These demands have surfaced following concerns “regarding rights violations of this community

 In the context of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, in Nagarkurnool district of Telangana; both the Adivasis and activists-in-solidarity have strongly asserted the legal and democratic rights of the Chenchu community in the Nallamalla forests. 

According to a press note issued by a solidarity forum, a series of actions last week – including 

1. The letters sent to various Central and state authorities and meetings with senior state officials, 
2. The Hyderabad civil society round table, on April 17, in which a large number of Chenchu Adivasis spoke resolutely against involuntary relocation and 
3. In the Prajavani meeting with Mr. Chinna Reddy, (Vice-Chairman of State Planning Board), where Chenchu adivasis were assured that their rights would be safeguarded and district forest officials were asked to comply with law. 

Some of the key demands in all these meetings and representations include 

1. An immediate end to issuing cheques and forcible relocation, in violation of law, 
2. Pursuing the harmonious co-existence model in Amrabad Tiger Reserve and ensuring the democratic participation of communities in forest governance 
3. Withdrawal of fabricated cases against Chenchu Adivasi leaders and 
4. Full compliance with all the relevant laws including the Forest Rights Act, 2006; especially community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (as amended in 2006), Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. 

As is well known, Chenchus are a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) residing in the Nallamalla forests of Telangana, since generations. They are recorded as one of the ancient food gathering communities with rich traditional knowledge of forest produce, medicinal plants and live in close association with nature. As also recommended by Sir Christoph Von Haimendorf in 1940, their cultural significance with Nallamala forest should be rightly recognized, by declaring the region as a ‘Chenchu Conservation Bio-Reserve’, in order to protect their socio-cultural rights and their natural habitats. 

However, states the press release, the introduction of ‘Project Tiger’, has resulted in persistent efforts to forcibly relocate them from their natural habitats. The latest threat to their co-existence in the forest has been by way of cheques being issued in March 2026, by senior ministers of the state government, as part of Amrabad Tiger Reserve ‘Relocation package’. It is a gross injustice that without appropriate consultation and consent, as mandated by law, the Chenchu Adivasis are sought to be removed and relocated outside the Schedule-V Area, where they would have no access to wild foods or forest produce and where they will lose all their Scheduled Area constitutional safeguards. 

In this context, many Chenchu community members from affected villages of Sarlapally, Vatwarlapally, Kollampenta, Rayuletupenta, Uppununtala, Kudichintalabayalu came to Hyderabad on April 17, 2026 to submit petitions to the Chief Minister, through the Prajavani Grievance Cell, against the involuntary relocation and excesses of the Forest Department. They also shared their struggles and perspectives with many civil society and citizens groups, during a well-attended round table consultation on the same day. The youth and women gave very clear and cogent reasons as to why they do not want to leave their forest and how there was no proper consent or consultation with their Gram Sabhas. As Chiguru Nagamma of Kommanipenta said, “We have seen how our forefathers were displaced for other projects and whatever money came was wasted on liquor, so we do not want any money or land somewhere else. We will survive in the forest that has sustained us”. 

For example:

Tirupathaiah of Sarlapally gave examples of how basic development activities are not being allowed in their villages and how even the banks or government departments are refusing to give them loans or benefits of schemes because they are under ‘relocation’. Mallikarjun, the ex-Sarpanch, spoke about how their forest rights under the RoFR Act are pending and that shifting them outside the Scheduled Area would make them lose all their constitutional entitlements under PESA, FRA, LARR and LTR Acts. Guravaiah stated that he filed several detailed RTIs and appeals seeking information about the relocation details, but did not receive proper responses. 

The youth expressed their anguish that they are being criminalised with false cases for speaking out for their rights. They said that, along with state officials, some ‘pro-conservation groups’ are also creating a false narrative of ‘voluntary relocation’. They claimed that most of the people whose consent was taken so far, are not Adivasis and they are non-local people, who want to benefit from the package. The Chenchu women said that their men are being given petty jobs (such as forest watchers) to put pressure on their families for giving consent to relocate. This is a deliberate attempt to divide the Chenchus and create friction among them. However, they very clearly conveyed that they will not give consent to any relocation package and would continue to co-exist with the wildlife in harmony, as that is how the Chenchus always survived in the forest.

Speakers at the consultation also raised many legal concerns including non-implementation of the Forest Rights Act, non-recognition of community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus. They spoke on the deliberate misinterpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act to displace Chenchus in the name of making the forests ‘inviolate’, violations under PESA and lack of prior informed consent procedures, non-implementation of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (LARR). The recent relocation of Adivasis from Mysampet and Rampur in Kawal tiger reserve where the displaced community became landless wage labour still awaiting the promised land and cash compensation is a classic example of non-compliance with legal and statutory accountability mechanisms in relocation.  

Veteran civil rights activist Prof. Haragopal said that the State wants Chenchus out of the forest, both because Adivasi regions are mineral resource rich, but also because the capitalist order wants to extinguish the selfless and community way of living of Adivasis. Other activists who were present and spoke at the Consultation in solidarity include Usha Seethalakshmi, K. Satyavathi, Sajaya K, Dr. Ramkishan, Sandhya V, Ashalatha S, Bhanu Kalluri, Girija, Ravi Kanneganti, Shankar, Kalpana, Meera Sanghamitra, Sanjeev, Soumitri, Ravichander etc.  

The efforts over the past three months, by the Community Forest Rights Working Group of Telangana also resulted in the formation of the Chenchu Solidarity Forum (CSF), on the eve of Earth Day. As an independent citizens’ collective to support the struggles of the Chenchu Adivasi communities, co-existence and democratic governance in Nallamalla forests and ensure their rights, guaranteed by various laws and the Constitution, are not violated. 

Key demands submitted to the Telangana government are:

• Immediately stop issuing cheques and stop the process of unconstitutional relocation of the Chenchus living in Amrabad tiger reserve area.
• Implement the Forest Rights Act including recognition of Community Forest Rights and Habitat Rights, settlement of pending IFR claims and resurvey of claims rejected and pending.
• The forest department has to place in public domain the mandatory report as per WLPA (with 2006 amendment) of the scientific study conducted in consultation with the Chenchus, that proves ‘irrevocable damage to wildlife’ by the Chenchus.
• The forest department should make public the details of core and buffer zone demarcations, details of consultations conducted with concerned Gram Sabhas and details of conditions on which consent was obtained, including details of Social Impact Assessment report, R&R Plan, Gram Sabha resolutions and consent letters.
• Government must share the details of notifying villages in core and buffer zones in Amrabad Tiger Reserve. 
• Strengthen the governance of forests through co-existence of Chenchus with their forests and wildlife using the Constitutional and legal mechanisms of the PESA, FRA, LARR for community centred conservation which is globally recognized as the most sustainable form of Conservation and Climate Protection. 
• Withdraw all the false criminal cases on the Chenchu youth, community leaders and intimidation tactics to prevent them from voicing their concerns. 
• Safeguard the Nallamalla ecosystem and declare the Nallamalla forests as Chenchu Conservation Bio-Region Reserve.

Related:

Thousands of Adivasis demand the implementation of FRA 2006

Breaking: All Intervention Applications defending FRA, 2006 admitted by SC

Woman, Van Gujjar, Forest Dweller – the roles & intersectionalities in Mariam’s life

Mass protests & Sansad Gherao against continued Adivasi evictions

Compilation of Forest Rights Act, Rules, and Guidelines

Frequently Asked Questions on the Forest Rights Act, 2006

Counter Affidavit filed by MoTa in support of tribal rights in the FRA

The post Telangana: Stop forcible ‘re-location of Chenchu Adivasis from Amrabad Tiger Reserve appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary thus quashed a 2021 order passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur, refusing to finalise the claims of 107 ‘Tharu’ community members for forest rights, specifically the right to collect and use minor forest produce for their livelihood. The Order of the High Court was passed on April 9, 2026.

In sum, in its order, the Committee, constituted under the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, had relied on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to reject the claim of the petitioners. The petition was filed by the NGO Udasa and 101 members of the Tharu community. The petitioners, residents of the Palia Kalan area in Lakhimpur Kheri and members of a Scheduled Tribe, had challenged a March 15, 2021, order that dismissed their claims to community forest rights.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the district-level committee’s rejection of their claims. They argued that as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to specific rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

It was the case of the petitioners that the Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted specifically for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. They contended that under Section 3 of the Act, their rights include the ownership, access, and use of minor forest produce traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.

Furthering this argument, the petitioners also relied on a 2013 Ministry of Tribal Affairs circular clarifying that the 2006 Act, being a subsequent statute, supersedes all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court found justification in their stance and noted that the 2006 Act aims to recognize and vest the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to ensure their livelihood and food security.

On a close reading of the case, the High Court observed that the district-level committee had fundamentally erred in its approach. The court noted that the committee failed to properly consider the intent and specific provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Instead, the authority had relied solely on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 to justify the rejection of the claims. The bench emphasized that the primary objective of the 2006 Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and to secure their livelihood and food security. Explaining this further, the Court clarified that with the enactment of this Act, the legislature had not created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather it had recognized the existing rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest owing to various historical reasons.

The court noted in its Order that:

“The objective of the Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and ensure their livelihood and food security, which cannot be overlooked.”

The judges also pointed out that the 2006 legislation was enacted specifically to address historical injustices and to provide a legal framework for the rights of these communities, making it imperative for committees to apply the Act’s provisions rather than relying on outdated interim orders It was against this backdrop that the Court found fault with the impugned order, which the bench said had not taken into account the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act and had only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order passed in 2000, prior to the enactment of the Act.

Following this, the court quashed the March 15, 2021, order and directed the concerned district authority to rehear the matter. The bench mandated that the petitioners be provided a full opportunity for a hearing and that a “reasoned order” be passed within a reasonable timeframe after a thorough examination of all relevant facts and records.

Furthermore, the court provided interim protection to the Tharu community members, clarifying that until the fresh decision is reached, the petitioners will continue to enjoy their existing forest rights without disruption.

In its Order, the Court highlighted that Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause, meaning that the central government recognizes and vests these rights notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Advocates Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh and Rajat Srivastava apeared for the petitioners. The judgement in Udasa and 106 others vs Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 others may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The post Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Samrat Choudhary has been saying, on no less than half a dozen occasions that the Bihar government has struck of 22-lakh names off Bihar’s electoral rolls (a power only with the Election Commission!). He goes further to state that Aadhar and other benefits of these ‘22-lakh persons’ will also be snatched away.  Who are these 22-lakh persons anyway?

Three days after he was appointed as CM of the state on April 15, replacing the doyen of the Janata Dal United (JD-U), Nitish Kumar, Choudhary made this extraordinary claim as reported by The Indian Express. Prior to this appointment, since late February 2026, during campaign stints in West Bengal he had been boastful of this ‘achievement’ by the new Bihar government. “So far, we have struck off the names of 22-lakh people and stopped their ration as well in Bihar. We will cancel their driving licenses and other cards as well,” Choudhary has stated emphatically.”

Ironically, antithetical to these hysterical claims are the facts from the ground. Bihar was the first state, pre-assembly poll to conduct a hurried and unchecked Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of its electoral rolls in 2025, an exercise that came under sharp criticism and much scrutiny. During this controversial process, while approximately 65-lakh deletions took place without sufficient time for independent adjudication of the action, the 22-lakh figure only corresponded to “deletions.” Now deletions are usually on account of duplicate enrolment, shifting of voters or the fact that they may be deceased. The media had widely reported between June-November 2025 that no largescale existence of “illegal immigrants” was identified or noticed by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

One issue of crucial concern therefore then is ‘where has the figure of 22-lakhs being projected by the Bihar CM come from?” Second, what about the adjudication process for the entire 65-lakh exclusions in the state? Third, the  moot question of whether or not an elected government in secular, democratic India is empowered to simply deny the right to an Aadhar card, or government scheme benefits to any person previously accessing these benefits without application of mind or independent judgement?

Before, during and after the SIR exercise in Bihar the Election Commission of India (ECI) under CEC Gyanesh Kumar has been squarely accused of partisan conduct, conduct unbefitting a Constitutional body since its actions aligned squarely with the ruling dispensation.

Ironically, but not coincidentally, the first week of April 2026, also saw a spate of “news reports” from Bihar around union home minister, Amit Shah’s visit to the Seemanchal areas of the state. As reported by ETV Bharat, Shah’s visit to the Seemanchal region during which he reviewed border security, the issue of illicit foreign settlers, law and order and other security-related situations in Kishanganj, Araria, Purnea, Katihar and other adjoining districts.

In line with this development, the news channel quoted a senior official of the state’s home department, additional chief secretary, Arvind Kumar Chaudhary stating that a ‘fresh letter had been written to all districts to identify suspected foreigners in their jurisdiction and if such persons are not living with valid documents, ‘their process of deportation would begin!’  Bihar government officials also ‘revealed that biometric data of those identified would be collected and uploaded to a central database maintained by the Union Home Ministry to streamline identification and prevent their re-entry.’

Where does the 22-lakh figure come from?

In early 2026, Vote for Democracy’s report on the Bihar polls, “An Audit of the Stolen Mandate” Bihar 2025 VFD Report Findings had recorded details of what the report termed “Mass disenfranchisement by design.” These stated that, according to official ECI data, the numerical impact of a hastily conducted SIR was staggering:

• On June 24, 2025, Bihar had 7.89 crore registered electors.
• By the Draft Roll of August 1, 2025, this fell to 7.24 crore, reflecting 65.69 lakh deletions.
• The Final Roll of September 30, 2025 stood at approximately 7.42 crore electors.

Yet, the report found that only 3.66 lakh voters were actually confirmed as ineligible. The scale of deletions was therefore grossly disproportionate, pointing not to routine correction but to electoral roll engineering.

Between July 21 and 25 alone, over 21.27 lakh voters were deleted in just three days—an implausible figure by any administrative standard. During this period, 5.44 lakh voters were marked ‘dead’, while 14.24 lakh were labelled ‘permanently shifted’. The number of voters marked ‘untraceable’ rose by 809% overnight, while not a single “foreigner” was identified—despite this being cited as a key justification for the revision.

Opaque ‘rectification’ and mathematical impossibilities

The report further exposed deep inconsistencies in the ECI’s claims of rectification. While the Commission stated that approximately 17 lakh objections or applications were received, the actual changes reflected in the rolls affected around 22-lakh entries. Even after accounting for corrections, the final voter count should have mathematically stood at approximately 7.38 crore, yet the ECI declared 7.42 crore electors, leaving an unexplained excess of 3.24 lakh voters.

No independent audit, reconciliation statement, or transparent explanation has been provided for this discrepancy.

Pre-poll manipulation after election notification

Electoral norms require that voter rolls be effectively frozen once elections are notified. However, the report documents that even after notification:

• On October 6, 2025, Bihar had 7.43 crore electors.
• By poll day, this had increased to 7.46 crore.

This means 3.34 lakh voters were added in just ten days, including a sudden and unexplained spike in youth voters—raising serious questions about roll sanctity during the election period.

1.3 The “Rectification” Fraud

• Discrepancy in Objections: ECI claimed only 17,00,000 (16,56,886+ 36,475 = 16,93,361)
• Applications were received by the September 1 deadline. However, actual changes were
• Performed on as many as 22-lakh entries.

The Calculation Anomaly:

• ECI reported additions of 16,56,886 (Form 6) + 36,475 (Claims) and exclusions of

2,17,0493.

• Net Addition Calculation: Should have been 14,76,312 added to the 7.24 Crore

base, totalling 7.38 Crore.

• Actual Figure (Sept 30): ECI declared 7.42 Crore (No. ECI/PN/313/2025)—a

hike of 3.24 Lakh over the calculated figure without explanation.

Multiple petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in July 2025 challenging the SIR process. These were moved by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), RJD MP Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and Social Activist Yogendra Yadav among several others. These petitions alleged that the SIR lacked statutory backing

under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules,

1960, imposed onerous documentation requirements, and risked large-scale

disenfranchisement, particularly of migrants, the poor and marginalised communities.

Petitioners had also argued that the SIR effectively resembled a citizenship-style verification exercise

Unfortunately, while the irregularities in the Bengal SIR continue to be scrutinised by the Supreme Court of India due to an assertive role played by the Trinamool Congress ruling that state, Bihar’s excluded voters –whatever the actual number—remain abandoned and forgotten. By both the political Opposition and the Institutions of Democratic Governance. Even as the new CM makes boastful claims of ‘disenfranchising’ a staggering 22-lakh persons!

Related:

Bihar’s SIR process reveals an exercise of illegitimate powers, ECI forcing district machinery to resort to unethical practices: CCG’s Open Letter

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

ECI to SC: Voter ID insufficient for Bihar roll, defends citizenship verification power

Punjab University’s former dean writes to CJI: Bihar SIR threatens democracy, alleges ECI overreach & voter disenfranchisement

Non-Electors Within Electors: ECI reports over 61 lakh potential exclusions

The post Bihar “Infiltrator” Hysteria: Samrat Choudhary’s claims of disenfranchising 22-lakh people corresponds to ECI’s “deceased voters” figure appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When he was younger, Ali was a guard for the nation. During the summer of 1999, he fought in the freezing heights of Kargil. Two years later, in 2001, a mortar shell exploded near him during a border clash. This blast left him with a permanent ear injury, a daily reminder of his sacrifice. However, today, the country he fought for is asking him to prove he belongs here, as reported

As reported by The Indian Express, Ali’s name was suddenly removed from the voter list.

“I served this nation for 21 years, one month and one day. Yet today, my nationality – and my family’s – is being questioned,” Daud Ali as, told the Indian Express.

How a spelling mistake caused big problems

Ali’s problem did not start because he lacked documents or did anything illegal. It started because of a simple clerical mistake. When Ali checked the voter rolls recently, he was shocked to see his name was gone. The reason? A small spelling mistake in his father’s name in the official records. In a strict (selective) system that relies on computer data, a single wrong letter is enough to erase a citizen’s right to vote.

The problem gets worse when looking at his family history. Ali’s mother was a recognised citizen, and her name was on the 2002 voter list. She passed away in 2008. After finding out his name was deleted, Ali did exactly what the government asked.

“My mother’s name is in the voter list of 2002. I was called for a hearing in Baharampur. I submitted all the documents. But then not only mine but my son and two daughters’ names have all been deleted,” Ali told The Indian Express

The worst part of this rule is how it affects the whole family. Because Ali’s citizenship was questioned, his children’s records were checked and rejected too. As The Telegraph has reported regarding voter list issues in the state, a simple error for one person can take away the voting rights of an entire family.

“Because my name was removed, both of my daughter’s and a son’s names were struck off as well,” he told The Indian Express

Today, out of a family of five, only his 50-year-old wife, Minuwara Khatun, is still on the voter list. Ali and his three children have effectively lost their voting rights.

A stuck system: tribunals that do not work

Ali’s case is not the only one. The huge number of deletions shows a system that seems to focus more on removing names than helping real citizens. The government says people who were wrongly removed can appeal. They can go to special appellate tribunals to get their names back on the list.

However, the 19 appellate tribunals set up for these cases have not started working yet. For people like Ali, who have carefully gathered all their military and family records, there is nowhere to submit them. He tried to file a legal case with a tribunal, but nothing has happened. The offices are not active.

“I don’t know what else I can do or whom shall I approach,” a tired Ali told The Indian Express.

The state wants him to prove his citizenship, but the offices meant to check his proof are not open. For a former soldier used to clear rules and taking action, this endless wait is deeply insulting.

Bigger problems for democracy

For Ali, this is especially painful. The Indian Army gave him an identity. His military ID, pension papers, and medical records from his 2001 war injury all prove he served India. Yet, these strong proofs do not seem to matter to the local election office. The government pays his military pension but takes away his right to vote.

Without a working way to appeal, being “deleted” is a final punishment. Families like Ali’s are left stuck, waiting for a solution.

The heavy cost of disappointment

Today, his biggest burden is not just the physical tiredness of visiting government offices. It is deep disappointment. He realises that decades of loyal service and war injuries can be wiped out by a simple spelling mistake.

“It is deeply disappointing. After dedicating a long part of my life to serving the Indian army, this is the situation I find myself in today,” the veteran shared, summarising the quiet heartbreak of a forgotten hero.

As the country prepares for upcoming elections, will the state fix its mass mistakes before the next vote? Will the offices open so this veteran can prove who he is? Until then, Md. Daud Ali remains a soldier waiting again. This time, he is not waiting for orders to fight, but waiting for the basic right to call himself an Indian.

Related

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

99.8% of 65 lakh voter deletions go unchallenged on 13th day of objection period

Bihar SIR: 65 Lakh electors flagged for deletion, SC said “if there is mass exclusion, we will immediately step in”

The post Nationality under SIR Scrutiny: Kargil warrior questioned after 21 years of service appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Beyond the ‘plum’ posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Related:

Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court

Decoding the Sathankulam Judgement on Custodial Death – Part 1 – Context of Torture in India

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death:Part-3 Witnesses to be Celebrated & Honoured appeared first on SabrangIndia.

More MPs, Less Debate

India’s Constitution distributes legislative sovereignty between Parliament and State Assemblies, defining powers through the 7th Schedule of the constitution – Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. Under this system, Parliament legislates on Union subjects. Bills are introduced, debated, and passed by the required majority.

But in practice:

Even in the current Lok Sabha of 543 members, the speaking time is allocated based on ‘party strength’. Individual MPs — especially those outside dominant parties — are given little to no space. Often, they are not allowed to speak for more than a minute, as repeatedly pointed out by Thol. Thirumavalavan MP. This goes against the grain of representative and inclusive democracy that should give every voice, regardless of party or political strength, the space and time to express views, even dissent.

So:

• Will increasing MPs improve deliberation?
• Will it strengthen representation?

It will only further compress individual voices.

The Real Problem: Centralisation

Why is there no time for debate? Because Parliament is overloaded.

Why is it overloaded? Because it interferes in too many subjects — especially in the name of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).

One Example is the Union Government’s Jal Jeevan Mission – A centrally sponsored scheme.

On April 16, 2026, DMK Member of Parliament (MP), senior advocate, P. Wilson raised a question in Rajya Sabha. He pointed, ‘Tamil Nadu has been one of the best performing states in the country providing functional household tap connection to 1.12 crore out of 1.25 crore households achieving nearly 90% but, only Rs 5914 crores have been released for funds under this scheme leaving Rs 3112 crores pending. For 2024 – 2025, while Rs 2434 crores was allotted but only Rs 732 crores have been released. Due to this unreasonable fiscal control by the regime at the centre, the Tamil Nadu government itself has to advance Rs 2550 crores. He went on to explain, how, for the Hogenakkal combined water supply scheme phase – III, the project was approved at the cost of Rs 8428 crores with the union government share of Rs 2283 crores under the Jal Jeevan mission framework but today (early 2026), the union government (unilaterally) says the project stands cancelled and suddenly informs that the assistance cannot be extended! Besides the MP exposed how, ten additional multi village drinking water schemes worth about Rs. 7590 crores proposed by Tamil Nadu for full rural coverage are also pending for approval.  MP Wilson demanded an answer to this state of affairs which he has not, to date, received.

Parliament is not a one way traffic. The Union Government is answerable to states. West Bengal has raised similar concerns. However this regime steamrolls through with its undemocratic methods.

Encroaching on Schedule VII of the Constitution, Items under the State List: Entry 17 under the List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule in Constitution of India clearly marks that the ‘Water’ is a State Subject. Also the Minister of State for Jal Shakti, V. Somanna, in a written reply presented in the Rajya Sabha stated, ‘Drinking Water is a state subject, and hence, the responsibility of planning, approval, implementation, operation, and maintenance of drinking water supply schemes, including those under the Jal Jeevan Mission, lies with State/UT Governments. The Government of India supports the States by providing technical and financial assistance.’

Do the facts suggest that the Centre is really providing assistance? NO. They are promising to support and cut the rope while the state attempts to climb a mountain!

Another encroachment on State Subjects: Similarly Entry 14 of the List II states that ‘Agriculture’ is a state subject. However, we all are well aware that three farm laws favouring corporates were brought in by the Union Government, inviting months’ long protests and finally their withdrawal! The Centre has also interfered in the procurement, with the tag of price control and food safety. Due to that the paddy procurement was affected in the past month. Tamil Nadu’s request is not a dilution of procurement norms but a legitimate invocation of flexibility already embedded in the Union’s framework.

Under the Fair Average Quality (FAQ) standards administered by the Food Corporation of India and the Department of Food and Public Distribution, paddy moisture is capped at 17%, but relaxations are permitted in exceptional conditions with prior approval. Citing unseasonal rains, the state has formally sought permission to procure paddy with slightly higher moisture (18–20%), even agreeing to value cuts as per official norms. The core issue is fiscal and federal: unless such procurement is accepted into the Central Pool, the burden falls on the state, effectively penalizing farmers for climatic factors—making this a case for cooperative federalism, not regulatory compromise.

The solution is clear:

• Do not interfere in the State List
• Share Union List powers with states and local bodies
• Retain only essential subjects like foreign affairs, defence, and currency at the Union level

With this, a limited number of MPs can still have meaningful discussions. However, the Union government is doing the opposite — it is centralising power further. This is not governance. This is authoritarian centralisation — fascism in practice.

What Can an MP actually do?

In reality, MPs are reduced to:

• Asking questions, mostly written — a power even citizens have through RTI
• Raising basic constituency issues like drinking water and bridges crossing railways. But should such issues even reach Parliament?

This is not governance efficiency. It is an enforced dependency.

Fiscal Centralisation

Why should states depend on Parliament for funds? If taxation powers are devolved properly, states can govern independently. Why should drinking water schemes or farmer incentives require Union approval? This is a systemic flaw — not something delimitation can fix.

Collapse of Institutional Mechanisms

MPs can also work through Parliamentary Standing Committees.

But from 2014 to 2026:

• How many committee reports have been discussed?
• How many have been implemented?

These committees have been reduced to symbolic bodies. Their reports are ignored. Without them, transparency collapses.

The solution lies in reform of the working of the constitution, Not in Delimitation:

• Redefine Union, State, and Concurrent Lists
• Except for foreign affairs, defence, and currency, powers should lie with states & local bodies.

Democracy being suffocated

What we see today:

• MPs are prevented from functioning meaningfully
• Constitutional structures are weakened
• Parliamentary democracy is being suffocated

This is not accidental. It is a deliberate project of a supremacist and fascist Union BJP government — bending institutions to concentrate power.

Unfair Delimitation and the Betrayal of Federal Justice

Delimitation, in theory, is about determining the number of representatives based on population. That is the legal argument.

The policy of population control in India was not accidental; it was a conscious national direction shaped through constitutional design and public policy. The Constitution of India (1950) distributed legislative powers through the Seventh Schedule, placing subjects across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. While public health and population-related matters were initially within the domain of states, a decisive shift occurred during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, when “family planning and population control” were placed in the Concurrent List (Entry 20A), enabling both the Union and states to legislate and act.

This was followed by clear policy articulation at the national level. The National Population Policy of 1976, framed during the Emergency, and later the National Population Policy of 2000, set explicit demographic goals, including achieving replacement-level fertility. These were not symbolic declarations; they were calls for coordinated national action.

It was the South Indian states that responded with seriousness and administrative discipline. From the 1980s through the 2000s, states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh implemented population control measures effectively, bringing down fertility rates early and stabilising population growth. This was not merely a demographic achievement — it translated into better allocation of resources, improved public health systems, and higher human development outcomes.

In contrast, several North Indian states failed to implement these policies with the same urgency or effectiveness. Population growth continued at high levels well into the 2000s and even the 2010s, creating a widening demographic imbalance within the Union.

The Constitution itself recognised the risk of penalising states that performed well.

Under Article 81 of the Constitution of India, representation in the Lok Sabha is linked to population. However, to ensure that states which successfully controlled their populations were not politically disadvantaged, Parliament intervened. Through the 42nd Amendment (1976), the allocation of seats was frozen based on the 1971 Census. This freeze was later extended by the 84th Constitutional Amendment (2001) until 2026, with the 87th Amendment (2003) allowing adjustments based on the 2001 Census without altering the total number of seats.

The principle was clear: demographic responsibility should not lead to political punishment.

Today, that principle stands on the verge of being reversed.

With delimitation expected after 2026, the Union government is preparing to re-link parliamentary representation strictly to population. The implications are profound. States that adhered to national policy, controlled population growth, and managed their resources responsibly will see their political weight reduced. States that failed to do so will gain greater representation and influence in Parliament.

This inversion of justice is not a technical correction — it is a structural distortion.

States that cooperated with Union policy in the national interest are now being “rewarded” with a loss of rights and voice. States that disregarded the same policy are being “rewarded” with expanded political power. One is forced to ask: is this justice? And more importantly, who is being asked this question — a government that increasingly exhibits fascist tendencies in its centralisation of power?

When this contradiction is placed before constitutional forums, the deeper tensions within this approach will become evident.

At the same time, the Union government continues to repeatedly invoke the Constitution to justify delimitation. But this raises a more fundamental question: why is delimitation being pushed with such urgency, while far more pressing structural issues remain unaddressed?

The real crisis in Indian governance today is not a shortage of representatives; it is the over-centralisation of power. Parliament is burdened with subjects that rightfully belong to states. Fiscal powers remain concentrated at the Union level, forcing states to depend on central allocations even for basic welfare and infrastructure. A town should not have to wait for Union schemes for drinking water, nor should farmers depend on central approvals for incentives. These are failures of federal design — not problems that delimitation can solve.

Instead of correcting these imbalances by strengthening states and local bodies, the Union government is pursuing a path that further concentrates power. This is not administrative reform. It is authoritarian consolidation — fascism expressed through institutional control.

The consequences extend beyond federal structure into economic reality. The government that has failed to significantly improve development outcomes or quality of life in lagging regions is now attempting to extract from the more productive states. The burden of demographic imbalance is being shifted onto the South — not to uplift the North in any meaningful way, but to redistribute power and resources.

Will this extraction benefit the ordinary people of North India? There is little evidence to suggest so. Instead, the pattern increasingly points toward concentration of economic gains in the hands of a few corporate entities — most notably a select coterie.

Thus, delimitation is not merely a constitutional exercise. It is a political project — one that seeks to reconfigure representation, alter federal balance, and entrench a particular ideological dominance.

The question, therefore, is not whether delimitation is constitutionally permissible. The question is whether it is just. And in its current form, it is not.

Why Delimitation Now?

If delimitation does not solve governance issues, why push it? Because the objective is political. Southern states have identified and are exposing the fascist tendencies of the Union government. They are taking this message across India. This creates a threat to the Fascist Propaganda.

So BJP is trying to,

• Increase MPs from northern states where the BJP has stronger control
• Reduce the relative political strength of southern states
• Entrench RSS ideology structurally

Delimitation becomes a tool of political domination.

A Pattern of Imposition

This fits into a larger pattern:

• Hindi imposition through the three-language policy
• Sanskrit cultural imposition through the New Education Policy
• Sanatana imposition through schemes like Vishwakarma
• Minority property targeting through Waqf amendments
• Citizenship insecurity through CAA-type laws
• Public sector, transport, and infrastructure assets being handed over to private corporate entities

States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Telangana have resisted all of this. Unable to handle these states politically, the Union government is attempting to weaken them structurally.

The Federal Resistance

As Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy pointed out, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin was among the first to bring these issues to light. He has also pushed for unity among states. This is critical. Because this is not just policy — it is a battle over India’s federal structure.

Conclusion: What India Actually Needs

India does not need more MPs.

It needs:

• Stronger states
• Empowered local governance
• Fiscal autonomy
• Respect for federalism

Delimitation offers none of this.

Instead, it risks:

• Weakening federal balance
• Reducing real representation
• Expanding centralised, fascist control

This is not democratic reform. It is democratic distortion in the service of power.

Tamil Nadu will fight — Tamil Nadu will win. And along this path, states across India will unite and speak the truth.

(The author is an independent Tamil journalist with YouTube channels, Peralai, AranSei)

Related:

Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR?

PM Narendra Modi’s frequent visits to Tamil Nadu, his “love” for Tamil culture exposed

The post Delimitation: A false solution driven by centralised power appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Following delimitation, the parliamentary representation of southern Indian states is projected to decline from 23.6% to approximately 20%, whereas the representation of the Hindi-speaking northern and central states—where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has substantial electoral strength—is expected to increase from 38.1% to 43.1%. This shift enables the ruling BJP to maintain political dominance even without substantial support from southern states.

Beyond its federal implications, this issue also raises normative concerns regarding democratic principles.

The delimitation process is grounded in the principle of “one person, one vote and One Vote One Value”, that is  the equal value of each vote. Ideally, each parliamentary or legislative constituency should represent a comparable number of voters across the country. Based on this principle, the allocation of seats in state assemblies and the Lok Sabha is determined.

For instance:

In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Uttar Pradesh (UP) had approximately 15.4 Crore registered voters and 80 parliamentary seats, implying that each Member of Parliament (MP) represented around 19.3 lakhs voters.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu (TN) had about 6.24 crore voters and 39 seats, with each MP representing roughly 16 lakh  voters. This discrepancy suggests that the relative value of an individual vote varies across states.

From a theoretical standpoint, delimitation could address such disparities by standardising representation—for example, by ensuring one MP per 10-15 lakh voters nationwide. However, such an approach would increase representation for more populous states while comparatively reducing it for states that have achieved lower population growth.

This raises a fundamental question for a democracy with many regional complexities and existing regional imbalance in political representation:

How can equitable representation be ensured without exacerbating regional imbalances?

The Modi governments’ approach to delimitation intended to reinforce existing myopic political advantages for the BJP at the cost inciting regional unrest leading to centrifugal tendencies which is already brewing in the republic.

An additional dimension of the debate concerns the interaction between delimitation and SIR. While delimitation determines the number of parliamentary seats, SIR determines the electorate itself.

The combined effect of these processes result in disproportionate disadvantage to southern states. To illustrate let us take the examples of both UP and TN where the SIR process has been completed and check the impact of Delimitaion.

Under the proposed framework (based on the 2011 Census):

Uttar Pradesh’s Lok Sabha seats may increase from 80 to 143.

Tamil Nadu’s seats may increase from 39 to 49.

Following the SIR:

Uttar Pradesh is estimated to have approximately 13.39 Cr voters, after the SIR, resulting in one Member of Parliament (MP) per about 9.36 lakhs voters.

Tamil Nadu, after the SIR, is estimated to have around 5.67 million voters, leading to one MP per approximately 11.57 lakhs voters. Thus, disparities in voter-to-representative ratios would persist, with southern states potentially experiencing relatively lower vote value.

A similar pattern is projected for Karnataka. After delimitation, the state may receive 41 seats. Depending on changes in the voter base following SIR, the number of voters per MP could remain comparatively higher than in northern states.

In comparative terms, if all states were represented at the same ratio as Uttar Pradesh (approximately one MP per 9.36 lakhs voters), Tamil Nadu should get 60 seats instead of 49, with similar implications for Karnataka. Thus both the SIR and delimitation of the Modi government as currently proposed, is a lethal attack on Parliamentary Democracy.

It is for this reason that the country should say a clear NO to both the SIR and the Delimitation.

An alternative framework that preserves the principle of equal vote value while minimizing regional disparities in representation need to be evolved through democratic consultation with the People and States of the Republic.

Related:

Procedure for tabling bills on women’s reservations & delimitation both opaque and non-consultative: Experts and Citizens

“Inside the SIR”: Booklet flags ‘mechanical disenfranchisement’ in electoral roll revision

No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer

The post Will delimitation have severe, undemocratic consequences following the SIR? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His speech in the Constituent Assembly is significant because it forcefully argues that a good constitution cannot function well if it is handled by bad people. Similarly, even a bad constitution can yield good results if it is used by good people.

In other words, much more than formal rules and procedures, the social location, interests, and intentions of those who interpret or implement them are important—a point which is often missed by liberal scholars but not by Dr. Ambedkar.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, with the aim of drafting the Constitution, was held on December 9, 1946, and it continued to function for around three years, with B. R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Drafting Committee, bearing a major share of the responsibility. When the work of drafting the Constitution was completed, Dr. Ambedkar delivered his closing speech on November 25, 1949, a day before the Constitution was formally adopted. November 26 was later celebrated as Constitution Day to mark this historic event.

Giving his closing speech in the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb put it: “… however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution.”

In his speech, Dr. Ambedkar argued that rules, laws, or the Constitution are not sufficient in themselves, nor do they guarantee justice, however well they may be framed. Beyond the law, the persons who interpret and implement it are the critical factor.

In the context of the Constitution, Ambedkar takes a critical sociological view and said that mere having good rules are not enough, if the person interpreting or implanting it has a bad intention. His argument is directly linked with his political movement to fight for the proportionate and effective representation for Dalits and other marginalised castes and communities.

The opponents of affirmative action, including reservation, often invoke the logic of meritocracy. However, anti-reservationists are not willing to accept the fact that merit is often defined through caste interests.

For example, the skills acquired by rich, upper-caste males are taken as the benchmark and imposed on the rest of society, ignoring the geographical, cultural, and linguistic diversity of the country, as well as the social and economic backgrounds of the people. Unlike such Brahminical logic, B. R. Ambedkar argued for bringing every caste and community within the process of decision-making so that they could not only make laws but also interpret and implement them in their own interests.

Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that if power is not shared and remains concentrated in a few hands, the interests of marginalised castes and communities are bound to be compromised. The same logic extends to the field of law, where mere formal rules cannot ensure justice for marginalised castes; rather, they must be in a position to interpret and implement them to ensure justice in society.

To illustrate B. R. Ambedkar’s argument, let us take the analogy of a car. A new car is not a guarantee of safe driving if it is handled carelessly. Conversely, even if a car has some technical faults, there is a greater chance that the journey will be safe if the driver is experienced and careful. In the context of law, Ambedkar is not merely satisfied with having a good constitution; rather, he is concerned about the misuse of a good constitution in the hands of bad people. But even if the constitution is not perfect, if those implementing it have good intentions, there is a greater possibility of bringing about justice in society.

Although Dr. Ambedkar, in his speech, disagreed with the Indian communists and socialists over their “condemnation” of the Constitution, Babasaheb’s sociological understanding of law comes very close to the Marxist critique of law. While liberal jurisprudence emphasizes rules and procedures and the idea of providing a level playing field to everyone seeking justice in a court of law, Marxist philosophers foreground the political dimension of law. Radicals argue that, in the absence of a genuine level playing field in society—where a few monopolise wealth and shape culture, religion, and other institutions to perpetuate their dominance—the judiciary and law cannot remain neutral zones of freedom and rational deliberation.

While the class character of society is central to Marxist thinking, it does not get displaced in Dr. Ambedkar’s analysis. While Ambedkar was a firm supporter of state socialism and of the state taking greater responsibility for people’s welfare, he strongly disagreed with the communists over their support for the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of bringing about equality and reconstructing an egalitarian order through democratic and constitutional means.

Having acknowledged these differences, Ambedkarite scholars and Marxists converge on the point that, unlike liberal scholars, they do not ignore the social reality and deep-seated inequalities that exist beyond the formal and legal structures of the state. While class and property relations are central to classical Marxist analysis, Dr. Ambedkar’s primary focus is on the caste-based graded inequality of Indian society. While Dr. Ambedkar does not ignore class contradictions in society, he, unlike Marxist scholars, explains class inequality through a caste-based analysis.

Since caste-based inequality remains deeply entrenched in society and the post-Independence state did not go much beyond providing formal equality to the lower castes and other marginalised communities, Dr. Ambedkar was acutely aware of the continuing presence of upper-caste hegemony from society to politics and from culture to the economy. That is why he was concerned that a good law in itself is not a guarantee of justice unless marginalised castes and communities are in a position to interpret and implement it in their own interests. These sociological insights of Dr. Ambedkar are crucial not only for understanding our judicial system but also for analysing other institutions of the state.

[The author is the author of the recently published book Muslim Personal Law: Definitions, Sources and Contestations (Manohar, 2026).]

Related:

Caste Shadow on Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

On his 135th birth anniversary, we ask, would Ambedkar be allowed free speech in India today?

A principled PM, a determined law minister: Nehru, Ambedkar & Opposition in Indian Politics

The post Understanding power through caste: Dr. Ambedkar’s contribution to the sociology of law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Decoding the Judgement on Sathankulam Custodial Death-Part 2-Pathbreaking Orders of the High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.