The Supreme Court was hearing Prataphgarhi’s petition challenging an FIR filed by the Gujarat police over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno”. The poem in question, titled “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” (Listen, oh bloodthirsty ones), was featured in the background of a mass marriage video and was posted by Pratapgarhi on the social media platform X. Pratapgarhi created the post after attending the mass marriage in Jamnagar. Allowing Pratapgarhi’s appeal against the high court order, the Supreme Court, however, took a firm stance against the high court’s reasoning.

“Literate and arts make life more meaningful; freedom of expression is necessary for a dignified life. Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilized society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view.

“Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art make the life of human beings more meaningful.”

The court also reportedly criticised the Gujarat high court for not quashing the FIR against Pratapgarhi. On January 17, 2025, the Gujarat high court had refused to quash the FIR saying that the poem had references to “the throne” and that responses to the post suggested a potential disturbance in social harmony, the report said.

The court said, that the MP should have known the repercussions of such a post and should have refrained from promoting public disharmony. It observed that further investigation was necessary Pratapgarhi then challenged the high court’s decision before the Supreme Court, which provided interim relief to him on January 25.

“The Courts are duty bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we the judges may not like the spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and the respective ideals. It is the duty of the court to step in and to protect the fundamental rights. Particularly, the Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.

The endeavour of the Court should be to always protect and promote the fundamental rights including the freedom of speech and expression which is the most important right citizens can have in all liberal constitutional democracy,” the court said.

About the police officers’ haste in filing an FIR, the court said, “The police officer must abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals. The philosophy of the constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself. In the preamble, it is laid down that the people of India solemnly decided to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure for all its citizens liberty of thought and expression. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our constitution. The police officers being citizens are bound to abide by the constitution and they are bound to uphold the right.”

The FIR against the Congress MP was filed under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 196 pertains to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

For the offence under Section 196 of the BNS, the court said, “The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have the sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.

Gujarat high court had refused to quash FIR

Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Gujarat HC had refused to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the first information report (FIR) against Congress Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Imran Pratapgarhi, underlining the significance of free speech and reproaching the Gujarat police authorities for seeking to criminally prosecute a person for ostensibly delivering a message of peace through a poem that Pratapgarhi posted on social media. “No offence was attracted at all,” held a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while reading out the operative part of the judgment.

The bench emphasised that the free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups is an integral part of a healthy, civilized society.

“Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views of thoughts expressed by an individual or group must be countered by expressing another point of view,” the court observed.

This case against Pratapgarhi stems from the FIR filed in a Jamnagar police station on January 3, invoking various provisions under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to harmony.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced that “even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature, including poetry, dramas, films, satire, and art, makes human life more meaningful.”

“The courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes we, the judges, may not like spoken or written words, but still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental rights under Article 19(1). We judges are also under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and its respective ideals,” the bench noted.

The judgment further stressed that it is the duty of the courts, particularly constitutional courts, to zealously protect fundamental rights.

“It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the Constitution and ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon. Constitutional courts must be at the forefront to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, including free speech, which is one of the most cherished fundamental rights for a healthy and vibrant democracy”, it read.

The court observed that the “endeavour of the judiciary should always be to protect and promote fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, which is the most important right citizens can have in any liberal constitutional democracy.”

The ruling also delivered a stern message to law enforcement, asserting that “police officers must abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals. The philosophy of constitutional ideals can be found in the Constitution itself.”

The entire judgement may be read here:

Related:

Censorship vs. free speech: The Allahbadia controversy

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

‘Free speech under threat’: again, Jamia student moves court against ‘highhanded’ suspension

The post ‘Courts, Police Have Duty to Protect Freedom of Speech’: SC on FIR against Congress MP Over Poem appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A film that holds up a mirror

Director Sandhya Suri, speaking to The Guardian, expressed her deep disappointment and frustration with the CBFC’s decision, calling it both “surprising and heart-breaking.” She pointed out that Santosh does not introduce new or unheard-of themes in Indian cinema—misogyny, caste-based violence, and police brutality have been explored before. However, the film’s raw and unflinching approach to these issues, particularly the intersection of caste and gender violence, appears to have made it a target.

The CBFC demanded extensive and widespread cuts that would have rendered the film incomprehensible. Suri explained that she had attempted to navigate the censorship process to ensure the film’s Indian release but found the demands too severe. “It was just too difficult to make those cuts and have a film that still made sense, let alone stayed true to its vision,” she said while speaking to The Guardian. This reflects a troubling trend where artistic expression is curbed when it critiques systemic issues, particularly those involving state institutions and caste oppression.

Santosh follows a young widow who joins the police force and investigates the murder of a Dalit girl, confronting the deep-seated biases within the police system. The film does not glorify violence or sensationalise its themes; instead, it holds up a mirror to the harsh realities of policing in India. This realistic depiction, however, seems to be what makes it “too dangerous” for Indian audiences in the eyes of the CBFC.

The selective policing of cinema

The timing of the CBFC’s decision is particularly alarming. India’s cultural sphere is increasingly policed, with politically sensitive films often facing severe pushback. Filmmakers have been subjected to hate campaigns, police cases, and even pre-emptive censorship by streaming platforms. The suppression of Santosh is part of this larger trend, where narratives that expose systemic issues—particularly caste and gender-based oppression—are stifled under the pretext of maintaining public harmony.

Meanwhile, films that align with ultra nationalist narratives receive not just clearance but state-backed promotions. On the same day Santosh faced rejection, the Parliament is set to host a special screening of Chhaava, a film that delves into the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and other key ministers will attend the screening, demonstrating the state’s endorsement of historical narratives that serve its ideological positioning.

This brazen double standard is not new. The Kashmir Files, a film widely criticised for its Islamophobic propaganda, was not only approved but personally endorsed by the Prime Minister and made tax-free in multiple BJP-ruled states. At government-organised screenings, officials and ministers publicly praised its narrative, weaponising cinema to push a divisive political agenda. Similarly, The Kerala Story, which fabricated and exaggerated figures on religious conversions to stoke anti-Muslim paranoia, received aggressive state backing, with leaders openly promoting it as “eye-opening” despite fact-checkers exposing its falsehoods.

Beyond mere approval, the state has actively turned these films into ideological instruments, using public resources and platforms to amplify their reach. Theatres were pressured to increase screenings, school and college students were urged to watch. Meanwhile, independent and critical films face endless scrutiny, unreasonable censorship demands, and outright bans, ensuring that only narratives serving the ruling dispensation’s interests dominate public discourse.

This isn’t just about film censorship—it’s about manufacturing consent. While Santosh and other politically inconvenient films are silenced, those that reinforce majoritarian victimhood, vilify minorities, and sanitise state violence are rewarded.

Notably, Chhaava has already been referenced in recent political discourse, particularly by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who linked the film to the recent Nagpur violence. The said communal clash erupted on March 17 after right-wing groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, called for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb—a demand seemingly re-fuelled by the film’s narrative. The state’s willingness to amplify such sentiments while silencing a film that critiques police violence and caste oppression exposes the glaring hypocrisy in India’s censorship policies.

The real threat to public discourse

The CBFC’s actions reveal an unsettling reality: films that challenge power structures and expose systemic failures are deemed threats, while those that reinforce dominant historical and ideological narratives are promoted. If Santosh had glorified police violence rather than critiquing it, or if it had focused on a sanitised version of reality, it would likely have faced no resistance. Instead, it’s honest and necessary portrayal of caste-based and gender violence has led to its suppression.

Suri, while acknowledging that she had anticipated challenges in securing an Indian release, remains committed to making the film accessible to Indian audiences. “It was vitally important for me that the very people affected by these issues were able to see it,” she said, reflecting on how the 2012 Nirbhaya case had initially inspired the film. However, with no appeals process available within the CBFC, the only recourse is legal action—a costly and time-consuming battle.

Santosh represents everything that the ruling party fears; that’s why they banned this film. https://t.co/9l5mUzmq6F pic.twitter.com/FqfjMfgJpC

— Nakshatra (@ghalibkakhayal) March 27, 2025

A disturbing pattern

The double standard is glaring. While Santosh is barred from Indian screens, Chhaava receives a state-endorsed platform. The former critiques state institutions and highlights marginalised voices; the latter reinforces a narrative that conveniently aligns with contemporary right-wing politics. The choice of which stories are allowed to be told—and which are deemed too “controversial”—reflects the increasingly constrained space for critical discourse in Indian cinema.

This is not just about one film. The suppression of Santosh signals a larger, more disturbing pattern: the systematic silencing of voices that challenge power while elevating narratives that serve ideological interests. If Indian cinema is to remain a space for artistic expression and social critique, these barriers to free expression must be challenged. Otherwise, India’s cultural landscape will continue to be shaped not by its artists, but by censors who fear the truth.

Related:

Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary

Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film

Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

The post India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Arbitrary detention and arrest

As per multiple media reports, Mozumdar was covering a protest organised by the youth wing of the Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), which was demonstrating against an alleged recruitment scam at the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank (ACAB). The protest was directed at the involvement of key political figures, including Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who serves as the bank’s director, and BJP MLA Biswajit Phukan, the bank’s chairman.

While carrying out his journalistic duties, Mozumdar questioned the bank’s managing director, Dambaru Saikia, about the allegations. A video clip later released by The CrossCurrent shows Mozumdar attempting to engage Saikia, who then invited him to his office. However, once inside, Saikia allegedly asked him to convince the protesters to leave—a demand Mozumdar rightfully refused, asserting his role as an independent journalist. Shortly after exiting the bank premises, he received a call from the Pan Bazar police station, instructing him to report immediately. Upon arrival, he was detained without any explanation for nearly half a day.

During his detention, Mozumdar’s family had alleged that they were denied access to him, and his diabetic medication, along with iftar provisions during Ramadan, was initially withheld. It was only after repeated insistence from fellow journalists that his wife was allowed to meet him late at night. At around midnight, as per Hindustan Times, the police finally revealed that he had been arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on an unspecified complaint. The arrest slip, given to his wife, lacked the complainant’s name and specific details of the alleged offence, further fuelling suspicions of a politically motivated crackdown.

Manufactured charges to suppress journalism

The police later claimed that a security guard at the bank, a member of the Bodo community, had lodged a complaint against Mozumdar for allegedly making derogatory remarks. The FIR reportedly cited a single sentence attributed to Mozumdar: “Boro jati hoi tumi besi kora” (being from the Bodo tribe, you do too much). This claim has been widely ridiculed as an excuse to criminalise a journalist for asking uncomfortable questions about alleged financial mismanagement at the bank.

The flimsy nature of the allegations, combined with the prolonged detention without justification, indicates that this is not about protecting any community but about intimidating the press. The selective application of the SC/ST Act in this case is particularly disturbing, as it appears to be a tool for silencing a journalist rather than ensuring justice for marginalised communities. This kind of misuse only serves to delegitimise important legal protections meant to safeguard oppressed groups.

Widespread condemnation and protests

Mozumdar’s arrest has sparked widespread outrage among journalists, civil society groups, and opposition political parties. The Guwahati Press Club held an emergency meeting condemning the arrest, with members wearing black badges in solidarity. Prominent journalists and activists have decried the Assam government’s actions as an egregious assault on press freedom.

Senior journalist Sushanta Talukdar pointed out that Mozumdar’s “biggest crime” was attempting to present a balanced report by seeking answers from the bank’s management. The Editors’ Guild of India issued a strong statement condemning the arrest, highlighting that such actions reinforce the growing perception that press freedom is under siege in India. The Press Club of India (PCI) also denounced the police’s refusal to inform Mozumdar’s family and colleagues about the reasons for his detention, calling it a grave infringement of constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a).

Political leaders have also spoken out against the arrest. AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi called it an attempt to establish “Jungle Raj” in Assam, while the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee described it as a direct attack on press freedom. The North East Media Forum urged Chief Minister Sarma to intervene and prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act to settle political scores.

A pattern of media suppression

Press freedom is not a privilege—it is a cornerstone of democracy, and its systematic erosion threatens the very foundation of civil liberties in India. The detention and arrest of Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar is a dangerous escalation in the Assam government’s hostility towards independent journalism. It sends a chilling message to other reporters: question the state at your own peril. If Mozumdar is not released unconditionally, it will set a troubling precedent where fabricated charges can be used to silence journalists, ultimately eroding democratic accountability.

The fact that Mozumdar had previously reported on irregularities at ACAB raises serious questions about whether this was a pre-planned action to silence a journalist who had become inconvenient for the government. Notably, earlier this month, the Assam Cooperation Department had ordered an inquiry into the bank’s alleged financial mismanagement following a complaint sent to the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead of addressing these allegations transparently, the government appears to be prioritising retribution against those who expose them.

Related:

‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide

The post Assam: Journalist Dilwar Hussain Mozumdar detained for 12 hours, arrested after covering protest against an alleged recruitment scam involving key BJP leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The minister’s disclosure, made in response to a query from Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly, has reignited scrutiny over KIIT’s handling of the case. Lamsal’s death on February 16, linked to alleged harassment by fellow student Advik Srivastava, triggered widespread protests by Nepalese students and diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal.

Nepal student had filed harassment complaint with KIIT authorities: Odisha minister

In a shocking revelation, Odisha’s higher education minister Suryavanshi Suraj stated on Friday that a 20-year-old student from Nepal, who tragically died by suicide at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar in February, had filed a “sexual harassment” complaint against the university authorities nearly eleven months prior. The minister’s statement came in response to a query by Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly.

According to Suraj, in a written reply to the assembly, the woman had filed the harassment complaint on March 12, 2024. The minister further informed that a high-level committee formed by the state government is currently investigating the matter in detail. The university has confirmed the formation of an internal committee in line with UGC guidelines to address the issue.

Suraj also mentioned that the higher education department had not provided any grants to KIIT during the last financial year. As reported by The Indian Express, the investigation into the complaint is ongoing.

While KIIT formed an internal committee per UGC guidelines, critics, including the student’s father, Sunil Lamsal, accuse the university of negligence and mistreatment. The Odisha government has launched a high-level probe, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has ordered an on-spot inquiry, with a report due by March 10, 2025. As investigations deepen, questions loom over accountability and the safety of international students at KIIT.

NHRC to probe suicide case of Nepalese girl, ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death of a Nepalese girl student at KIIT University in Odisha and directed its officials to submit a report by March 10. The NHRC issued this order in response to a complaint stating that the 20-year-old student had died by suicide in her hostel room at KIIT University on the afternoon of February 16. The commission had specified that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

“Considering the seriousness of the matter, the commission directed the Registrar (Law) to proceed with an inquiry at KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, to conduct an on-spot investigation along with a team comprising two officers from the investigation division, one not below the rank of SSP, and one officer/official from the Law Division, and submit its inquiry report to the Commission by 10th March, 2025,” the NHRC order had stated.

As reported by Hindustan Times, the complainant, Ashutosh B, in his petition, had alleged that the Nepalese student at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) University had been harassed by her “ex-boyfriend” and that the university’s International Relations Office (IRO) had ignored her complaints, which he claimed ultimately led to her suicide.

Background

In February 2025, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was thrust into controversy following the suicide of Prakriti Lamsal, a 20-year-old Nepalese BTech student. On February 16, Lamsal was found dead in her hostel room, an act linked to alleged harassment by a fellow student, Advik Srivastava, who was later arrested for abetment. Lamsal had filed a sexual harassment complaint with KIIT’s International Relations Office 11 months earlier, in March 2024, but no significant action was reportedly taken. Her death sparked outrage among the university’s approximately 1,000 Nepalese students, who staged protests demanding justice and accountability from the administration.

The situation escalated when KIIT authorities allegedly evicted protesting Nepalese students, forcing them to leave campus without prior notice, some dropped off at Cuttack railway station without tickets. This heavy-handed response drew widespread criticism, leading to diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal. Nepal’s government intervened, with Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba calling for an impartial probe and the removal of involved staff. The Odisha government formed a high-level committee, and the National Human Rights Commission began investigating. Amid the unrest, over 150 Nepalese students returned to Nepal, while KIIT claimed most later resumed studies.

Sent daughter for higher studies: father of student who died by suicide

The father of the Nepali student, whose body was discovered in her hostel at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on February 18 (Tuesday), has accused the private engineering institute of “mistreating” undergraduates from Nepal. His statement follows allegations that KIIT had evicted a group of Nepali students from their hostel amid rising tensions on the campus following the tragic death of Prakriti Lamsal, a third-year B Tech student.

In response to the allegations, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) issued an apology for the incident, asserting that it had “never done any disservice to its students” reported NDTV.

Related:

Tragedy at KIIT: The death of Prakriti Lamsal and the University’s controversial response

Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines

Education for a Hindu Rashtra: UGC-NCERT pushing a divisive agenda

The post KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shh…don’t make jokes. The jesters are thrown into the sea if the king feels bad. Don’t insult the king, or his deputy or his deputy’s deputy’s deputy’s deputy, or any of the men on the throne. Don’t talk about the demolition, the houses being turned to rubble, the bulldozers and their power. They are hunting voices. They are finding the loudest and clearest and the fearless and they are stringing them up on the market square so everyone shall see them and shut their tiny mouths. Quell the dissent. They don’t like art, oh no it makes them very angry. They don’t understand it, they don’t enjoy it and they’ll tolerate it if they have to unless it’s about them. It’s not easy being the butt of every joke, you know. It hurts.

Shh…don’t hurt their feelings. They don’t like it and they don’t know how to cry properly so they’ll pick you up, yes you, the young students, the trannies, the women, the Muslims, the Dalits, the artists, the reporters, and the dissenters. The question-askers and the answer-tellers and those who listen to them. You are only excluded and marginalised and untouchable until it is time to throw you into jail. Then they will grab you however required and shove you in a box.

Shh…don’t wake the people. They want to discuss the temples in the sea and the temples underground and the temples in the mosque and the comedians and the actors and actresses and their divorces and the gods and the goddesses and which one is sad and hurt and how one god is better than the rest. The people are sleeping, the people are gossiping, the people cannot see how the thieves have entered their houses to steal their food and take away their freedom but do not wake the people. They want to be asleep. If you wake them they will still ask about the temples and sad orange men and about which flag is better and who wore what when and they will watch the thieves take everything and they will let them. They will let their children be snatched and their houses be broken and all their money taken away and they will wake up and ask where the temple is, where the temples went and where new temples shall be built.

Shh…don’t ask questions. They will ask you to keep your mouth shut and they will turn you against one another and the blue will fight the green and then the orange wins. But this is a democracy after all so the only king you can question is the one who died more than 300 years ago, and the one that died 61 years ago, and all their children because there is a statute of limitations on these things. You can uproot their graves and celebrate your festivals in their houses of worship and say whatever you want about them.

Shh…don’t talk about Palestine. Of the hungry children, or the missing children, or even the parts of the children, the ones severed from their little bodies. Don’t talk about Palestine, because don-don and Mr. X and all their friends will get very sad and then they’ll get very mad and then they’ll lock you right up where all the naughty children go. Is that where the children of Gaza went? If yes then I want to go there, I want to play with them and I want to eat with them and roll around in the mud with them and race them to see who’s faster but it’s always them because hiding from guns and running from bombs gives you speed like no other. No they won’t send you where the children of Palestine went because even in confinement even in death they will not let you be together.

Shh…enjoy your freedom. You can break the rooms where the people are heard, where songs are sung, where poetry is recited. You can kill your neighbours, you can rape their women, and rape your wives, you can hate the colour green, vandalise their property, break their shops. You can bring back untouchability, be proud of your superior identity, eat your cow dung, beat the farmers, kill the students, send those with a voice to jail and abandon your wife. But you cannot love. You cannot love your wife and you cannot love your neighbour and you cannot love art and poetry and you must cheer when the jester is beheaded and you must bow to the king and celebrate his wars. You can criticise kings of the past and disrupt their graves but the kings that sit today on their throne of lies must not be hurt.

Shh…for silence is golden and violence is platinum and cow dung is a treasure and if you fall in line, keep the gold, wield the platinum then they will stuff your mouth with the treasure and it will replace all the love, all the freedom, all the art you’ve ever wanted.

(The author is a student of law in Mumbai and can be contacted at parulekarpriyanka02@gmail.com)

Related:

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

D*ck or fist

A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’

The post Shh..Silence is golden and violence is platinum…shh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In post-independence times, various social and environmental movements have made good and effective use of the foot-march. The Chipko movement in Himalayan region was particularly good at this. The famous Kashmir-Kohima foot march initiated by Sunderlal Bahuguna was very useful for knowing more about ecological ruin being caused even in very interior and remote areas as well as for understanding the problems of people of remote villages. The Askot-Arakot march of young activists was also a very memorable and useful experience. Some Chipko activists like Vijay Jardhari and Kunwar Prasun later became equally involved in the movement for saving and conserving diversity of traditional seeds called Beej Bachao Andolan. This was also known for several very useful foot marches leading to collecting not just a lot of information about diversity of traditional sees but also collecting and exchanging these seeds so that their growth on farms could continue or restart.

More recently, foot marches organized by Vaagdhara voluntary organisation in Rajasthan to spread the message of Gram Swaraj have made a good contribution.

However not all foot marches have been equally useful or effective. A review of several foot marches reveals that those foot marches are able to make durable contributions in which the outcomes regarding important desired results are clearly planned, and then activities relating to the achievement of these objectives regularly take place during the course of the march. On the other hand, if there is a lot of walking and just random inter-actions without any careful planning regarding desirable results, then durable benefits are unlikely to be realized.

A recent water conservation march in Bundelkhand region of central India provides a good example of a march that is carefully planned to realise desirable objectives and these objectives have in fact been realized at a relatively early stage when some of the planned follow-up work is still continuing.

This was a march of jal-sahelis or women water volunteers, mobilised by a voluntary organisation Parmarth, who have been playing a widely appreciated role in the region to improve water conservation and drinking water supply. This march was interwoven with a number of dialogues with on route villagers on water and related issues. A lot of attention was given to gathering relevant information on water-related problems.

As a result of such efforts, it has been possible to collect detailed information on water tanks in this region, what kind of problems are faced by them and what sort of remedial actions are needed. The review of these issues published recently provides a lot of useful information regarding which tanks have a seepage problem and which ones have excessive silting, which tanks need deepening and which tanks need cleaning, which tanks are being encroached upon or have already been encroached upon to a substantial extent. This kind of detailed information which could be collected during the march will be very useful when remedial actions are planned.

Parmarth and Jal Sahelis have also been involved in efforts to improve the Jal Jeevan mission. In the course of the recent march, problems could be identified regarding this too. It is now known which habitations are still not receiving water and these are generally located in the upper portions of villages. Similarly the villages or hamlets which are facing problems in terms of the quality of the supplied water not being satisfactory have also been identified and this information too will be very useful for remedial actions.

One of the aims of the march was to tell more villagers of the inspirational work of many jal sahelis so that the people of more villages feel motivated to take up similar work. This expectation of this march too has been more than fulfilled as after listening to the stories told by jal sahelis many women of villages on the route of the march felt highly motivated to do similar work and nearly 400 women have enlisted themselves as future jal sahelis. Similarly contacts with other people were established who are keen to take up water conservation and related work including protection of tanks and rivers. All this will be very helpful for future water conservation and protection work.

In terms of increasing solidarity and empowerment of jal sahelis also the march of the jal sahelis has been a very important experience. Jal sahelis from several different villages could come together for several days, stay together, share their experiences, make future plans, and come in daily contact with a very large number of people. This has certainly added greatly to their empowerment, confidence and capability, and they are better prepared to take up bigger responsibilities.

The march has also enabled activists and jal sahelis to closely observe several situations closely and to listen to villagers regarding what can be done to about this and what kind of difficulties they face while trying to resolve these problems. This has enabled Parmarth and jal sahelis to come up with more specific and detailed recommendations which are more likely to work in real life situations. Several of these recommendations are addressed to governments, departments and water authorities.

At the practical level it is very important for such efforts that people feel that their problems are being reduced and actions to correct existing problems are being taken at the level of the government level and at other levels. Most problems ultimately need government actions for effective solutions to emerge. In this context also the march has been helpful as this has given the jal sahelis a wider and more effective presence and they can approach the authorities for resolving various problems with greater confidence.

Some of the expected good results have already started emerging within a short period of the march and it is hoped that a lot of more follow-up work can be taken up. Certainly a more hope-giving situation has emerged soon after the march.

(The author is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders, When the Two Streams Met and A Day in 2071.)              

The post How foot marches achieve durable development gains appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shockingly, the bench noted that despite Khan challenging the said notice and mentioning the same before it on Monday morning (March 24), the authorities pulled down the house amid heavy security and drone surveillance in the entire area, on Monday afternoon. Advocate for the NMC argued that the demolition was already a fait accompli!

“We therefore, mentioned the matter again at 2:30 PM and the bench heard us. We apprised the bench of the facts of the case and how the NMC hurriedly demolished my client’s house. The bench was not at all impressed with the NMC. In fact, the bench questioned the authorities about their conduct and even pulled them for their high-handedness,” stated advocate Ashwin Ingole, who represented Khan in the HC.

Following brief arguments, the bench prima facie found the action in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, (the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) wherein a bench led by Justice Bhushan Gavai had held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

“But for the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, further factual matrix appears to be identical and prima facie we are satisfied that the respondent-Authorities are conducting demolition in contravention of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” the judges said in the order.

The bench noted that another accused Abdul Hafiz, too received a similar notice and his house was also partially demolished by the authorities. It therefore, stayed the operations of the demolition notice.

“That being so, the entire action pursuant to the notice dated March 21, 2025 issued to the petitioners shall remain stayed until further orders,” the bench ordered.

Besides the bench stated that, “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record.”

On the other hand, advocate Jemini Kasat representing the NMC informed the judges that the demolition action is already over. The bench recorded the statement. “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record,” the judges said while adjourning the hearing till April 15.

Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate with Shri Amit Prasad, Advocate for respondents.

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

The post ‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, as the video uploaded by Kamra has gone viral, he is facing state-backed intimidation for daring to mock Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in a satirical stand-up routine. Within hours of uploading his show, an FIR was filed against him, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised a Mumbai venue, and senior political leaders issued open threats, warning that Kamra would not be allowed to move freely unless he apologised. Meanwhile, those responsible for the violence were swiftly granted bail, exposing the stark reality of political power shielding its own while silencing critics. This blatant abuse of state machinery to suppress satire sets a chilling precedent for free speech in India.

Political violence and the state’s selective action

In a blatant display of political intimidation, a group of Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised the Habitat Studio and Hotel Unicontinental in Mumbai’s Khar area, claiming the video had been filmed at these locations. Among those involved in the destruction were several party workers, including social media in-charge Rahul Kanal and leader Kunal Sarmalkar. While 11 individuals were arrested for vandalism, all were granted bail within hours, highlighting the leniency afforded to political loyalists engaging in violent retaliation.

Despite the clear criminality of their actions, Shiv Sena leaders faced minimal consequences, whereas Kamra, whose only ‘offence’ was a joke, is being subjected to legal action. This incident underscores a disturbing double standard: dissenters and critics face police action, while those committing politically motivated violence operate with near impunity.

Explicit threats and calls for retaliation

The campaign against Kamra took an even more sinister turn when Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel demanded an apology within two days, threatening that the comedian “would not be allowed to move freely in Mumbai” if he refused. Patel went as far as to say that if Kamra was seen in public, Shiv Sainiks would blacken his face—a direct incitement to mob violence. These threats were echoed by Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske, who baselessly accused Kamra of being a ‘hired comedian’ making comments for monetary gain.

Further fanning the flames, political leader Sanjay Nirupam—who recently joined the Shinde-led Shiv Sena—declared publicly that Kamra would be “taught a lesson” at 11 AM the next day. Such statements, made without fear of legal repercussions, indicate a deep-rooted culture of impunity among political actors aligned with those in power.

Adding to the outrage, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated that Kamra “should apologise” for his remarks and implied that comedy must have boundaries dictated by political sensibilities. “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot say whatever he wants,” he said, essentially arguing that speech must conform to the government’s approval. He also dismissed Kamra’s symbolic use of the Constitution, claiming, “Kunal Kamra has posted the same red Constitution book shown by Rahul Gandhi. Both of them have not read the Constitution.” His comments make it evident that Maharashtra’s leadership seeks to redefine free speech by placing political limitations on it.

Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot speak whatever he wants. The people of Maharashtra have decided who the traitor is. Kunal Kamra should apologize. This will not be tolerated. There is the right to comedy, but if it is… pic.twitter.com/g7UVXEyfDC

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Weaponising the law to suppress speech

The response from Maharashtra’s government further cemented the state’s role in enabling political censorship. Fadnavis’ remarks reflect an authoritarian mind-set where freedom of speech exists only within the confines of state approval. His claim that Kamra was attempting to ‘defame’ Eknath Shinde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misinterpretation—of free expression. Satire, political critique, and parody have historically been protected speech in democratic societies, and an elected official being offended by a joke does not justify state intervention.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar attempted to strike a neutral tone but ultimately reinforced the same logic, stating, “Nobody should go beyond the law, Constitution, and rules.” However, his remarks failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the state’s reaction—while Kamra faces legal scrutiny for satire, Shiv Sena workers responsible for actual violence were released on bail within hours.

Crushing artistic spaces through fear

In the wake of the controversy, Habitat Studio, a prominent venue for independent performances, announced a temporary shutdown. The studio issued a statement calling for “constructive conversations, not destruction” and condemning violence as an antithesis to art and dialogue. The forced closure of a venue due to political pressure illustrates the chilling effect such incidents have on creative spaces. When comedians, artists, and venues fear violent repercussions for hosting dissenting voices, the very essence of a democracy is undermined.

https://www.instagram.com/indiehabitat/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=2d583eff-8829-4cba-a143-187ff34afdcd

The dangerous precedent being set

The Kunal Kamra case is not an isolated incident but part of a worrying pattern where comedians, journalists, and dissenters are systematically targeted for criticising the ruling establishment. The use of legal mechanisms against Kamra, juxtaposed with the state’s lenient treatment of those who resort to violence, sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that speech critical of those in power will be met with legal harassment, while politically sanctioned violence will be tolerated and even encouraged.

In a functioning democracy, public figures—especially elected officials—must be open to criticism and satire. The weaponisation of state machinery against a comedian over a joke signals an alarming drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but actively punished. Kamra’s response to this intimidation was simple yet profound—he posted an image of himself holding the Constitution with the caption, “The only way forward.” In doing so, he reaffirmed a principle that the Maharashtra government appears eager to erase: the right to free speech is non-negotiable, and satire is not a crime.

The only way forward… pic.twitter.com/nfVFZz7MtY

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) March 23, 2025

Related:

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid heavy police security, civic authorities demolished a two-storey house of #Nagpurviolence key accused Fahim Khan over unauthorised construction, officials said.https://t.co/KUgWpxbvV8 pic.twitter.com/PxUxA0DgB8

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) March 24, 2025

#WATCH | Maharashtra: House of Nagpur violence accused Faheem Khan being demolished in Nagpur. Police personnel are present at the spot. pic.twitter.com/RKzAFCokED

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Demolition of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, also an accused in the Nagpur violence case, was also reported on the same day.

#WATCH | Nagpur, Maharashtra: NMC’s (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) anti-encroachment squad demolishes the illegal construction of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, accused in the Nagpur violence case.

Visuals from Johripura, Mahal. pic.twitter.com/K1f9rbsWjL

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

It is essential to note that the Municipal authorities have claimed the demolition was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, citing “unauthorised construction” as the reason. However, the selective and arbitrary nature of such demolitions raises serious questions about due process and the rule of law. Khan, who remains in judicial custody, is among more than 100 individuals—mostly Muslims—arrested in connection with the violence. Local residents have accused the police of bias and indiscriminate arrests, further deepening fears of state-sponsored communal targeting. The suggestions of there being biased enquiry into this violence can also viewed from the fact that the 11 members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had allegedly burnt the effigy of Aurangzeb as well as a chadar from a local Dargah to demand the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, had been given bail hours after surrendering to the police.

In regards to the demolition of Fahim Khan’s house, Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s deputy engineer, Sunil Gajbhiye, asserted that the demolition was conducted after an “investigation” and a 24-hour notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. However, the absurdity of such rapid enforcement—especially when encroachments by politically influential individuals often remain untouched for decades—suggests that this was less about urban planning and more about political retribution.

#WATCH | Nagpur: “…We had the order to investigate into a complaint. We did a proper investigation. As per Sec 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966) a notice was issued for 24 hours. As soon as the duration completed, this action was… https://t.co/9eEE1GJsAm pic.twitter.com/6edPdYfegh

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

While Indian law does not permit property demolitions as a punitive measure, the BJP has increasingly used this tactic as an extrajudicial weapon against Muslims, particularly in cases of communal violence. Despite a Supreme Court stay on such measures, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis brazenly justified the “bulldozer action,” declaring on March 22 that it would be used “wherever required.” He further stated that damage caused during the violence would be recovered from the accused, failing which their property would be seized and auctioned. The CM also alarmingly suggested that those accused of inciting violence through social media would be treated as co-accused, raising concerns about potential misuse of state power to silence dissent.

The government’s rhetoric has been disturbingly violent, with Maharashtra minister Pratap Sarnaik openly advocating for extrajudicial violence, stating, “The bulldozer should be run over him, not his house, if anyone is involved in such violent activities.” His remarks, reported by the Deccan Herald, reflect the growing normalisation of state brutality and the erosion of legal safeguards.

The pattern of bulldozer politics, seen recently in Sambhal and other BJP-governed regions, is not just a violation of legal norms but a deliberate strategy to intimidate and collectively punish Muslims. That such actions continue despite the Supreme Court’s directives underscores the growing impunity of state actors who use communal violence as a pretext to enforce their majoritarian agenda.

With at least 105 individuals arrested and multiple FIRs registered, the situation in Nagpur reveals a deeply disturbing reality: rather than upholding the principles of justice and accountability, the state is resorting to bulldozers and arbitrary punishment, sending a chilling message about whose rights matter in today’s India.

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

It is also crucial to provide here that the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17 has now resulted in the death of a 38-year-old man, Irfan Ansari, who succumbed to his injuries at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital on March 23. A welder by profession, Ansari had left home to catch a train to Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh but was caught in the chaos near Central Avenue. He was brutally attacked by a mob, sustaining severe head injuries. His family was informed only after the police took him to the hospital, where he briefly regained consciousness before succumbing to his wounds.

The Nagpur police have arrested a total of 105 individuals in connection with the violence, including 14 people, among them 10 minors, who were detained earlier this week. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lohit Matani, 13 cases have been registered, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor Megha Burange confirmed that 19 accused individuals had been remanded in custody until March 24.

The violence occurred just hours after Hindutva groups held a demonstration demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders across 11 police station jurisdictions. While restrictions were gradually eased in some areas by March 21, the curfew was fully lifted on March 24, with police continuing to patrol sensitive localities.

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

On Sunday, March 23, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Nirupam had made unverified claims about the involvement of individuals linked to Bangladesh in the recent violence in Nagpur. At a press conference, Nirupam alleged that the unrest was “pre-meditated” and part of a larger conspiracy. He also accused one of the arrested individuals of using social media to fund “Mujahideen activities,” without providing any substantial evidence.

His statements took a political turn as he attacked the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), insinuating that its leaders were aligning with extremist elements. “Is the Sena (UBT) aligning itself with the Mujahideen? Are the Thackerays and (Sanjay) Raut supporting them?” he asked, attempting to stoke communal and political divisions. Furthering his rhetoric, he claimed that Uddhav Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, would soon display a photo of Aurangzeb alongside those of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj—an inflammatory remark aimed at discrediting the opposition.

The political exploitation of the violence has been evident in the statements of BJP allies like Sanjay Nirupam, who, instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, have chosen to push unverified claims of a “foreign hand” in the violence. His remarks, along with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ endorsement of punitive bulldozer actions, signal a dangerous trend of targeting minorities under the pretext of law enforcement.

The use of such rhetoric not only undermines due process but also diverts attention from the failure of law enforcement to prevent the violence in the first place. The events in Nagpur mirror a broader pattern of state-sponsored impunity, where accountability is selectively applied, and majoritarian politics dictate justice.

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

The Maharashtra Police have booked six individuals, including Minorities Democratic Party leader Fahim Khan, on charges of sedition and spreading misinformation on social media. The accused are among 50 others named across four FIRs.

Authorities have charged primary suspect Fahim Khan with sedition, among other offences. Police records indicate that Khan allegedly coordinated a demonstration outside a Nagpur police station on March 17. His criminal history includes charges of electricity theft and participation in protests during 2023-2024.

According to the FIR, Khan led a group of 50 to 60 individuals who illegally assembled outside Ganeshpeth police station on Monday to submit a memorandum opposing an earlier Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protest. Officials stated that Khan and eight others later went to the Bhaldarpura area, where they found 500 to 600 people gathered near Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, which led to his arrest.’

Besides the sedition case, a separate FIR has been filed against individuals accused of editing videos of the protest against Aurangzeb, allegedly “glorifying violence” and circulating them online. Another case pertains to video clips allegedly made to incite communal clashes, while a third concerns social media posts that further fuelled tensions.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber Cell) Lohit Matani stated that misinformation was initially spread on social media, triggering the violence, followed by more videos that glorified it. “He [Fahim Khan] edited and circulated the video of the protest against Aurangzeb due to which the riots spread,” ANI quoted Matani as saying. “He also glorified violent videos.”

More than 120 people, including 11 minors, have been taken into custody, according to Commissioner Singal. Additionally, on March 19, Commissioner Singal had confirmed that investigations were ongoing to identify additional assailants and determine the involvement of individuals mentioned in the FIR regarding Khan’s suspected role in orchestrating the violence.

It is also being reported that the law enforcement has established 18 dedicated teams to pursue and capture those responsible for the unrest in Nagpur. According to a senior official, the police have identified 200 suspects and are working to determine the identities of 1,000 more individuals recorded on CCTV during the violence. Authorities have lodged five First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ganeshpeth and Kotwali police stations, naming 200 accused persons. Officials confirmed that they are reviewing CCTV recordings to identify additional participants.

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Nagpur Commissioner of Police Dr Ravinder Kumar Singal briefed journalists about the special teams, which include personnel from Ganeshpeth, Kotwali, and Tehsil police stations, along with the Crime Branch. These teams are working in conjunction with the cyber cell to support the identification of suspects.

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

In a related development, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the night of March 19 had installed tin sheets around Aurangzeb’s tomb, following orders from the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar district administration.

“The green net covering two sides of the tomb was in bad shape, and the structure was visible to those visiting the nearby Khwaja Syed Zainuddin Chishti grave,” an ASI official told PTI. “So we have installed tin sheets.”

The demand for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb has been intensifying in recent weeks, with Hindutva groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, claiming that the structure is a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

On March 20, Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal had informed the media about forming a team of party leaders to visit the riot-affected areas of Nagpur. The delegation includes senior leaders such as Manikrao Thakare, Shomati Thakur, Hussain Dalwai, and Sajid Pathan. Nagpur district Congress chief Thakare will serve as the convenor, while AICC Secretary Praful Gudade Patil has been appointed as the coordinator.

Meanwhile, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, a cleric from the Barelvi sect, had written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking a ban on the film Chhava, alleging that it incited communal tensions and was directly responsible for the Nagpur violence.

Sequence of events and aftermath

The violence in Nagpur erupted hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb. The clashes broke out at 7:30 pm in central Nagpur’s Chitnis Park, where stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth bearing the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burned during a Hindutva-led agitation.

Unidentified Bajrang Dal office-bearers told The Indian Express that its members had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb during the protest. However, another clash erupted in Hansapuri, close to Chitnis Park, between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. The violence soon spread to Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas, prompting the police to fire tear gas shells and resort to lathi charges to disperse the mobs. Prohibitory orders barring public gatherings were imposed within the limits of 11 police stations.

A preliminary survey found that over 60 vehicles were damaged in the violence, including 20 two-wheelers and 40 four-wheelers. Two cranes were also set on fire, with a construction company reporting a loss of Rs 70 lakh. Authorities announced that individuals whose vehicles were fully damaged would receive Rs 50,000, while those with partially damaged vehicles would be compensated with Rs 10,000. The said compensation is said to be given to the victims on March 25.

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

The Nagpur violence and the state’s response underscore a disturbing trend of bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests, and communalised governance. The punitive demolition of Fahim Khan’s house—while the state turns a blind eye to Hindutva organisations inciting violence—reveals a stark bias in law enforcement. Statements from ministers and ruling party leaders openly endorsing extrajudicial action further normalise the idea that the law can be bypassed when dealing with minorities.

This particular incident of demolition of the house of an accused belonging to a minority religious community is not the first incident that has taken place in Maharashtra after the BJP has formed the state government. On February 23, (Sunday) during the highly anticipated India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match 2025, a local passer-by, owing allegiance to the Vishwa Hindu Parisha (VHP), accused a 15-year-old boy from a Muslim scrap metal trading family of shouting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match. This event took place reportedly around 9:30 pm on February 23. Varadkar, while the complainant one Sachin Varadkar, was on his bike riding to a friend’s house and claimed to have overheard the boy and a group of others shouting what he described as “anti-India” slogans. Later that evening, when passing by the area again, Sachin Varadkar reportedly saw the boy cycling and chose to confront him. What initially seemed like a minor disagreement quickly escalated, with Varadkar allegedly taking the matter to the authorities.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals. Just like in Nagpur, state sponsored illegal action in the name of demotions had taken place Muslim accused with following the due procedure of law. (Detailed story on the Malvan demolition may be read here.)

The broader context of the Nagpur violence reflects an alarming state strategy: use communal tensions as a pretext for aggressive law enforcement against one community while shielding provocateurs from accountability. This pattern not only erodes faith in the justice system but also contributes to deepening social divisions in Maharashtra and beyond.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The morning of the scheduled hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court today, March 21, an affidavit filed by the State of Assam, detailed the status of 270 individuals detained in its deportation centres. The affidavit provides an extensive breakdown of detainees’ identities, dates of detention, case statuses, and the progress of deportation procedures. It also highlights whether the necessary travel permits have been secured and if deportation has actually taken place.

Details provided in the affidavit

A substantial number of detainees remain in custody despite long periods of confinement, with, the earliest example of a detainee having been incarcerated since 2012. The document reveals that only ten individuals have been deported thus far, with some cases pending clearance from diplomatic channels, with the Ministry of External Affairs, India and Bangladesh High Commission. As crucial, as the affidavit admits, several are subject matter of legal appeals, with their challenges to the status of “foreigner” status unilaterally handed down by the state’s controversial Foreigner tribunals, still pending in Gauhati High Court. The question then arises whether they should have figured on any list at all!

Among these is the case of Ajabha Khatun, supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), who’s deportation has been stayed by the Gauhati High Court on March 3, following an intervention application filed by her in the Supreme Court (see details below) in the present case.

Therefore, according to the data provided, of the 63 detainees that the Union government had (insubstantially, without evaluating evidence or status) claimed to be in line for deportation, 5 have been granted conditional bail and have been released from the Matua Transit Camp on the basis of the orders passed by the Gauhati High Court. The affidavit also provides that a total of 11 detenues have been granted travel permits by the Assistant High Commissioner of Bangladesh, paving the way for their deportation from India to Bangladesh. However, only 10 out of these 11 detenues have been actually deported to Bangladesh. The deportation of the last detenue could not take place as the Authorities across the border were concerned for a discrepancy in stated Father’s name of said detenue. It is critical to highlight here that these 11 people who have been deported to Bangladesh are not from the original list of 63 persons that the union government had deemed to be from Bangladesh. 

Shockingly, of the 63 detainees, that the state had earlier claimed were ‘in line for deportation,’ the state has now stated in its affidavit that 33 of these have their petitions pending in the Constitutional Courts. Each of them has initiated legal proceedings against their declaration as illegal migrants by Foreigners Tribunals. As per the affidavit, 29 such proceedings are pending before the Gauhati High Court, and 4 remain pending before the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the affidavit details the steps taken for deportation, including:

1. Issuance of National Status Verification (NSV) requests: The NSV format has been sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for all 270 detainees for further diplomatic engagement with foreign governments, primarily Bangladesh.
2. Reminder letters and follow-ups: The state has sent multiple reminder letters, with the most recent batch dated February 2, 2025.
3. Travel permit requests: Only eleven have had their travel permits issued, out of which ten have been successfully deported.

Despite these efforts, the affidavit underscores that deportation remains a sluggish process, hindered by bureaucratic red tape and international cooperation hurdles. Additionally, it is pertinent to highlight that the detainee list reveals that a significant portion of those confined in Assam’s deportation centres are Bengali-speaking Muslims, a demographic that has long been at the centre of Assam’s citizenship debates. Several cases include elderly individuals, women, and even minors who have been detained alongside their family members

The case of Ajabha Khatun

It is crucial to point out that the affidavit records Ajabha Khatun (serial no. 18), whose case is being fought by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), as having her petition pending in the Gauhati High Court. Ajabha Khatun, detained in September 2024, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta in an ex parte order issued in 2019. On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation after noting the procedural irregularities in her case. Her name had been included among 63 individuals marked for deportation by the Union government, despite her pending legal challenge. The stay by the Gauhati High Court was granted following an Intervention Application (IA) was filed before the Supreme Court in the ongoing Rajubala Das case, and the top court directed her to seek interim relief from the High Court. A division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi issued a notice returnable on April 4, 2025, directing the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond. The court also requisitioned relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal to further decide the case.

Ajabha Khatun’s case exemplifies the systemic issues within Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal framework. Her citizenship status has been contested since 1997, when her name was arbitrarily removed from electoral rolls. The tribunal disregarded crucial evidence, including voter lists featuring her family members, and imposed an undue burden of proof on her. Beyond procedural lapses, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp raises serious human rights concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The order of the Gauhati High Court may be accessed here.

Challenges in the deportation process

The affidavit submitted by the State of Assam provides crucial insights into the realities of deportation centres in India. It highlights a system mired in bureaucratic inertia, legal complexities, and diplomatic constraints. While Assam continues to process deportations through formal channels, the sheer number of 270 detainees languishing in prolonged detention points to an urgent need for judicial and legislative scrutiny. The information provided underscores the necessity of addressing due process concerns, human rights violations, and the broader implications of Assam’s citizenship policies. The affidavit inadvertently exposes the inefficiencies within the deportation system. Several critical roadblocks include:

• Prolonged delays in nationality verification: Many detainees remain in limbo as diplomatic negotiations fail to yield timely responses.
• Legal entanglements: A significant number of detainees are engaged in lengthy legal battles, further slowing down the process.
• Limited diplomatic cooperation: The process relies on responses from foreign governments, particularly Bangladesh, which has not always been forthcoming in acknowledging deportation requests.

Related:

Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, seeks Tribunal records for review of FT’s order declaring her foreigner

Victory at Last: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long struggle

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

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

Hate speech allegations on the campaign trail: CJP Files complaints with State EC against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Jharkhand remarks

The post Assam govt to SC: 33/63 of those marked for ‘deportation’ are contesting ‘foreigner’ status in courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.