal rally amid Suleman Pathan lynching probe

Cuttack plunged into chaos during Durga Puja, dozens injured as procession clashes spiral into violence

NBDSA pulls up India TV for communal, one-sided broadcast; upholds CJP complaint against broadcast

The Politics of Memory: Controversy over graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt

The post Second Case in a Month: Another minor alleges torture in Gujarat police custody, cop and sanitation worker booked appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Central government’s narrative is clear that Wangchuk is an instigator with foreign links. But for the people of Ladakh and civil rights advocates across India, his jailing represents something far more ominous—the caging of a democratic voice and the criminalisation of dissent in one of the nation’s most strategically sensitive regions.

The day the protest burned

September 24, 2025, will be remembered as the day Ladakh’s peaceful struggle took a tragic and violent turn. For weeks, Sonam Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike, a Gandhian protest to draw attention to the long-standing demands for statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution—a provision to protect the tribal region’s unique culture, land, and employment.

A protest, largely led by the region’s youth and organised in solidarity with his fast, escalated into chaos. Mobs reportedly vandalised property and set government vehicles and the local BJP office ablaze. In the ensuing clashes, security forces responded with tear gas and, eventually, live fire. The aftermath was unfortunate as four individuals lost their lives, and over 80 were injured.

The central government and the local administration were quick to lay the blame. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) claimed the “mob was incited by Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements.”

The ministry alleged that Wangchuk’s references to global movements like the ‘Arab Spring’ and Nepal’s ‘Gen Z protests’ were deliberately inflammatory. “It is clear that the mob was incited by Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements. Incidentally, amidst these violent developments, he broke his fast and left for his village in an ambulance without making serious efforts to control the situation,” the MHA claimed in a statement.

However, Ladakhi leadership vehemently refutes this narrative. Chering Dorjey Lakrook, the Co-Chairman of the Leh Apex Body (LAB), stated unequivocally, “Sonam Wangchuk or Congress didn’t provoke anyone, what happened was a protest in support of the genuine demands of the youth.” The sentiment on the ground was that the violence was a spontaneous eruption of frustration, not a pre-meditated act of sedition orchestrated by the activist.

A web of allegations and the stringent use of NSA

Two days after the violence, the state machinery moved decisively. Wangchuk was detained near his residence under the National Security Act, 1980, a law that permits detention for up to 12 months without trial. The rationale for his subsequent transfer to Jodhpur Central Jail was that keeping him in Leh was “not advisable in the larger public interest.”

Leh under curfew for fourth consecutive day- Sonam Wangchuk shited to Jodhpur jail | JK News Today pic.twitter.com/rgtwatOEuc

— JK News Today (@jknewstoday) September 27, 2025

The Ladakh administration defended the move, stating it had “taken a considered decision based on specific inputs.” It alleged that “time and again it was observed that Sonam Wangchuk has been indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and detrimental to maintenance of peace and public order.”

The narrative was further solidified in a press conference by Ladakh’s Director General of Police, S D Singh Jamwal. The allegations he levelled were stunning, painting Wangchuk not as a local hero but as a pawn with sinister connections. “What has been found in the investigation (against Wangchuk) cannot be disclosed at this moment,” the DGP began, before weaving a narrative of suspicion. “His speech worked as an instigation as he talked about the Arab spring and the recent unrest in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. He had his own agenda.”

Jamwal claimed Wangchuk was being probed for violating the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and, most startlingly, for having links to Pakistan. “We have a PIO (Pakistani Intelligence Operative) with us who was reporting across the border, sending videos of the protests led by Wangchuk,” he alleged, also citing Wangchuk’s past visit to Pakistan for a media event and a trip to Bangladesh as suspicious activities.

EXPLOSIVE REVELATION BY LADAKH DGP DR. S.D SINGH JAMWAL:

“We recently arrested a Pakistan Intelligence Operative who was in touch with Sonam Wangchuk and reporting back across. We have a record of this.

He had attended a Dawn event in Pakistan. He also visited Bangladesh.… pic.twitter.com/j7S7YFgdJx

— Abhimanyu Manjhi (@AbhimanyuManjh5) September 27, 2025

Wangchuk’s wife condemned DGP Ladakh’s statements

The administration’s portrayal of Wangchuk was met with disbelief and outrage, not least from his own family. Director of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL) and wife of jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, has strongly refuted the BJP-led government’s allegations following his detention under the National Security Act. His wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, issued a powerful rebuttal, calling the DGP’s claims a fabrication designed to create a scapegoat.

“We strongly condemn the DGP’s statements. Not only I, but everyone in Ladakh denounces those allegations,” she said.

“This narrative is being fabricated to blame and frame someone, allowing them to do whatever they want… What could Sonam Wangchuk have instigated? He had no idea about all this. He was somewhere else, where he was on a hunger strike… Whatever the DGP is saying, he has an agenda. They don’t want to implement the 6th Schedule under any circumstances and want to make someone a scapegoat.”

Her anguish was coupled with a piercing question that hangs over the events of September 24 that “Who gave the CRPF orders to open fire? Who shoots at their own people, their own citizens?”

Ladakh: On Police’s allegations against Sonam Wangchuk, his wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, says, “We strongly condemn the DGP’s statements. Not only I, but everyone in Ladakh denounces those allegations… This narrative is being fabricated to blame and frame someone, allowing them to… pic.twitter.com/m1o0Ejhl4A

— JK CHANNEL (@jkchanneltv) September 30, 2025

If innovators are treated like criminals, how will India become vishwaguru: Sonam Wangchuk’s wife

Gitanjali Angmo speaking at the Press Club of India on September 30, she declared, “We will use the best legal system to defend him and fight the case. We will not rest till the case is fought and truth has been revealed.” Angmo questioned the government’s sudden shift in stance, pointing out, “HIAL was also given the best eco-project by this government. If he (Sonam) was anti-national, why was the government awarding his efforts? Why did Sonam become an anti-national within a month? This is all being done to frame him.”

She cited Wangchuk’s internationally recognised environmental work. She said “The whole world talks about carbon neutral but Ladakh is carbon negative. People talk about net zero but we are net-positive. If we treat the person behind this good work like a criminal and create an atmosphere of fear with curfew, then how will India become ‘Vishwa Guru’ and how will others get motivated?”

Rejecting allegations of financial irregularities and foreign links, she challenged officials to prove their claims that “I openly challenge anyone who sees any problem in our work. We have facts, evidence and papers which will prove that all these allegations are wrong.”

Addressing FCRA concerns, she clarified that “Our futuristic research has been bought by foreign universities and there is nothing in it to be ashamed of. These (payments) are all covered under service agreements and even the CBI has accepted that there’s been no violation. Rather, it is a matter of pride that the research of an Indian university is being valued and appreciated outside.”

She highlighted HIAL’s local impact, saying, “Our research has been adopted by the UT government. Since last year, the ice stupa has been tendered and implemented across the region. Similarly, the new tourism policy has made passive solar heating mandatory for new hotels and commercial buildings.”

On allegations of Pakistan links, Angmo said Wangchuk had attended a UN-backed climate event in Islamabad and asked, “I want to ask: what is wrong with it? The Hindukush mountains touch eight countries and provide water to more than two billion people. My husband praised the prime minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Mission LIFE’ from the stage.”

She also questioned the home ministry’s claims that “If a Pakistani was seen in Ladakh, why was the safety protocol violated and why was he allowed to roam freely?”

Refuting charges over ‘food sovereignty’ research, she stated that “Food sovereignty which talks about how locals can become self-sufficient has been interpreted as national security to punish my husband. The allegation is baseless and ridiculous.”

Responding to criticism around Wangchuk’s Magsaysay Award, she asked “Out of these 60, 20 have been given Padma Vibushan award. Does that mean that the government gives awards to anti-nationals?”

Finally, addressing the September 24 violence in Leh, where four civilians were killed, she distanced her husband from the events: “Sonam was sitting in the park and he had no idea. My husband stood for Gandhian values. He didn’t indulge in violence or instigation for the last five years. If violence has happened now, he doesn’t have to answer for it. It is the UT administration – the LG and the DGP who have to answer to the people of Ladakh why there was a breach and violence.”

‘If Innovators Are Treated Like Criminals, How Will India Become Vishwaguru?’: Sonam Wangchuk’s Wife Fires Back At Govt https://t.co/7aA4i2IP4y

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) September 30, 2025

Not political, but procedural: Ladakh UT defends action against Wangchuk

In a formal press statement, the Union Territory of Ladakh administration has defended its recent actions against climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and institutions linked to him, including the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL) and SECMOL. Officials claimed the crackdown was not politically motivated, but rooted in allegations of “financial irregularities, violations of foreign funding norms, and issuance of unrecognised degrees.”

The administration also accused Wangchuk of making “provocative statements,” allegedly invoking foreign uprisings and calling for an “Arab Spring”-like movement in India.

It further alleged that he encouraged protesters to wear masks and caps to conceal identities and did not attempt to calm an increasingly agitated crowd during recent demonstrations. The government maintained that it had shown flexibility in scheduling dialogue with Ladakhi leaders, while Wangchuk’s continued hunger strike was dismissed as “politically motivated.” Urging the public to remain patient, the administration expressed confidence in the legal process and stated that normalcy would soon be restored in the region.

LAB & KDA will not talks with the centre until Wangchuk’s release

The region’s political leadership closed ranks. Both the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), the two umbrella organisations leading the movement, announced they would not participate in any further talks with the central government until Wangchuk is released and a judicial probe is ordered into the police firing. The LAB explicitly criticised the attempt to label Wangchuk as an “anti-national.”

Acclaimed actor Prakash Raj, who knows Wangchuk personally, took to social media to express his solidarity. “You can cage a bird, but not it’s song,” he wrote. “You can arrest Sonam Wangchuk but you can’t silence the truth he stands for. I know this man. I know what he stands for.”

“You can cage a bird, but not it’s song.”
You can arrest @Wangchuk66 but you can’t silence the truth he stands for. I know this man. I know what he stands for. #LadakhProtests #LadakhStatehood #SonamWangchuk #justasking pic.twitter.com/5PdKdpBlW9

— Prakash Raj (@prakashraaj) September 26, 2025

The situation also brought forth historical parallels. A social media post highlighted that Wangchuk’s own father, Sonam Wangyal, had undertaken hunger strikes in the 1980s for Ladakh’s Scheduled Tribe status. In 1984, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi flew to Leh to personally end his fast with a glass of juice and a promise to grant the demand, a stark contrast to the current government’s response.

Sonam Wangchuk’s father Sonam Wangyal went on a hunger strike twice to express Ladakhis demand for Scheduled tribe Status. In 1984 PM Indra Gandhi came to Leh & ended his fast by offering a glass of Juice & promised to grant ST Ladakh. pic.twitter.com/F9nan4Rqoq

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) September 26, 2025

SECMOL: under the surveillance of MHA

The crackdown wasn’t limited to Wangchuk’s personal freedom. A day after the violence, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs cancelled the FCRA registration of the Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), the pioneering NGO Wangchuk founded in 1988.

The MHA cited a series of financial and procedural violations. These included discrepancies in the reporting of a transaction involving the sale of an old bus, and the accidental deposit of local funds into the FCRA account. However, the most politically charged accusation related to a grant of Rs. 4.93 lakh from a Swedish donor. The MHA flagged that the educational program funded by this grant included discussions on topics like climate change, food security, and “sovereignty.”

MHA cancels the FCRA license of Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO. pic.twitter.com/OKK6NlShlo

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) September 25, 2025

While SECMOL maintained the funds were used for purely educational purposes within its charter, the MHA interpreted the mere mention of “sovereignty” as a violation of national interest, declaring that foreign funds cannot be used for such studies. This move was widely seen as an attempt to financially cripple the intellectual and institutional backbone of the Ladakhi movement.

The man and his movement: a legacy of innovation

To understand the gravity of the “anti-national” charge, one must understand who Sonam Wangchuk is. Long before he became the face of a civil rights movement, he was a celebrated education reformer. SECMOL, founded by him and other young Ladakhis, aimed to overhaul an education system that was failing the region’s children.

The SECMOL Alternative School is a marvel of sustainable architecture—a solar-powered, self-sufficient eco-village where students learn practical, environmental, and traditional knowledge alongside modern academics. His invention of the “ice stupa,” a method of creating artificial glaciers to combat water shortages in the high desert, is a globally recognised innovation in climate adaptation.

He is not a activist but an innovator driven by a deep love for his land and its people. His advocacy for the Sixth Schedule stems from a desire to protect Ladakh’s fragile ecology and unique indigenous culture from the pressures of unchecked development and outside influence. To paint such a figure as a foreign-funded agent provocateur is, for many, a profound distortion.

A law for ‘limitless detention’: the dark history of the NSA

The choice to detain Wangchuk under the National Security Act is profoundly telling. The NSA is not a punitive law; it is, by design, a preventive one. But in practice, preventive detention becomes punishment—limitless incarceration justified under the vague pretext of maintaining law and order, with blurred boundaries and little accountability. It allows the state to detain individuals not for a crime they have committed, but for one they might commit. Its history is rooted in the colonial-era laws designed to suppress the freedom struggle.

When the Indira Gandhi government introduced the National Security Act (NSA) in 1980, it was met with fierce resistance. BJP’s own senior leader, Lal Krishna Advani (then a Janata Party leader in the Rajya Sabha) criticised the bill for its political motives and dangerously vague language, cautioning that it could be used to detain anyone involved in political agitation. He spoke from experience, sharing his own re-arrest moments after being released during the Emergency, and condemned the NSA as a tool for “limitless detention.”

He said, “It is also said in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that if anyone agitates, any political agitation takes place, then they can also be arrested.” (Page 200-201 of the RS Debate in Re. National Security [RAJYA SABHA] Ordinance & Bill, 1980)

Four decades later, the same law is being wielded with impunity by a BJP-led government—ironically, the very party Advani helped shape. What was once denounced as a mechanism of authoritarian excess is now normalised, repurposed to stifle dissent, muzzle opposition, and criminalise protest. The warnings voiced in 1980 haven’t just been forgotten—they’ve been reversed.

Over the decades, the law has been repeatedly used against political opponents, activists, and protesters. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, flagged its misuse. In the case of Dr. Kafeel Khan, the Allahabad High Court quashed his NSA detention, noting that his speech gave a “call for national integrity and unity” and that the District Magistrate had engaged in a “selective reading.”

In another case, the Supreme Court ordered the release of a law student, observing that the grounds for his detention were issues of “law and order,” not the graver “public order” required to invoke the NSA.

By invoking this law against Sonam Wangchuk, the government has placed him in the company of those who have been targeted for their political beliefs, bypassing the standard criminal justice system and its safeguards.

The caged song

The detention of Sonam Wangchuk is more than just the arrest of one man. It is a message sent to the people of Ladakh that their democratic aspirations will be met with the full force of the state’s security apparatus. In a region that borders both China and Pakistan, the charge of having “Pakistan links” is the most potent weapon to delegitimise a grassroots movement.

The fundamental questions remain unanswered. What caused a peaceful movement to turn violent? Was the use of lethal force against protesters justified? And can a law designed to protect national security be used to silence a celebrated activist demanding constitutional rights for his people?

Sonam Wangchuk may be in a Jodhpur jail, far from the mountains he has spent his life trying to protect. But as Prakash Raj noted, you can cage the bird, but you cannot cage its song. The song of Ladakh is one of identity, survival, and a deep yearning for a secure future. The question now is whether the Indian state is willing to listen, or if it will only seek to silence the singer.

Related

Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’

Allahabad HC stays second suspension order against Dr. Kafeel Khan

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

The post How the Centre used a ‘Draconian’ law to silence Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakh’s aspirations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Delivering judgment in Bhodu Sekh v. Union of India & Ors. and Amir Khan v. Union of India & Ors., the Division Bench directed the Government of India to take all necessary steps through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Indian High Commission in Dhaka to bring back Sunali Khatun, her husband Danish Sekh, their minor son Sabir, and in the companion case, Sweety Bibi and her two minor sons Kurban and Imam.

The Bench did not mince words, warning that executive arbitrariness cloaked as “deportation” cannot be permitted to override constitutional protections of liberty and dignity.

Case I – The Bodu Sekh Case (Sunali Khatun, Danish Sekh & Sabir)

The writ petition was filed by Bhodu Sekh, a resident of Birbhum, West Bengal, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his daughter Sunali, her husband Danish, and their child Sabir.

• On June 24, 2025, Delhi Police, during an “identity verification drive,” picked up the family.
• Within 48 hours, without any proper inquiry, they were deported to Bangladesh on June 26, 2025, escorted by Delhi Police via Guwahati.
• The deportation was carried out under orders of the FRRO, Delhi, citing the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The petitioner contended that the detainees were Indian citizens by birth, permanent residents of West Bengal with family, land, and identity documents in Birbhum. Sunali was also in an advanced stage of pregnancy at the time of deportation.

Arguments raised by both sides

Government’s defence: Representing the Union of India and Delhi Police, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued:

• The detainees admitted during interrogation that they were Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India illegally in 1998 through an unauthorised route.
• They failed to produce Aadhaar, Voter ID, PAN, or ration cards proving Indian citizenship.
• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person concerned to establish that they are not foreigners.
• The deportation was therefore valid and within jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s case: Counsel for the petitioner rebutted that:

• The family has deep roots in West Bengal, with land records and relatives in Birbhum.
• Identity documents (Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID) were submitted to local police after their disappearance.
• Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN show her date of birth as 2000, making it impossible for her to have entered India “illegally” in 1998 as claimed in the interrogation report.
• No due process or inquiry was conducted as mandated by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Memo dated May 2, 2025, which required a 30-day verification from the detainee’s home State before deportation.
• The principle of non-refoulement, implicit in Article 21, bars forcible expulsion without fair procedure.

Case II – The Amir Khan Case (Sweety Bibi, Kurban & Imam)

Case background

In WPA (H) 51 of 2025, petitioner Amir Khan, a resident of Murarai, Birbhum, approached the Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his paternal cousin sister Sweety Bibi and her two minor sons Kurban and Imam.

• On June 24, 2025, Delhi Police detained Sweety and her children in the same “identity verification drive” that led to Sunali’s detention.
• They were deported to Bangladesh on June 26, 2025 under orders of the FRRO, Delhi.
• The deportation was carried out within 48 hours, without reference to West Bengal authorities, and without the mandatory 30-day verification.

Arguments raised by both sides

Government’s defence:

• The ASG argued that Sweety and her children admitted to being Bangladeshi nationals during interrogation.
• They failed to produce valid documents proving Indian citizenship.
• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person to establish that they are not foreigners.
• Maintainability was challenged: since the deportation order was passed in Delhi, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction, especially as a petition had already been filed in Delhi High Court and withdrawn.

Petitioner’s case:

• Amir Khan submitted that Sweety’s family are permanent residents of West Bengal, with land, relatives, and documentary proof in Birbhum.
• He produced Imam’s birth certificate, proving Indian origin, which was ignored by authorities.
• He argued that the principle of non-refoulement, implicit in Article 21, bars forcible expulsion without fair process.
• The deportation was conducted in breach of the MHA memo of 02.05.2025, which required the case to be referred to the State of West Bengal for verification.

The Court’s observations in both the cases

On maintainability: Rejecting objections that the case should have been filed in Delhi, the Court held that:

• The cause of action was integrally linked to West Bengal, since the detainees hailed from Birbhum, where the petitioner lodged his complaint.
• West Bengal Police had verified their documents and written to Delhi Police, but received no response.

“If such enquiry is an event of substance i.e. an event which is a material, essential or integral part of the lis connected with the action that is impugned in a writ petition, there is no plausible reason as to why the same should not be construed as constituting a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. The facts required to form the basis of presumption of law would emanate only upon an enquiry to be conducted, routed through the detainees’ place of residence in the State of West Bengal.” (Para 24)

On suspicion and proof: The Court shredded the reliance on police interrogation reports, calling them unreliable and contradictory:

“A close perusal of the interrogation forms as annexed would reveal that after noting the educational qualification, the name of the institute has been omitted. In the column ‘details of family members and where they are residing’, the names of family members have been mentioned without mentioning the place where they are residing. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof. There is no appellate authority. In the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that no enquiry was required but in the memo date 23.06.2025 it was stated that an enquiry was conducted. There is also no ‘adverse security report’ against the detainees.” (Para 30)

It also pointed out the glaring absurdity:

“That the proceeding for deportation was conducted in hot haste is furthered by the fact that in the interrogation report, it was stated that Sunali had crossed over and illegally entered into India sometime in the year 1998. Sunali’s Aadhaar card and PAN card reflect her date of birth as 26 years, indicating she was born in the year 2000. Hence, Sunali could not have entered into India in 1998.” (Para 31)

On police “confessions”: The Court strongly disbelieved the so-called admissions:

“The law presumes that a statement to a police officer may have been obtained through pressure or force and is therefore not voluntary. A confessional statement made before a police officer and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 30)

The interrogation report was riddled with contradictions and omissions—no mention of educational institutes, vague details of relatives, and an absurd claim of Sunali’s illegal entry in 1998 despite her year of birth being 2000.

On liberty over technicalities: When faced with objections on jurisdiction, suppression of earlier petitions, or non-impleadment of FRRO, the Bench invoked constitutional principle:

“Moreover, the storied jurisprudence on the anvil of protection of constitutional rights in this country, has repeatedly held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, the cause of the former demands preference over the other especially when the writ court can visualise that deference to such technical considerations would have the consequence of throwing out an otherwise meritorious claim right at the threshold.” (Para 32)

On violation of due process: The Court exposed blatant non-compliance with the MHA’s Memo of May 2, 2025, which prescribed:

• A mandatory 30-day inquiry routed through the home State if a detainee claimed Indian citizenship.
• Communication between States before deportation.
• Deportation only after completion of inquiry and biometric verification.

Instead, Delhi Police deported the family within two days, without informing West Bengal authorities. In its order, the Court stressed that this “hot haste” was unconstitutional.

“Having said this it cannot be denied that the memo of 02.05.2025 applies only to Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar; thus, if we take the worst-case scenario of the detainees, that they were not Indian citizens, the steps and procedures laid down in the memo ought to have been followed by the concerned authorities. Not following such procedure and acting in hot haste to deport them is a clear violation which renders the deportation order bad in law and liable to be set aside. The process and procedure adopted in the deportation raise a suspicion that the concerned authorities, while acting in hot haste, have clearly violated the provisions of the memo dated 02.05.2025.” (Para 33)

Before issuing directions, the Bench addressed the central flaw in the deportation: the failure to comply with the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Memo dated 02.05.2025.

“From such sequence of facts it is explicit that the respondents admittedly did not follow the provisions of the memo dated 02.05.2025 inasmuch as the details of the said persons were not forwarded to the State of West Bengal of which they are the residents. It is only after such documents are forwarded, the concerned State Government has to ensure that appropriate report is sent to the deporting State Government/UT after proper verification within a period of 30 days. Admittedly no such enquiry was conducted and the Delhi Administration did not even wait for a week before issuance the order of deportation.” (Para 32)

On executive arbitrariness: The Court powerfully reminded the State:

“The life style of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice versa. Law cannot be disjuncted from context. The fundamental rights cannot be read as dull lifeless words. If an uncontrolled or unguided power is conferred without any reasonable and proper standards or limits being laid down in the enactment for guidance and control of exercise of such power, the act cannot by the furthest of imagination be construed to be a ‘procedure established by law’.” (Para 35)

And further:

“The executive cannot be vested with any non-fettered discretion. If officials exercise their public authority in an arbitral whimsical manner, the same would bring such act within the scope of prohibition of the equity clause.” (Para 35)

Final Directions

Having built this foundation, the Bench issued its emphatic direction:

“For and on the strength of the totality of reasons afore-indicated, the order of detention dated 24.06.2025 and the order of deportation dated 26.06.2025, so far as Sunali, Danish and Sabir are concerned, are set aside and the respondent nos. 1 to 6, are mandatorily directed to take all steps to bring back Sunali, Danish and Sabir to India within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said respondents, for such purpose, shall make necessary correspondence and interact with the authorities at High Commission of India, Dhaka, Bangladesh.” (Para 36)

• The detention order of June 24, 2025, and deportation order of June 26, 2025 were set aside.
• The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police were mandatorily directed to repatriate Sunali, Danish, and Sabir within four weeks, by liaising with the Indian High Commission in Dhaka.
• A plea by the Union’s counsel to stay the judgment was rejected outright.

In the epilogue, the Court showed zero tolerance for delay:

“Mr. Tiwari, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 prays for stay of operation of the order. Such prayer is considered and rejected.”

Common Threads in Both Cases

1. Procedural illegality: In both cases, the MHA memo of 2 May 2025 was disregarded, and deportation was carried out in “hot haste” within 48 hours.
2. Confessional statements rejected: The Bench refused to treat statements made before police as voluntary or binding.
3. Suspicion ≠ Proof: Reliance on vague interrogation forms was dismissed as constitutionally inadequate.
4. Article 21 as a shield: The principle of non-refoulement and the guarantee of fairness were read into the right to life and liberty.
5. Restorative remedy: Both judgments not only set aside the illegal orders but directed active repatriation within a fixed timeframe.
6. Stay refused: In both matters, the Court showed urgency, refusing to stay its own orders.

Key significance of both the judgments

The Calcutta High Court converted both the habeas corpus petitions from a procedural safeguard into a restorative mandate, compelling the State not only to stop violating liberty but to actively restore it within four weeks. By rejecting technical objections, demolishing coerced “confessions,” and refusing to stay its own orders, the Bench has made it clear: executive zeal cannot displace constitutional guarantees.

This judgment will stand as a landmark against arbitrary deportations, a reminder that suspicion is not proof, and an assertion that liberty lost must be liberty restored.

• Due process restored: Deportation, even of alleged foreigners, must follow strict statutory and constitutional safeguards.
• Suspicion is not citizenship proof: Courts will not permit arbitrary determinations based on police reports or coerced confessions.
• Article 21 expanded: Fairness, reasonableness, and dignity apply equally to citizens and non-citizens.
• Executive overreach checked: The Bench warned against “overenthusiasm” by officials and reaffirmed that arbitrary discretion is unconstitutional.
• Restorative habeas corpus: The Court moved beyond quashing illegal orders to actively commanding repatriation within four weeks.

The Calcutta High Court has not only ordered the return of a wrongfully deported families but also delivered a landmark reminder that the Constitution forbids arbitrary expulsions, and that suspicion, coercion, or bureaucratic zeal cannot strip individuals of their right to liberty and due process. Together, the Bodu Sekh and Amir Khan rulings stand as a landmark reminder that the Constitution forbids arbitrary expulsions, and that liberty curtailed unlawfully must be affirmatively restored.

Judgment of both the cases may be read below.

Bhodu Sheikh case is below:

Amir Khan case judgment is below:

Related:

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

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

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

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

The post Calcutta High Court quashes arbitrary deportation, orders return of West Bengal families from Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The government, which had accused Wangchuk of inciting the violence through “provocative statements,” issued the cancellation order on September 25, 2025. The order details several financial and procedural violations, culminating in the immediate termination of the NGO’s ability to receive foreign funds.

The action followed a Show Cause Notice issued to SECMOL on August 20, 2025, to which the association replied on September 19. After examining the NGO’s response, the ministry concluded that multiple violations were established.

Ministry findings on financial irregularities and improper disclosure of funds

The MHA order outlines specific instances of financial mismanagement and non-compliance with the FCRA.

The ministry pointed to a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakh deposited by Sonam Wangchuk into SECMOL’s FCRA account during the 2021-22 financial year, terming it a violation of Section 17 of the Act.

SECMOL, in its defence, stated the amount was Rs. 3,35,000 and represented the “sale proceeds of the old bus procured on 14.07.2015 out of FCRA’s fund only.” The organisation argued that proceeds from assets bought with foreign funds must be deposited back into the FCRA account.

However, the ministry found this reply to be “not tenable.” The order states that while the amount was declared in the annual returns as a “foreign Donation” from Sonam Wangchuk, the credit entry was not found in the FCRA bank account. The ministry concluded, “It seems that the amount has been received in cash in violation of section 17 of the Act which is not properly disclosed by the association in its reply.”

It further noted that the failure to reflect this transaction in the FCRA account also violates Section 18 of the Act.

MHA cancels the FCRA license of Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO. pic.twitter.com/OKK6NlShlo

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) September 25, 2025

Mixing local and foreign funds

Another violation cited was the deposit of Rs. 54,600 in local funds into the FCRA account during 2020-21 by three individuals. SECMOL admitted the error, explaining that the money came from volunteers for their food and accommodation and was “mistakenly transferred into our FCRA account instead of the local account,” despite clear instructions on its website. The MHA order noted,

“As admitted by the association, local fund were credited into FCRA account in violation of section 17 of the Act.”

Ministry alleges misuse of funds for ‘Sovereignty’ study; NGO clarifies donation was for ‘Food Security’ awareness.

Perhaps the most serious violation detailed in the order relates to a grant of ₹4,93,205 received from a Swedish donor, Framtidsjorden, during the 2021-22 financial year.

SECMOL clarified that the funds were for an educational program to create awareness among youth on issues like migration, climate change, food security, and “Sovereignty.”

The organisation in its reply stated that “we received Rs. 4,93,205/- from Framtidsjorden for educational program for youth under FE project for creating awareness among youth on issues such migration, climate change, global warming, food security and Sovereignty and organic farming through different workshops and trainings. The funds were utilised strictly in line with the organisation’s objectives and for the specifics purposes for which they were allocated. Hence, all these activities were educational and there was no violation.”

Page 3 of the Ministry Order dated September 25, 2025

The ministry seized on this specific point in its findings. The order states that the association admitted the donation was for a study on the “Sovereignty of the country” and that the funds were used in line with the donor’s objectives. The ministry unequivocally concluded that this activity was illegal, stating,

“The Foreign Contribution cannot be accepted for study on Sovereignty of the nation. This act of the association is against the national interest of the Country in violation of section 12(4)(f)(i) of the Act.”

Concluding its findings, the MHA stated that in view of the violations, the competent authority was cancelling SECMOL’s FCRA registration with immediate effect.

Background: unrest and protests in Leh

The cancellation comes in the immediate aftermath of significant unrest in Leh. On September 24, a large protest, primarily led by youth, turned violent. The demonstration was organised in solidarity with Sonam Wangchuk, who had been on a hunger strike to press for longstanding demands, including statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution for safeguarding land, culture, and employment.

Protestors reportedly vandalised property and torched vehicles, leading to clashes with security forces who responded with tear gas and firing. However, people died and dozens were injured in the violence. The central government claimed the “mob was incited by Shri Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements,” an allegation Wangchuk has denied, stating he has always appealed for peace.

Following the violence, the local administration-imposed restrictions on public gatherings and internet services. The next round of talks between Ladakhi representatives and the MHA is scheduled for October 6.

Related

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

Crushing voices: The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and supporters at Ladakh Bhawan

Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan

The post Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.