Court proceedings

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after Raut moved the Court citing serious health concerns. Raut suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, a progressive autoimmune disorder that attacks the joints, bones, and muscles. He argued that the necessary specialised treatment was unavailable inside prison facilities or in government hospitals, making interim release essential.

Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for Raut, highlighted that the Bombay High Court had already granted him regular bail in September 2023 after finding no sufficient material to justify continued detention. However, that relief never took effect because the High Court, at the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) request, stayed the order for a week to allow the agency to move the Supreme Court. Since then, the stay has been extended repeatedly.

Although Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was not present, another counsel appeared on behalf of the NIA and opposed the plea. The prosecution reiterated its allegations that Raut was responsible for fund transfers to Maoists and maintained that the charges against him were serious.

The Court, however, sided with the petitioner on medical grounds, observing:

“The applicant is seeking interim bail on medical grounds coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail (by the High Court). We are inclined to grant medical bail for a period of six weeks.”

In its order, the Bench noted that “Inasmuch as the applicant – Mahesh Sitaram Raut is seeking interim bail on medical ground, coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail by the High Court, against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed by the NIA, we are inclined to grant medical bail, for a period of six weeks, from the date on which the conditions are imposed by the concerned Trial Court. Accordingly, the applicant – Mahesh Sitaram Raut is granted interim bail for a period of six weeks, as aforementioned, subject to the terms and conditions 2 that can be imposed by the Trial Court”.

Raut is currently lodged in Taloja Central Jail, where several other co-accused in the case have also been held.

The complete order may be read here.

Earlier interim bails granted to Raut

This is the third instance of the Supreme Court granting Raut temporary release in the past year, in addition to reliefs granted by lower courts:

• April–May 2024: A special NIA court in Pune granted him interim bail to prepare for and appear in his LL.B. second semester examinations. The order directed that he be released between April 20 and May 16, subject to a personal bond of ₹50,000, disclosure of his residence, and sharing of his phone number for tracking purposes. The court also permitted the NIA to monitor his phone during the bail period.
• June–July 2024: A vacation bench of the Supreme Court granted him two weeks’ interim bail (June 26–July 10) to perform ceremonies connected with the last rites of his grandmother. The NIA opposed this plea on grounds of jurisdiction, but the Court ruled that since its own proceedings were pending, the application was rightly before it.
• September 2024: The Bombay High Court ordered Siddharth Law College, Mumbai, to admit Raut as a student for the 2024–2027 LL.B. batch, holding that imprisonment cannot strip a person of their right to education. The Court said that refusing admission despite a validly allotted seat would amount to violation of his fundamental right to education.

These repeated interim releases illustrate how courts have recognised Raut’s educational and familial rights, even while his broader entitlement to bail remains in abeyance.

Background of the case

The Elgar Parishad event on December 31, 2017, held in Pune to mark the bicentenary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon, became the starting point for a sweeping investigation. Authorities alleged that “inflammatory speeches” delivered at the event incited the caste violence that broke out the next day between Dalits and Marathas.

The case was initially probed by the Pune Police, which later transferred it to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Investigators alleged that the event was a front for a larger Maoist conspiracy to destabilise the State and wage war against the country.

A total of 16 activists, lawyers, and academics were arrested, including Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha, Hany Babu, Shoma Sen, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Sudhir Dhawale, Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe, Jyoti Jagtap, Mahesh Raut, and Father Stan Swamy.

The prosecution’s case against Raut specifically alleges that he was a member of CPI (Maoist), recruited others into the organisation, and was entrusted with ₹5 lakh in funds as per a letter allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop.

Over the years, courts have released several co-accused on bail:

• Sudha Bharadwaj (default bail, December 2021 – upheld by Supreme Court)
• Varavara Rao (medical bail, August 2022 – Supreme Court)
• Anand Teltumbde (merit bail, 2022 – upheld by Supreme Court)
• Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira (July 2023 – Supreme Court)
• Shoma Sen (April 2024 – Bombay HC, upheld by SC)
• Gautam Navlakha (May 2024 – Bombay HC, upheld by SC)

However, the bail plea of Jyoti Jagtap, a Kabir Kala Manch member, remains pending. The Bombay High Court had earlier rejected her plea in October 2022, noting that certain dialogues in Kabir Kala Manch plays ridiculed government slogans such as Ram Mandir, gomutra, and acche din, and were prima facie capable of inciting hatred. Her case will now be taken up by the Supreme Court in October 2025, along with Mahesh Raut.

Notably, Father Stan Swamy, also an accused in the case, died in judicial custody in July 2021 after being repeatedly denied interim bail despite suffering from Parkinson’s disease and ill health. His death drew sharp criticism of the State’s handling of UAPA detainees.

The Bail Puzzle: Two years of inaction

Mahesh Raut was granted regular bail on merits by the Bombay High Court in September 2023, making him the sixth accused in the case to secure such relief. The High Court found that there was no substantive evidence linking him directly to violent or terror-related activity.

However, the High Court, at the NIA’s request, stayed its own order for one week to allow the agency to file an appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently admitted the appeal and extended the stay indefinitely. For two years since then, Raut’s regular bail has been in suspension, leaving him confined despite the judicial finding in his favour.

The Supreme Court’s decision to release Mahesh Raut on medical grounds for six weeks adds to the string of temporary reliefs he has been granted over the years — to study, to grieve, and now to access medical care. Yet, the fundamental question remains unresolved: why does a man, whom the Bombay High Court found entitled to bail on merits two years ago, remain behind bars?

The prolonged suspension of his bail underscores a troubling pattern in UAPA cases — where interim reliefs are allowed piecemeal, but substantive liberty is indefinitely deferred. This effectively neutralises the High Court’s judgment and leaves the accused in a legal limbo, serving an unofficial sentence without trial.

Related:

Gautam Navlakha granted bail by Supreme Court in Bhima Koregaon case; orders him to pay 20 lakhs for the expenses incurred during his house arrest

Bhima Koregaon Case: HRDs and families await justice, five years down

SC grants bail to Varavara Rao on medical grounds in Bhima Koregaon case

Bhima Koregaon case: Why did Bombay HC grant bail to Sudha Bharadwaj, but not her co-accused?

The post Supreme Court grants six-week interim medical bail to Bhima Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bench and the proceedings

The matter came up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of religious conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.

The illusion of ‘Love Jihad’ has led violence and intimidation by police and non-state actors. The Anti-Conversion laws legitimise un-constitutional, anti-minority and misogynistic beliefs, and help further the hateful, communal agenda of extremists. CJP is challenging these laws as they impinge upon the privacy, freedoms and autonomy of consenting adults. Help CJP fight for equality and choice. Donate now to keep #LoveAzaad.

The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the States to file their affidavits in reply and fixed the matter for consideration after six weeks. Allowing for all the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, the Court also appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel for the respondents to facilitate preparation of compilations.

At the same time, the Court de-tagged a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. CJI Gavai clarified that while the present proceedings examine the constitutionality of State enactments, Upadhyay’s plea was of a different nature and thus could not be heard together.

Petitioners’ Submissions: Harsh punishments, vigilantism, and targeting of interfaith couples

Appearing for lead petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh stressed that there was great urgency in granting interim protection because several States were not only enforcing existing laws but also amending them to make them harsher.

Singh highlighted the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, for conversion through marriage deemed unlawful. Bail under this provision has been tied to the “twin conditions” regime, akin to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), making release on bail nearly impossible.

He further noted that the law permits third parties to file complaints, which has emboldened vigilante mobs to harass couples in interfaith marriages or even those merely participating in religious observances and church services. “These so-called ‘Freedom of Religion’ laws are being weaponised against minorities and those in interfaith marriages,” Singh submitted.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), echoed these concerns, pointing to the Uttar Pradesh and Haryana laws, and confirmed that her client too has filed an application specifically seeking stay of their operation.

Singh also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that Rajasthan has recently enacted a similar law, demonstrating the growing trend of States passing such statutes.

Context of earlier High Court orders

The Bench was reminded that both the Gujarat High Court (2021) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted partial stays on certain provisions of their respective anti-conversion laws, holding them to be prima facie unconstitutional.

• The Gujarat High Court had stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, noting that they intruded into the domain of marriage and personal choice, thus violating Article 21.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the MP Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, restrained the State from prosecuting adults marrying of their own volition and stayed the requirement under Section 10 (prior declaration before the District Magistrate before conversion).

Both these States have since appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the interim orders of their High Courts.

Intervention by other petitioners

The hearing also saw appearances by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Parikh, and others, all representing parties opposing the anti-conversion laws.

Singh urged that the Court must urgently stay the operation of the laws across States, given the severe chilling effect they are having on religious freedom and interfaith marriages.

When Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay pressed for his plea seeking a blanket pan-India law against deceitful conversions, CJI Gavai responded sharply:

• “Who will decide if a conversion is deceitful?”
• Singh intervened, pointing out that the Upadhyay petition was entirely different in nature since the present challenge is to the validity of existing State laws.
• The Court then formally de-tagged Upadhyay’s petition from the ongoing proceedings.

CJP’s previous submissions on weaponisation of laws

On April 16, during the previous hearing, before the bench of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Singh had also underlined that an interim application has been filed specifically highlighting incidents of weaponisation of these laws. He argued that “again and again, these laws are being invoked to harass minorities,” and urged that the Supreme Court issue notice on this application.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had contested this claim, stating: “My Lords, there are no such instances.”

The then CJI asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and clarify to the Court where the Union has objections and where it does not, to ensure expedited hearings.

The Court then passed an order permitting States and non-applicants to file responses to these applications even if no formal notice had been issued, in order to speed up completion of pleadings.

Details may be read here.

Background of the challenge

The litigation traces back to January 2020, when a Bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha first issued notice on these petitions. Subsequently, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved a transfer petition seeking consolidation of all challenges pending before six different High Courts—Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh—before the Supreme Court.

CJP’s central contention is that these laws violate Articles 21 and 25, impinging upon individual liberty, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of conscience and religion. They argue that the requirement of state approval or prior intimation before conversion is an unconstitutional burden and exposes individuals to harassment, communal targeting, and violence. Reliance is placed on precedents like KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM (2018), which uphold privacy, autonomy, and the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.

The petitions also emphasise that such laws are rooted in conspiracy theories like “love jihad”, and effectively deputise vigilante groups to police interfaith relationships.

Today’s order

Summarising today’s hearing, the Court ordered:

• States to file their responses within four weeks.
• Matter to be listed after six weeks for consideration of stay applications.
• Nodal counsels appointed to streamline compilations.
• Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition de-tagged.
• Pleadings to be completed swiftly, with the Attorney General asked to assist on which applications the Union may or may not oppose.

The Court made it clear that it will consider the petitioners’ prayer for staying the operation of these laws after six weeks, once responses from States and the Union are on record.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ali’s cancer was detected only on August 11, weeks after his condition had worsened inside the camp. He was initially shifted to the Goalpara Civil Hospital and later to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). Doctors informed authorities that his cancer was terminal and that he could only be given palliative care. Despite this, the state refused to release him. On September 1, his cousin Abdul Jalil petitioned the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner for his release, citing both medical necessity and the detention centre superintendent’s own advice to take him home for treatment. The plea was ignored, according to Scroll’s report.

Ali died at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati on Sunday, leaving behind his elderly mother, wife, three sons and four daughters.

Declared Foreigner on dubious grounds

Like thousands of others, Ali’s ordeal began decades ago. Branded a “D-voter” (doubtful voter) in 1997 by the Election Commission, he faced a Foreigners Tribunal inquiry years later. In 2017, a notice was issued; in April 2021, the tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

Family members allege he was never informed of the ruling until police arrived to detain him in May 2025. His lawyer, they say, failed to communicate the verdict. Ali had submitted the 1951 NRC showing his parents’ names and electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970 with his maternal grandparents’ names, but the tribunal dismissed these citing “inconsistencies” in linkage, as reported by Scroll. Even his mother’s sworn testimony was rejected, the tribunal claiming she was “tutored.”

This pattern mirrors other cases we have documented, where minor spelling variations, illiteracy-related memory lapses, or missing decades-old records are weaponised to strip citizenship.

Matia Detention Centre: A site of neglect and death

Ali’s death is the second in Matia this year. In April 2025, 42-year-old Md Abdul Motlib of Hojai district died at GMCH after falling ill in detention. Between 2015 and 2022, official records confirm 31 deaths of detainees branded “illegal foreigners”, according to Scroll.

The Matia detention centre, operational since January 2023, is India’s largest and has repeatedly been condemned for substandard conditions. The Supreme Court, responding to petitions, has over the past year issued a string of orders:

• In July 2024, it described conditions as a “sorry state of affairs” — citing lack of proper toilets, sanitation, medical facilities, and clean water.
• In October 2024, it directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct surprise inspections of Matia to verify conditions.
• In November 2024, after reviewing SLSA’s report, it noted that even basic amenities were lacking and directed the state to improve facilities within one month.

Detailed CJP reports may be read here and here.

Beyond individual cases

Ali’s death crystallises several themes:

• Judicial rebukes unheeded: Despite Supreme Court interventions, Matia continues with inhuman conditions.
• Medical neglect and denial of release: Even terminally ill detainees are held until death.
• Structural injustice in citizenship adjudication: Tribunals disbelieve even primary records, severing families from citizenship over trivialities.
• Silencing by fear: Families too poor to litigate learn of tribunal orders only when police arrive.

Amzad Ali’s life ended not simply because of cancer, but because of a system designed to exclude and punish. His death adds to a grim tally and underscores why India’s detention regime in Assam remains one of the sharpest sites of rights violations against its own citizens.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

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

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

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

The post Death in Assam’s Detention Regime: 56-year-old Bengali Muslim succumbs to cancer amid denial of release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his complaint to the NHRC, Shaikh emphasized the profound impact of his nine-year imprisonment on his personal and professional life. He explained that his delayed compensation claim was intentional, aiming to ensure that all co-accused in the 7/11 case, who were also innocent, receive similar redress. Shaikh’s demand aligns with the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment, which reaffirmed the case’s baselessness and the violation of fundamental human rights over nearly two decades.

“The wrongful imprisonment caused a severe nine-year gap in my professional and personal life. My career, education and personal development were destroyed. The stigma of being falsely branded a ‘terrorist’ continues to haunt me even after acquittal.”he wrote to NHRC

‘It was not a pleasant moment for me to seek compensation when they were still languishing behind bars, and I feared that the State could have been more brutal towards them and taken revenge for my compensation claim. I decided to wait until all my co-accused were acquitted and proven innocent. Now that these acquittals have taken place, it is clear that the entire case was a forgery, and therefore, my demand for compensation becomes even more legitimate and urgent. At this juncture, I believe it is fully justified to seek justice for myself. ‘ he said in a press note

Shaikh reiterated his long-standing position that those wrongfully incarcerated should be granted at least ₹1 crore for each year of imprisonment, though he added that no amount could ever truly compensate for the years lost.

Referring to the recent Bombay High Court judgment, Shaikh said it reaffirmed what he and others have maintained for years — that the case was “entirely bogus” and that their fundamental human rights had been gravely violated for nearly two decades.

Muhammad Aamir Khan, who spent 14 years in prison for being accused of involvement in bomb blasts in the Delhi-NCR region. Before being acquitted of all charges in 2012, told This reporter that he has continued to work on the issue of wrongful incarceration since his release. “We have even met the President regarding compensation. He expressed concern, but nothing concrete has materialized yet. Still, I remain optimistic,” he said.

Highlighting what he sees as a stark injustice,  he pointed out that in India, “militants who surrender their arms are often rehabilitated and compensated. Those who openly admit to killings or bombings are offered state support. But people who are wrongfully accused of terrorism, who lose years of their lives in jail, are almost never compensated.”

In 2014, the NHRC awarded Khan ₹5 lakh in compensation for his wrongful incarceration; he received it in 2018.

India currently lacks a statutory framework mandating compensation for individuals wrongfully accused and incarcerated, including in terrorism-related cases. Over the years, civil society organizations, legal experts, and the Law Commission of India have advocated for such a framework to ensure that victims of wrongful imprisonment receive recognition, financial relief, and a formal acknowledgment of the state’s error. Compensation in these cases serves as both an apology and a step toward accountability, acknowledging the grave injustice suffered by individuals and their families.

The Law Commission of India’s Report No. 277 (2018). highlights the absence of a statutory framework for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. It underscores the severe social, psychological, and economic consequences endured by the wrongfully accused, including loss of liberty, livelihood, and reputation. Drawing on international practices and findings from the Innocent People’s Tribunal, the report recommends a legal mechanism providing both monetary and non-monetary relief, reflecting the duration of detention and personal losses, along with specialized courts to assess compensation claims efficiently.Civil society initiatives have complemented these efforts. Notably, the Innocent Network’s People’s Tribunal systematically examined cases of individuals acquitted in terrorism-related cases and highlighted the urgent need for state recognition and redress.

‘I’m quite hopeful I would be compensated for my lost years , especially after this case has been proven to be bogus by the Bombay High Court’, said Shaikh with a smile.

Osama Rawal holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Elphinstone College and has been actively involved in people’s movements across Maharashtra. He is a researcher and activist with the Innocence Network—an alliance of activists, lawyers, and civil society groups dedicated to securing justice for individuals wrongfully convicted, especially in terrorism-related cases

Courtesy: CounterCurrents

The post Abdul Wahid Shaikh, acquitted in 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, demands ₹9 crore as Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Child was assaulted by two teachers in the classroom

According to a police report, the child was assaulted by two teachers—Rakesh Saini and Ravindra—inside the classroom shortly after he returned from a short absence. The complaint, filed by the boy’s father, alleges that one teacher held the child down while the other repeatedly beat him with a stick.

According to the Indian Express, Jhabrera Station House Officer Ajay Shah said that victim’s  father alleged that one of the teachers ‘threw the child to the ground, pressed his face with a shoe, and held his hands’ while the other ‘beat him with a stick’.

A 7-year-old Muslim boy was allegedly beaten by his teachers inside a classroom of a government school in Jhabrera village of Haridwar district in Uttarakhand for allegedly missing a day of school.@ghazalaahmad5 reports:https://t.co/FOyDJn20Ki

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) September 14, 2025

The child reportedly sustained multiple injuries, including a fractured hand and trauma to his back and hips. Photographs of the boy, shared by the family, show red scars on his body, highlighting the severity of the attack.

Principal accused of inaction

The child’s father initially approached the school principal to report the incident, but claims his concerns were dismissed. Instead of receiving support, he alleges he was met with threats from the accused teachers.

“When I went to the school, both teachers threatened me, saying: ‘Go away, otherwise we will kill you,” the father stated in his complaint, as reported

Following the alleged inaction by the school authorities, the father took the matter to Jhabrera police station, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on September 11, 2025.

Legal action and investigation

Police confirmed that the FIR has been filed under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for cruelty to a child. The case also includes charges under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) Section 115(2) for voluntarily causing hurt and Section 351(2) for criminal intimidation.

“Further investigation and due legal proceedings are underway,” officials at Jhabrera police station said.

The child is currently undergoing treatment at a local hospital for his injuries. His family says he remains in shock from the incident.

Complaint filed with Minority Commission and NHRC

Mohammad Saddam Mujeeb, former advisor at the Delhi Minorities Commission, has filed complaints with the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

“This is a clear violation of child rights and it needs to be investigated. Student safety is at stake,” said Mujeeb, Maktoob Media reported.

He added, “This can happen with any student in the state. It should not be repeated; hence, accountability must be ensured.”

Related

‘They Beat Me, Undressed Me, Urinated on Me’: Dalit youth in Rajasthan brutally assaulted; no arrests yet

Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse

Rajasthan’s rape crisis: a string of horrific crimes challenges the state’s record on women’s safety

The post 7-year-old Muslim boy allegedly assaulted by teachers in Uttarakhand’s govt school, FIR registered appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From “D-Voter” to Tribunal notice

Born on July 20, 1979 in village Kherbari Pt-IV, Dhubri district, Assam, Jarina Bibi is the daughter of late Jabed Ali and Janmati Bibi. Her family’s roots in Assam stretch back generations: her grandparents Meheddi Munshi (also known as Mohor Uddin Munshi) and Jamiran Bibi were recorded in the 1966 electoral rolls; her father Jabed Ali appeared in the 1970 rolls; and her mother remains a regular voter even today.

Yet, despite this, Jarina’s name was arbitrarily marked with the “D” (doubtful) voter tag. A Suspected Foreigner notice followed—turning her life upside down. For her husband, Mojammal Haque, a migrant worker, challenging the notice in court initially felt impossible due to lack of awareness and resources. Fear and despair gripped the family. 

CJP Assam Team with Jarina Bibi outside her home

CJP steps in

The turning point came when CJP’s Dhubri District Volunteer Motivator Habibul Bepari and Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh stepped in. With the guidance of Advocate Ishkendar Azad, CJP assisted the family in gathering and authenticating documents, many of which were beyond their immediate reach due to poverty and illiteracy.

CJP secured:

• Electoral rolls from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 proving the voting history of her grandparents, parents, and even Jarina herself.
• Land and revenue records confirming holdings of her father and grandfather.
• A Gaon Panchayat certificate (2015), later authenticated in court, linking Jarina to her father, Jabed Ali.
• Testimony of her mother, Janmati Bibi, who stood before the Tribunal and confirmed her daughter’s lineage.

These efforts were crucial in overcoming the structural hurdles of proving “linkage”—a recurring difficulty for women in Assam who often lack formal education, land in their names, or school records. As CJP’s work shows, legal aid often requires not just documents but also counselling, persuasion, and persistence to ensure families do not give up.

The Tribunal’s legal findings

The Final Order of March 10, 2025, delivered by FT Member Kirti Kamal Das, demonstrates how strong evidence, when properly marshalled, can withstand scrutiny:

• The Tribunal held that Jarina’s parental linkage with late Jabed Ali was “adequately established”, supported both by her mother’s oral testimony (DW-2) and documentary evidence.
• The Election Officer’s verification report (20 August 2024) confirmed the authenticity of electoral rolls dating back to 1966, validating the family’s continuous presence in Assam.
• Land documents and revenue receipts corroborated long-standing residence.
• The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof rests on the proceedee. Jarina successfully discharged this burden by producing reliable and trustworthy records.

The Tribunal thus concluded:

“From the above context, it appears that the pleadings of Proceedee and her exhibited documents are being substantiated each other which demonstrate that Proceedee’s ancestor were genuine Indian nationals and the Proceedee being a descendant of genuine Indian cannot be termed as illegal migrant as alleged.”

“Thus, in consideration of entirety of documents produced, it appears that the Proceedee or her ancestors had not illegally entered into the territory of India or the State of Assam, as suspected.”

“The documents have been found to be reliable, trustworthy and acceptable being in order and having been issued by the proper authorities and as such, proved. The documents have thus got evidentiary value. The Pròceedee from all possible aspects of the matter, cannot be termed or declared to be a foreigner of the stream Post 1971 or any other stream under the law. The Proceedee has been able to discharge the burden cast on her under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove the fact that she is not a foreigner under the law.”

Accordingly, the reference was dismissed, and Jarina was declared an Indian citizen.

The human cost of citizenship battles

Behind this legal triumph lies years of trauma. Jarina’s mother, Janmati Bibi, described the fear of losing her daughter: “I will be with you in jail,” she told her, resigned to the idea of wrongful detention. She wept at night, fearing deportation, and expressed relief only after the Tribunal’s judgment: “We were born here and we will die here.”

Jarina herself admitted to sleepless nights, haunted by news of detentions and deportations. Like many women in Assam, especially Muslim, she paid the price of a flawed system—enduring years of uncertainty, stigma, and humiliation before proving what should never have been in doubt. The mental toll, financial burden, and humiliation suffered by families like Jarina’s remain invisible in official records.

Jarina Bibi with her family, holding the order that declares her Indian

Why this case matters

The declaration of Jarina Bibi as Indian is not just a personal relief but a testament to the resilience of marginalized communities when supported with legal aid. It underscores:

1. The centrality of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946—which unfairly reverses the burden of proof onto the accused, making legal assistance indispensable.
2. The evidentiary value of electoral rolls, land records, and Panchayat certificates, when corroborated by oral testimony.
3. The indispensable role of organizations like CJP in bridging the gap between law and access to justice for poor, illiterate, and socially disadvantaged citizens.

On September 7, 2025, CJP handed over the Tribunal’s order to Jarina and her family. For the first time in years, smiles returned to their faces. As rain poured that day, Jarina stepped out into the street to bid farewell to the CJP team, her joy and gratitude visible—a small but profound symbol of justice reclaimed.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

Eviction tragedy in Assam: Two killed during eviction drive as police firing sparks allegations of government bias

Assam government introduces stricter Aadhaar rules amid concerns over population discrepancies, increases chances of bureaucracy in the process 

The post From Doubt to Dignity: Justice for Jarina Bibi in Assam’s citizenship battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, announcing the decision, said the measure would empower civil administration and “to a large extent nullify the role of Foreigners’ Tribunals”.

What the SOP provides

1. Notice and proof – On receiving information from the police or border authorities, the DC issues notice to a suspect, granting 10 days to produce documents proving citizenship.
2. DC’s decision – If documents are unsatisfactory, the DC issues a written order of expulsion under Section 2(a) of the 1950 Act. The person must leave within 24 hours, using a route specified by the DC.
3. Declared foreigners – Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) has already declared a person a foreigner, the DC will directly issue an expulsion order, bypassing further scrutiny.
4. Police role – Before expulsion, the SSP records biometric and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal.
5. Detention and “pushback” – If a person refuses to leave, they may be placed in a holding centre or handed to the BSF. Individuals detected near the zero line or within 12 hours of entry will be pushed back immediately.

What did CM Sarma say during the Press Meet?

On September 9, 2025, the Assam Cabinet approved the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for implementing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.

Addressing a late-night press conference, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma explained that under the new SOP:

• If a District Commissioner (DC) receives information from the police or any other source that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant, the DC will issue a notice directing the person to produce proof of Indian citizenship within 10 days.
• After hearing the individual, if the DC arrives at the conclusion that the person is a foreigner, an immediate order of expulsion (“push-back”) will be issued.
• If the DC cannot reach a firm conclusion, the case will be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for adjudication.

Sarma emphasised that the cut-off date remains March 25, 1971, in line with the Assam Accord. Thus, anyone alleged to have entered Assam after 1971 may be brought before the DC under the new procedure. Pending cases before Foreigners Tribunals will continue, but new cases not already before an FT can now be initiated directly before the DC.

The Chief Minister described this as a “landmark decision,” arguing that while the Act of 1950 had never been actively enforced in this manner, the Supreme Court had “clearly indicated” that Assam is free to use it for detection and deportation of foreigners. He claimed the SOP would allow the government to act in the “letter and spirit” of the law, making it easier for the State to expel those determined to be foreigners.

Link of press meet:

(12.25 minutes to 16.35 minutes)

Earlier, on August 21, 2025, the Assam Cabinet also resolved that the State would stop issuing Aadhaar cards to adults, further tightening its documentation regime.

Historical and legal backdrop

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was passed by the Union government in response to post-Partition migration from East Pakistan. It empowered the government to order the removal of any non-Indian whose stay was deemed “detrimental to the public interest” or to the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Assam.

But within a month, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed Assam’s Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi to suspend its use following the Liaquat–Nehru Pact (April 1950), which sought to protect minorities on both sides of the border. The Act then fell into disuse. However, the 1950 Act and its use has surfaced only recently, for the same is being used to detain and “push-out” people.

SOP leaves fundamental questions unanswered

Mrinmoy Dutta, Advocate (Gauhati High Court) and counsel for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), said that the new SOP marks a clear attempt to shift the entire process of citizenship determination from the quasi-judicial Foreigners’ Tribunals to the executive authority of the Deputy Commissioner (DC).

He explained that India’s Citizenship Act does not clearly specify what documents are required to prove citizenship, particularly for those born in India. “There is no definitive legal framework that says what proof of citizenship by birth should look like. This makes the SOP deeply uncertain in its operation,” he noted.

Dutta stressed that there is no debate over the principle that foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971 must be excluded in line with the Assam Accord. “The real question is: who is a foreigner, and how will they be identified? Earlier, this role was entrusted to Foreigners’ Tribunals, but now the SOP transfers that function to the DC, without clear legal safeguards.”

He further pointed out that the SOP does not clarify how it interacts with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Under NRC rules, persons excluded from the final NRC list were supposed to receive rejection slips, enabling them to appeal. “Those rejection slips have not yet been issued. Now, if a DC serves a notice, it is unclear whether this process will be linked to the NRC or entirely independent of it. Can the SOP override NRC appeal provisions or bypass the Foreigners’ Tribunal framework? These are fundamental unanswered questions,” he said.

Another major concern, Dutta observed, is the absence of an appeal mechanism. “If someone receives a notice late or cannot produce documents within ten days, there is no statutory appeal provision in the SOP. The only remedy left is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. This places a heavy burden on individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized.”

He concluded that judicial scrutiny and oversight are indispensable, because in its current form the SOP risks arbitrary expulsions without clear rules, adequate time, or meaningful remedies.

Critical concerns

1. Bypassing judicial Tribunals

Traditionally, questions of citizenship and foreigner status in Assam are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs), quasi-judicial bodies created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The new SOP places this power in the hands of executive officers (DCs), raising concerns of bias, lack of due process, and arbitrary decision-making.

While Sarma insists that only “confusing cases” will go to FTs, this reverses the default mechanism: from judicial determination to administrative fiat. Many argue this risks turning citizenship adjudication into a purely bureaucratic exercise.

2. Violation of natural justice

The SOP grants only 10 days for a suspected person to prove citizenship. Given the well-documented difficulties in Assam — poor documentation, illiteracy, displacement due to floods, and language barriers — this period may be unrealistically short. Legal scholars caution that it fails to meet the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

3. Separation of powers and Constitutional mandate

By allowing DCs to override FTs, the SOP arguably undermines the statutory role of Foreigners’ Tribunals, established precisely to ensure that complex citizenship questions are not left to executive discretion. The principle of separation of powers — where determination of rights is reserved for judicial or quasi-judicial bodies — is at stake.

4. Risk of arbitrary expulsions and statelessness

The SOP also permits immediate pushbacks at the border within 12 hours, without any process. This could lead to collective expulsions in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law.

Constitutional and legal questions

1. Does the SOP violate Article 21? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)) that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Ten days to prove citizenship may not satisfy this threshold.
2. Can executive SOP override statutory mechanisms? The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 explicitly entrust FTs with the task of determining citizenship disputes. An executive SOP cannot, in law, displace this statutory framework unless backed by Parliament.
3. Equal Protection (Article 14): Selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslims, as human rights groups fear, may amount to hostile discrimination. Even if the SOP is facially neutral, its implementation could violate the Article 14 guarantee against arbitrariness.
4. Judicial Review: The SOP is likely to face constitutional challenge. Courts will have to weigh whether the 1950 Act, designed as an emergency measure, can be resurrected in a way that dilutes procedural safeguards crafted over decades.

Government justification

It has been argued by the state that the move is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 directions to employ the 1950 Act alongside Section 6A. According to the report of NDTV, with over 82,000 cases pending before FTs, the government says speedier administrative action is necessary to curb illegal immigration.

Sarma has also claimed that Assam has already “pushed back” more than 30,000 illegal immigrants, and the SOP simply codifies what has been practice on the ground, as reported by Assam Tribune.

Conclusion

The Assam government’s SOP under the 1950 Act is more than a bureaucratic measure — it marks a radical shift in how India addresses contested citizenship. By moving decision-making from quasi-judicial bodies to executive officers, it raises deep constitutional concerns about due process, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

The legal test ahead will be whether courts uphold this framework as a legitimate application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, or strike it down as executive overreach incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and justice.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post From Tribunals to DCs, 10 Days to Prove Citizenship: Assam’s radical shift in “foreigner” expulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 3, 2025 the Maharashtra Cabinet approved a series of labour law amendments to increase the length of the working day, working hours without rest intervals, working hours per week, and limit of the overtime period. These amendments are based on recommendations of a central task force on labour reforms in order to “attract investment, expand industries, and create more employment opportunities.” The Maharashtra decision aligns with states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura – which have already enacted similar “reforms.”

The PUCL statement states that it must not be forgotten that the State is the biggest employer both in industries and establishments and is therefore required to ensure that workers are not exploited and their fundamental rights to a decent, safe and healthy work environment are protected. Yet it fails to do precisely that.

The State Government has made many lofty claims in support of these “reforms,” that are presumably in the interests of both labour as well as capital. The amendments will facilitate “protection of labour rights” while “improving the ease of doing business.” They will help “attract investment” as well as “increase employment opportunities in the state.”¹ But it is obvious that extending working hours, and removing smaller establishments from the purview of the law is meant to reduce or remove protections for workers, not to expand them, says the PUCL.

Today, even in the industrial sector in India, contractual workers are already working 12-hour shifts (without overtime). In effect, the amendments aim to legalise what is already happening in fact – depriving workers of the legal safeguards against super-exploitation. They seem to be a way of coercing a shrinking permanent workforce into this inhuman work regime. Besides, far from increasing employment, as is claimed, this step will reduce the organised work force to two thirds of its size by replacing 8-hour shifts with 12-hour ones. It is no surprise that the Karnataka State IT/ITeS

1 See the post by the Chief Minster of Maharashtra on the social media platform X:

मंत्रिमंडळ निर्णय : कामगार विभाग@Dev_Fadnavis#Maharashtra #मंत्रिमंडळनिर्णय #CabinetDecision #DevendraFadnavis pic.twitter.com/oTZrwmsHOp

— CMO Maharashtra (@CMOMaharashtra) September 3, 2025

Employees Union (KITU) labelled similar amendments proposed in Karnataka as “inhuman attempt to impose modern-day slavery” upon them.²

In line with the state cabinet’s decision, the proposed amendments will be carried out in the Factories Act of 1948 and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. In the Factories Act, the amendments proposed are: (a) Under Section 65, the workday shall be extended from the present 9 hours up to 12 hours; (b) Under Section 55, the rest period which was half an hour after the first five hours shall be made half an hour after six hours; (c) Under Section 56, the maximum number of working hours (spread over) in a day from 10.5 hours to 12 hours; (d) Under Section 65, the maximum number of hours of overtime in a quarter shall be increased from the present 115 to 144 hours (the original limit had been laid down as 75 hours). Under the Shops and Establishments Act the government intends to (a) increase working hours from 9 to 10 hours; (b) exclude establishments having less than 20 workers (the current number of 85 lakh establishments covered by this Act will be reduced to about 56,000).

While the State Labour Secretary has claimed that overtime work will be paid at double the rate of basic wages and allowances for every such increase in working hours, and that such overtime shall be subject to worker’s consent, these assurances have to be tested upon the actual language of the proposed amendments, particularly the fine print. While the decisions have yet to take the shape of a bill/ordinance for amending the Factories Act in the state, it is very likely that the amending bill/ordinance shall be on the lines of similar amendments made in Rajasthan and Gujarat.

In the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2025, issued on July 1, 2025, for instance, at Section 6, it is stated that Section 59(1) of the Factories Act shall be substituted by:

“Where a worker works in any factory:-

• for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, working for six days in any week;
• for more than ten hours in any day or for more than forty eight hours in any week, working for five days in any week;
• for more than eleven and a half hours in any day working for four days in any week, or works on paid holidays; he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”

In effect this means that overtime will not be calculated on a daily basis, but on a weekly basis, and a worker may work for eleven and a half hours each day for four days in a week without being eligible for overtime. This amounts to squeezing out the maximum from workers, and if they do not consent to overtime, subjecting them to artificial breaks in service jeopardising their permanent status.

The Rajasthan Bill contains another dangerous clause, namely 6(v):

“A worker may be required to work for overtime subject to the consent of such worker for such work except worker required to work for safety activities.”

 2 See the statement “12-hour work day in Karnataka’s IT Sector; Modern-Day Slavery in the Making: KITU Urges Employees to Unite and Resist” by the Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union
https://kituhq.org/recent/6836e0f7e83575020247d3d1

Thus, a maintenance worker may be forced to work overtime all the year round. Given the current situation in the country of a large informal sector, underemployment, low wages, and unpaid work – workers will give “consent” out of fear or desperation, not choice. The provision of “consent” will be little more than legal subterfuge to conceal a new form of servitude.

It is a serious concern that while average working hours in wealthy countries have reduced by roughly half over the last 150 years – moving from over 50 hours per week to around 25-35 hours per week in recent times – India is reverting to colonial era standards by increasing working hours. In France, for instance, the standard full-time work week is 35 hours, with a daily cap of 10 hours; hours beyond the 35 hour threshold are considered overtime.

Finally, the PUCL statement states that the working class all over the world has fought a long battle to establish its right to an 8- hour working day so that workers may also have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of personal time in which to achieve their full potential as citizens and as human beings. It must be recalled that the International Workers Day originates from the demand for an eight hour working day. Labour Day commemorates the sacrifice of union organisers – who were framed after the Haymarket protest on false charges of causing a riot – during a strike and demonstrations of Chicago workers in 1886. It has origins in the American Federation of Labour’s call: “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s labour from and after May 1st, 1886”. After the International Labour Organisation (ILO) was founded in 1919, the first instrument ratified by it was the one regulating working hours. The second article limited working hours to 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. India was one of the first signatories of the ILO’s “Hours of Work Convention” in 1921. India has itself witnessed valiant struggles of textile workers in the year 1911 to reduce working hours which finally under the pen of Dr B.R. Ambedkar were enshrined in the Factories Act, 1948 in the form of the 8-hour work day. The government’s decision in effect seeks to extinguish in one stroke the rights that working people have won with great sacrifice and struggle over more than a century.

It is widely acknowledged that long hours of work does not increase worker productivity, on the contrary, they drastically increase incidents of workplace accidents. Such long hours of work can only lead to sweat labour and hazardous work conditions. It will adversely impact health of workers by increasing exhaustion and stress, and increase their exposure to occupation-linked diseases and medical conditions. It is equally well known that workers in establishments with 12- hour shifts are rarely able to unionise. Longer working hours are discriminatory towards women workers because women bear a significant burden of care work in their homes. If the government was serious about increasing productivity, employment opportunities and welfare of workers, they would introduce progressive amendments to reduce working hours without any reduction in wages.

The PUCL Maharashtra has therefore demanded that the full texts of the proposed amendments be made available in the public domain in both in Marathi and English, and in all offices of the Labour Department so that trade unions and organisations can scrutinise the fine print of these so- called “reforms.” We demand that this decision to amend the Factories Act and the Shop and Establishments Act along the lines of other state governments be immediately revoked. Any proposed labour reforms in the state must only be considered after a series of consultations with trade unions and workers’ organisations, after which they ought to be opened to the broader public for suggestions and objections.

The PUCL, has also stated that the organization, in alliance with trade unions and informal sector workers organisations will campaign against the extension of work hours. It will also lobby with the Standing Committee in the Legislative Assembly and with opposition party MLAs to not accept these changes, and if required challenge these amendments in the courts. The statement was issued by Shiraz Bulsara Prabhu, President of PUCL, Maharashtra and   Sandhya Gokhale, General Secretary.

Related:

Beyond the Clock: Deconstructing Telangana’s Labour Law Reform and the Flawed Pursuit of Investment

ILO raises deep concern over recent trend of labour law reforms, asks PM to engage with states

New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) demands that governments retract changes in labour laws

Battle against dilution of labour laws to culminate in Supreme Court? 

The post Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ever since the introduction and passage of the controversial law, a unique alliance of people’s organisations and opposition political parties have come together, on four separate occasions to protest this law that spells doom for free expression, the right to protest and dissent. In April 2025 and then again in July 2025, there have been protests around this legislation.

Pune: Call to resist “state repression”

In Pune, under the leadership of Supriya Sule (MP), National Working President of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), a mass gathering was organized at the Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial near Pune Station. City NCP president Prashant Jagtap called on citizens to resist the law, warning that it empowers the state to directly imprison dissenters and silence public opposition.

1 of 7

Mumbai: Opposition Action Committee leads joint protest

In Mumbai, the Janasuraksha Bill Opposition Action Committee led a protest at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Maidan, Dadar, from 4–8 pm. The meeting was chaired by Com. Prakash Reddy (CPI) and attended by leaders across the political spectrum:

• Congress – Dhananjay Shinde
• NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) – Rupesh Khandke
• CPI(M) – Com. Shailendra Kamble
• CPI – Com. S.K. Rege, Amir Kazi, Com. Nana Parab
• Peasants and Workers Party – Com. Rajendra Korde
• Hum Bharat Ke Log – Feroze Mithiborwala
• CPI(ML) – Com. Vijay Kulkarni
• APCR – Shakir Shaikh, Adv. Inamdar
• Autonomous women’s organisations and civil liberty activists from Forum against Oppression of Women among others.

A message of solidarity was also sent by MLA Sachin Ahir (Shiv Sena–UBT). Multiple people’s organisations pledged participation.

1 of 7

Loh and Rural Maharashtra: Constitution and democracy defended

In Loh, a demonstration began with floral tributes at the statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, followed by slogans:

• “Long Live the Constitution”
• “Repeal the Anti-People Public Security Act”
• “Down with the Fadnavis-Shinde-Ajit Pawar Government”

Leaders including Com. Rameshwar Pawal (CPI-M), Milind Sawant (Congress), Rameshwar Bahirat (Shiv Sena–UBT), and Bhai U.R. Thombal (Shetkari Kamgar Paksha) condemned the Act as an assault on democratic rights. Protesters reminded that 10 lakh signatures and over 1.24 lakh written objections were submitted to the Governor, but the government still “bulldozed” the Bill through the Assembly.

1 of 4

Other District Actions

• Kolhapur: Maha Vikas Aghadi held a sit-in at the Collector’s office, led by Congress’s Harshvardhan Sapkal and district leaders; a memorandum was submitted.

महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या आदेशानुसार व प्रदेशाध्यक्ष हर्षवर्धन सपकाळ साहेबांच्या नेतृत्वात महाराष्ट्र जनसुरक्षा विधेयका विरोधात राज्यव्यापी आंदोलन करण्यात आले.
कोल्हापूर जिल्हा काँग्रेस कमिटी व महाविकास आघाडीच्या वतीने जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालय,कोल्हापूर येथे ठिय्या आंदोलन… pic.twitter.com/q2wPjfi8cL

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) September 10, 2025

• Solapur: Protesters burnt an effigy of the Act in a symbolic rejection.

1 of 4

• Manchar: A large gathering under MVA banner denounced the Act.

• Palghar district: Demonstrations were staged at Dahanu, Palghar, Vasai, Wada, Vikramgad, Jawhar, and Mokhada.

1 of 2

• Beed, Shevgaon (Ahmednagar), Hingoli, Dhule, Gadchiroli, Gondia: District-level agitations with party workers and civil society activists submitting memoranda.

1 of 22

Opposition’s Stand

Across locations, including Shahada, Nandurbar, Shambhajinagar and Satara, western Maharashtra, speakers reiterated that the MSPS Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, criminalises dissent, and grants unchecked powers to the state. They demanded its immediate repeal, warning that Maharashtra risks becoming a “police state.”

Slogan on everyone’s lips was: Not Public Security, but Public Oppression Bill!”

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

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

The post Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On July 25, The Hindu reported that Human Rights Watch had documented expulsions being carried out without any verification of citizenship. Bangladesh’s own border guards confirmed that more than 1,500 people had been pushed out in just five weeks. The report of Deutsche Welle amplified these findings with testimonies of workers whose Aadhaar cards were torn up, who were beaten, and then forced across the border at gunpoint.

Article 14 described the atmosphere in Ahmedabad’s Chandola area, where residents say their neighbours vanish overnight. As one woman put it: “They’re taken, and we don’t even get to see them again.”

The Courts: Cautious but engaged

For weeks, the deportations took place largely outside the gaze of the judiciary. That shifted in August.

On August 14, LiveLaw reported that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union government and nine states on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board. The Board alleged that under a May directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs, arbitrary deportations were being carried out by multiple state police forces, targeting Bengali-speaking workers.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pressed the Centre to respond. While the Solicitor General denied any targeting based on language, the Court reminded him that “action cannot be on the basis of language.” The bench stopped short of granting interim relief, but hinted at the need for a central coordination mechanism.

Meanwhile, the Calcutta High Court has taken a more pointed approach. On July 17, Scroll reported that the Court had sought answers about the case of Sunali Bibi, allegedly deported from Delhi while eight months pregnant. The petition was filed by her family, who say she was detained in Delhi despite showing Aadhaar and other documents.

According to the report of Madhyamam, it was revealed that the Delhi FRRO had issued an order on June 24 and executed it two days later. Delhi Police maintained that due process was followed. The Calcutta High Court, however, has asked the Union to explain why deportations suddenly escalated in June. The case is listed for hearing on August 20.

States push ahead

Even as courts are probing these deportations, state governments are moving aggressively.

• Maharashtra: On August 8, the Indian Express reported that Mumbai Police deported 112 people in a single operation using an Indian Air Force aircraft to the Assam–Bangladesh border. This brought the 2025 tally in Mumbai to 719 deportations — a staggering jump from 152 in all of 2024. Officials said they relied on call records, bank transactions, and site visits to identify foreigners. But the same report showed troubling patterns: entire families being targeted, and mothers with minor children deported without clarity about the children’s citizenship.
• Tamil Nadu: On August 12, the New Indian Express reported that the Attur district jail in Salem has been designated as a special camp for nearly 200 Bangladeshi nationals awaiting deportation. With existing camps overcrowded, Tamil Nadu’s move reflects how states are formalising and expanding detention infrastructure for cross-border removals.
• West Bengal: By contrast, West Bengal is resisting. On June 17, The Telegraph reported that three of five workers who had been pushed into Bangladesh were repatriated after the state government pressed the BSF to raise the matter with its Bangladeshi counterparts. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly accused BJP-ruled states of using deportations to harass Bengali-speaking Indians. On July 19, The Hindu reported her charge that this is part of a political campaign. That same day, The Hindu carried the testimony of Sweety Bibi, who said she and her family were picked up in Delhi’s Rohini area and deported despite holding Aadhaar cards.

Anatomy of a “push-out”

What distinguishes these deportations is their method. Reports by Citizens for Justice and Peace have previously detailed how people are detained in distant cities, transported under guard to Assam, and then forced across informal stretches of the border by the BSF — sometimes through river channels. There are no FIRs, no magistrates, and no tribunal hearings. Families are often not informed, and the individuals vanish from Indian legal records.

As The Indian Express explained, the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden on individuals to prove citizenship, but it still mandates a legal process — notice, inquiry, and tribunal adjudication. Many have argued that skipping these steps transforms deportations into unlawful expulsions.

The human cost

Behind the legal arguments are human tragedies. Deutsche Welle carried accounts of men in Mumbai who were beaten, stripped of their IDs, and loaded onto buses for Assam. In Delhi, the case of Sunali Bibi raises urgent questions about the rights of her unborn child if she gives birth in Bangladesh.

In Ahmedabad, Article 14 reported that residents of Chandola — branded as “Bangladeshis” after a demolition drive — have been cut off from rentals, water supply, and even schools for their children. Fear of deportation now pervades everyday life.

The emotional fallout can be as devastating as the legal consequences. In a deeply tragic case documented by India Today, The Indian Express, NDTV, and The Telegraph, a 63-year-old Kolkata man named Dilip Kumar Saha—who had lived in the city since 1972 after migrating from Dhaka—died by suicide amid intense fear over being targeted by the proposed NRC. His family said that even though he possessed valid voter ID and other documentation, he was increasingly anxious about the possibility of being detained or “pushed out” to Bangladesh. No explicit mention of NRC appeared in his note, but his wife and local politicians blamed the atmosphere of uncertainty for driving him to depression

The bottom line

India is in the middle of a deportation surge unlike anything seen in decades. State governments like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are expanding infrastructure and accelerating deportations; West Bengal is contesting them and even securing the return of deported workers. The Supreme Court and High Courts are beginning to engage but have yet to halt the practice.

As documented across multiple media reports as well as the ground reports of CJP, what unites these cases is a disturbing absence of due process. Citizens and migrants alike are being swept up, disappeared across the border, and left to fight for recognition.

The months ahead will show whether India’s judiciary reasserts constitutional safeguards — or whether the “push-out” becomes an entrenched, silent feature of governance at the border.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

“She Can’t Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told as state fails to produce handover certificate in Doyjan Bibi “pushback” case

The post India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.