I wish to thank the Supreme Court for upholding the bail granted to me by the Bombay High Court. It proved to be a long wait but well worth it.

Although happy for myself, I am saddened that the fate of scores of fellow dissidents implicated in a variety of cases, still hangs in balance. Years of our life have been snatched from us as prisoners awaiting trial, which itself will take years to conclude.

Families of UTPs suffer as much, if not more, from this separation from their loved ones and their lives are greatly disrupted. A reality seldom acknowledged and rarely remedied. What disturbs me, as a democratic rights activist, is that justice appears as a distant dream. An over-burdened judiciary finds itself unable to provide a speedy, fair trial. As a captive, I often hoped that the judiciary would deliver on its lofty pronouncement that “Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many”. Because UTPs cling to this as a promise.

So, while I am pleased to breathe freer and finally get to meet my near and dear ones, I am aware that others still languish in a life of uncertainty. It hurts that Father Stan Swamy was denied bail while alive and will find redemption only posthumously.

My eighteen months of house arrest was made possible by the generosity of the Trustees of the BT Ranadive Trust and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). When all other options proved futile, they stepped in to provide shelter to me and my life partner Sahba Husain, for which I am deeply grateful.

I want to acknowledge the courteous and decent behaviour of the staff and officers of the Navi Mumbai police for all these 18 months. Both Sahba and I appreciate this.

Finally, I wish to thank my lawyers, friends, family, fellow activists and the independent media for standing by me. I drew much strength from their love and solidarity to face the ordeal of captivity.

Now that I am free…..

“Won’t you help to sing
These songs of freedom
‘cause all I ever have
Redemption songs….” (Bob Marley)

Gautam Navlakha
Belapur, May 19^th 2024

The post Gautam Navlakha’s letter on release from custody appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Free Speech Collective is a team of journalists, activists and lawyers that track free speech violations in the country based in India. 

The report further highlights the case of journalists Vanessa Dougnac and Avani Dias who were forced to leave the country under the orders of the central government. Avani Dias was the South Asia bureau chief of Australian Broadcasting Corporation was forced to leave the country on April 22 after she was informed that her work as a journalist had “crossed a line.” Similarly, the report highlights how French journalist Vanessa Dougnac also had to leave the country after her journalism permit was revoked in September 2023 without any reason or justification being given. A British academic of Kashmiri origin named Nitasha Kaul was also prevented from entering India and deported from Bangalore airport after she was invited to speak at a conference by the Karnataka government. 

Furthermore, the report highlights how five journalists have been arrested in the country since January 2024., and two continue to be in custody. Three of them, Dhanabir Maibam of Manipur, Santu Pan who was working in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal and Ashutosh Negi in Uttarakhand, have been granted bail. Whereas, two other journalists, including Kashmiri journalist Aasif Sultan, who was re-arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) two days after being granted bail and Punjabi journalist Rajinder Singh Taggar who was arrested for charges related to extortion. 

As per the report, there were around 34 journalists who were attacked. The report highlights the case of Nikhil Wagle whose car was attacked grievously when he was on route to speak at an event about free speech. Similarly, Sabrang India had covered how journalists, Satender Chauhan and Niel Bhalinder Singh were attacked and injured while covering farmers protests in February 2024. As per the report, ten journalists were attacked by a violent mob and had their bikes burnt in Uttarakhand, which tops the list of places which have seen such attacks. 

Similarly, the collective highlights the massive internet shutdowns witnessed in the country, with Haryana, Manipur and Punjab coming in on the top three states. 

Similarly, the report notes that over 177 accounts on social media have been banned after they were ordered by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in February on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Among these were YouTube based media platforms Bolta Hindustan, National Dastak, and Media Swaraj. Similarly, the report highlights how Caravan Magazine been ordered by the by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to take down their article titled, ‘Screams from the Army Post: The Indian Army’s torture and murder of civilians in a restive Jammu’ within 24 hours. The magazine has currently challenged the order in court. Similarly, in early January, the government had ordered for the closure of the Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab which track hate speech by leaders and hate incidents from around the country. Each of these moves were criticised by media personnel and observers for their attack on a free and fair press. The report warns that these are dangerous signs of “print and electronic media teetering between partisan advocacy and self-censorship,” and states, “The last remaining space for informing the electorate may soon be completely eroded.”

Related:

Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild

FIR against editors, Prabhat Khabar, Editor’s Guild voices concern

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

Top US academics, including Amartya Sen, condemn long incarceration of journalists & activists, erosion of Indian democracy

Meet Ambedkarite journalists using social media to bring us stories from the margins, foregrounding both their hurdles & achievements

The post Free speech “eroding”: report details 137 incidents of free speech violations in the past 4 months appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Within this period, India also experienced an internet blackout of 7,812 hours, while social media platforms remained inaccessible for 144 hours. Out of the 42 internet shutdown events recorded worldwide between January 1 and June 30, 2023, nine were concentrated in India. According to the tracker, Jammu and Kashmir saw the biggest number of internet shutdowns numbering at about 433, with Rajasthan coming next at 100, and Manipur coming third at 47 in 2024 alone according to the website internetshutdowns.in.

Since 2019, the report notes that over 609 major internet shutdowns have been recorded across 56 countries. This has reportedly contributed to a total loss of about $52.96 billion from the world economy as a direct result of government led internet shutdowns during this period.

Related:

Farmers protest: “The law is clear on internet suspension” Court asks state government to submit internet suspension orders

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

Haldwani: Day after 5 Muslims killed, fear and tension grip the region as internet ban continues

The post India third highest across the world to enforce internet shutdowns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay HC, overturned the 2017 Trial Court judgment, both on the basis of the merits and procedural lapses. It reiterated its earlier position on procedural safeguards and found the investigating agency violating rules for valid seizure of evidence and also suspected the possibility of tampering of evidence due to poor handling of evidence and apparent fudging of official records.

The court also came out strongly against thought policing of individuals and relying on the judgement in Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge Vs. State of Maharashtra, said that a particular ideology or political philosophy (which may be inferred from seized literature or other material) cannot be treated as a crime in itself. Along with Jyoti Chorge, it also relied on the ratio of Thwaha Fasal and Vernon vs State of Maharashtra to emphasise that mere association with a terrorist organisation (passive membership) is not sufficient to attract the relevant provisions of UAPA unless it is accompanied by intention and support to further the activities of such organisation. After refusing to consider political literature as valid evidence, the court also dismissed the video ‘evidence’.

Long walk to freedom

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High after considering the matter afresh delivered its judgement on March 5, 2024, acquitting all the accused charged under UAPA.

The speaking order observed that, “In fact since the prosecution has failed to establish the electronic evidence in accordance with law, the said material need not be gone into as an evidence in this case.”[1] Even on the basis of merits the said ‘evidence’ were found be inadequate in the eyes of the court and the bench dismissed it to be considered as legal evidence. Analysing the ‘evidence’ of the prosecution the court noted, “Perusing these and various other literature contained in the hard disk, as claimed to have been seized from Accused No.6, the contents of these documents read and understood by any person, by themselves would not constitute an offence under Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 or 39. The documents relate to the period from the year 2006 to the year 2012, ranging for a period of 1 year to 7 years prior to registering the FIR”.

On Video Evidence (March 2024)

The court was sharply critical of the shoddy investigation of the prosecution and noted, “…these videos do not in any manner portray any acts of “terrorism” contained in the various provisions of the UAPA. In fact, there is no evidence brought forth by the prosecution to connect the persons in these videos with any actual act of terrorism…”[2] It further lambasted the State for invoking the charge of conspiracy and said, “In order to attract the offence of conspiracy, besides vague allegations that they have conspired to wage war against the Government or advocated arms struggle, there is no other material.”[3]

The court concluded that, “In our view, there is total non-compliance of various provisions of UAPA. The sanction accorded to prosecute Accused Nos.1 to 5 is invalid. Taking of cognizance by the Trial Court without valid sanction or no sanction to prosecute accused No.6 G.N. Saibaba goes to the root of the case, which renders the entire proceedings null and void… We hold that the trial held despite violation of mandatory provisions of law itself amounts to failure of justice”[4].

The Maharashtra government has already challenged this decision in the Supreme Court even though the High Court has refused to stay its order, noting that the matter affects personal liberty of the citizens.

This order of the Bombay High Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 136 & 137 of 2017.

The tragic take of Professor GN Saibaba and others: a background

The former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba was first arrested on May 9, 2014 by the Maharashtra police on charges of entering into a criminal conspiracy with senior Naxal commanders Narmadakka and Ramdhar, and was charged with various draconian sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) dealing with conspiracy, and membership of ‘a terrorist gang or organisation’. Hem Mishra, the then student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested by the police in 2013 in the case of Naxalite involvement and had named Saibaba as an “urban contact” for the banned Maoists.

Convicted by the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli District in this case of Maoist involvement in 2017, Saibaba and others had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Only one of the accused received a lesser sentence. Other accused in the case are Pandu Pora Narote, who died in August 2022, Mahesh Tirki, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vinay Nan Tirki, Live Law reported[5]. Saibaba has been accused by the prosecution of working with Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), believed to be a frontal organisation for the banned Communist Party of India (Marxist).

The decade long battle for justice for Saibaba was marked with particular apathy even brutality by the Nagpur jail authorities given the fact that Saibaba is 90% disabled and suffers from several comorbidities. His incarceration was thus marked by consistent failure by jail authorities to provide him adequate health support. Sabrang India had reported repeatedly in 2020, 2021 and 2022 how his exasperated lawyer, Akash Sorde had publicly told the Nagpur jail superintendent that “the staff even refused to accept warm caps, a handkerchief, towel, napkin, T-shirt, a medical hand weight that Saibaba needs for physiotherapy and shampoo. ‘Given the bone chilling cold that whole of Nagpur is facing at the moment, I fail to understand how else do you expect my client to save himself from cold,’”. Reportedly, he is suffering from 19 medical ailments.

The incarceration had caused international outrage with the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commission had issued the statement concerning the inhumane detention of Saibaba, the statement read, “‘Mr. Saibaba has been detained in a high security ‘anda barracks’ in conditions incompatible with his status as a wheelchair user. His 8×10 feet cell has no window and one wall made of iron bars, exposing him to extreme weather, especially in the scorching summer heat,’”.[6] In the meantime, he was also removed from his post of assistant professor from Delhi University’s Ram Lal Anand College in 2021.

The labyrinth of trial: How the process became the punishment

GN Saibaba along with other accused were first convicted in March 2017 by the Sessions Court at Gadchiroli District under Section 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Session Court judge Suryakant Shinde wrote in his order that “It is proved that accused No.1 Mahesh Tirki, no.2 Pandu Narote and no.4 Prashant Rahi in pursuance to the  criminal conspiracy with accused no.3 Hem Mishra and no.6 Saibaba were found in  possession of naxal literatures, pamphlets, letters, correspondence, audio­video, electronic material which were to be used for inciting the people to create violence to cause public disorder and accused no.1 Mahesh Tirki, no.2 Pandu Narote and no.5 Vijay Tirki were receiving the members of banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and its frontal organization RDF and were taking them safely and secretly to forest area within the Gadchiroli district to meet absconding underground naxals”[7]. All the accused except Vijay Tirke received life imprisonment sentences, Tirke received rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.

In March 2016, when the trial was still ongoing at Gadchiroli Sessions Court, the Supreme Court granted bail to Saibaba on medical grounds and reprimanded the Maharashtra government for opposing his bail plea after his bail application was rejected by the Bombay HC and said that the State has been extremely unfair to the accused to oppose his bail, especially given his medical condition[8]. Due to his deteriorating health conditions, the Bombay High Court had earlier granted him interim bail from June 2015 to December 2015 to receive medical treatment.

These orders may be read here.

Despite these orders by the High Court of Bombay, Saibaba had to consistently suffer due to lack of proper care being provided by the Nagpur Central Jail authority and it became a battle in itself to secure bail when charged under stringent UAPA law. The SC bench led by Justice J S Khehar while hearing Saibaba’s bail plea in February 2016 had directed the Maharashtra government to provide adequate amenities to Saibaba, it ordered the State, “We want you (state) to make him comfortable. Tell us how you will make him comfortable. You cannot have him in solitary confinement,” Indian Express reported.

These Orders may be read here:

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 249/2016, Item No.44

Responding to Saibaba’s conviction in 2017 under the UAPA case, his lawyer Rebecca John had noted that UAPA turns mere thought into crime, the trial court had held that he was a Maoist, and accused him of idolising the Naxalbari uprising of 1967 and promoting and propagating communist ideology, Scroll reported. John was quoted as saying, “it seemed that the state was ‘trying to enter the mind of a person, into what his ideology is’”. Previously, his bail pleas were rejected by the Bombay HC in 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020 on the ground that offences were serious in nature, even while he was suffering from various medical conditions.

Small victory with the progressive Bombay HC verdict

For his immediate family and the larger community of advocates and human rights defenders, a sigh of release came on October 14, 2022 when the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court acquitted all the accused, including GN Saibaba of the charges under UAPA and set aside the Trail Court judgement for violating due process of law.

The order delivered by Justice Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare pointed out that, “In view of the findings recorded by us, we hold that the proceedings in Sessions Trials 30/2014 and 130/2015 are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, and the common judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, which we do order”. Section 45 (1) of UAPA requires prior sanction from the Central or State Government or the officer nominated by the concerned government to begin proceeding under UAPA. In the present case the prosecution had already arrested Saibaba under UAPA and the Trial Court had begun framing the charges of UAPA even before the sanction was granted on April 6, 2015. This not only violates the provision of UAPA, but also go against the rule of law and due process, both part of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The High Court pointed out that in the present case, issue related to both absence of sanction and absence of valid sanction. It directed the attention of the State to show that under UAPA, after the amendment in 2008, it was necessary that an independent authority reviews the evidence against the accused in an independent manner before recommending the sanction. The report prepared by this independent authority should be substantial enough to guide the prosecution to take the further call. This is the second count on which the sanction was found to be invalid, as the perusal of the report prepared by independent authority revealed that the report in no way aided the prosecution in determining whether the charges under UAPA were justified or not. The bench said that the report lacked application of mind and recorded that “sanction is not a ritualistic formality nor is an acrimonious exercise. Sanction is a solemn and sacrosanct act which lifts the bar and empowers the Court to take cognizance of offence. Sanction serves the salutary object of providing safeguard to the accused from unwarranted prosecution and the agony and trauma of trial, and in the context of the stringent provisions of the UAPA, is an integral facet of due process of law”.

The Bombay High court in this order had emphasised the importance of procedure safeguards, especially in the context of UAPA, and said, “…While the war against terror must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve, and every legitimate weapon in the armoury must be deployed in the fight against terror, a civil democratic society can ill afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided, and which is an integral facet of the due process of law, at the alter of perceived peril to national security. The siren song that the end justifies the means, and that the procedural safeguards are subservient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by the voice of Rule of Law”. The court dismissed the argument of the State that the infirmity in obtaining the sanction was curable, but remarked that “the rule against double jeopardy has no application if the trial is held vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction”. The Bombay High Court was careful enough to note that the order passed by this court is purely on basis of the procedural consideration and has no bearing on the merit of the case.

This detailed order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2017,

The victory that did not last

The Maharashtra government immediately challenged the Bombay High Court order acquitting the accused the very same day, and in a peculiarly hurried manner approached and succeeded with an urgent hearing in the apex court on the same day. Appearing for the state government, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to stay the acquittal order of the High Court.

Though the Supreme Court did not issue a stay order the same day, it nonetheless urgently listed the matter next day (Saturday) on October 15, 2022 before the bench of Justice M R Shah and Bela Trivedi.

The move raised the eyebrows, as Saturdays are non-working days for the Supreme Court, and the urgency shown was clearly to obstruct the liberty of citizens. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government of Maharashtra, argued that mere procedural lapse or irregularity in obtaining sanction cannot be the ground for granting bail if the accused were already convicted by the Trail Court based on merit and detailed analysis of the evidence on record. He referred to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to argue that the High Court could not have reversed or altered a sentence based on any error or irregularity in the sanction obtained to prosecute an accused unless it had considered whether the accused raised an objection regarding this irregularity during the original proceedings, SCC reported.

The Supreme Court, commenting on what it considered were the infirmities in the impugned order and thereafter observed that the Bombay High Court had not gone into the merits of the case, and acquitted the accused merely on the procedural grounds even though the accused (Saibaba) had argued the case on the basis of merits as well. The SC concurred with Mr. Mehta and said that further consideration is needed in this regard considering the provision of Section 465 of CrPC. Secondly, the SC order also suggested that since the Trial Court has already tried the case on the basis of merit and detailed analysis of the evidence (even if it has violated the procedural rules), it is safer to rely its judgement, at least in the interim, given the serious nature of the offences against “the sovereignty and integrity of the country”.

Thereafter, the SC quite unceremoniously suspended the Bombay High Court judgment acquitting the accused, while completely ignoring the violation of procedural safeguards and due process of law. Additionally, the bail plea for Saibaba was rejected alongside.

The SC finally set aside the High Court ruling on April 19, 2023, and asked it to reconsider the matter afresh, without commenting on the merits of the case. This judgement indeed proves that the maxim of “bail and not jail” remains completely upended for people charged under stringent anti-terror laws like UAPA.

This controversial order of the Supreme Court may be read here:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1184-1185 of 2023,

Acquitted for the second time on March 5, Professor GN Saibaba was released from the Nagpur Central Jail on March 7, by 12 noon.

[1] Prateek Goyal, “Disabled, Unwell but an Enemy of the State”, The Wire, 23 May, 2015. https://thewire.in/politics/disabled-unwell-but-an-enemy-of-the-state

[2] Amisha Shrivastava, “Bombay High Court Acquits GN Saibaba & 5 Others In Alleged Maoist Links Case”, Live Law, 5 March, 2024. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-acquits-gn-saibaba-5-others-in-alleged-maoist-links-case-orders-immediate-release-251271?infinitescroll=1

[3] “GN Saibaba’s lawyer claims Nagpur jail officials refused essentials he brought for him”, Scroll, 25 December, 2020. https://scroll.in/latest/982339/gn-saibabas-lawyer-claims-nagpur-jail-officials-refused-essentials-he-brought-for-him

[4] Sonam Saigal, “Five years on, no relief for jailed Delhi University professor Saibaba”, The Hindu, 9 May, 2019. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/five-years-on-no-relief-for-jailed-delhi-university-professor-saibaba/article27084472.ece

[5] “India must end inhumane detention of human rights defender GN Saibaba: UN expert”, OHCHR, 21 August 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/india-must-end-inhumane-detention-human-rights-defender-gn-saibaba-un-expert

[6] “GN Saibaba removed as assistant professor from Delhi University’s Ram Lal Anand College”, Scroll, 2 April 2021. https://scroll.in/latest/991267/gn-saibaba-removed-as-assistant-professor-from-delhi-universitys-ram-lal-anand-college

[7] S.C.No.13/2014 & 130/2015, https://gadchiroli.dcourts.gov.in/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?es_ajax_request=1&action=get_order_pdf&input_strings=eyJjaW5vIjoiTUhHQTAxMDAwMTYzMjAxNCIsIm9yZGVyX25vIjoxMCwib3JkZXJfZGF0ZSI6IjIwMTctMDMtMDcifQ=

[8] Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 249/2016, Item No.44, https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/courtnic/rop/2016/904/rop_570065.pdf

Related:

Dr. GN Saibaba hospitalised after his health deteriorates due to hunger strike

Wheelchair-bound paralysed prisoner GN Saibaba was on a hunger strike for 10 days!

Why did Nagpur Central Jail refuse to accept essentials sent for Professor Saibaba? 

On what basis has GN Saibaba been sacked from DU?

Prof. Saibaba’s health worsening after Covid-19: Wife Vasantha demands his release

Professor G N Saibaba tests Covid-19 positive in Nagpur jail

Release Prof. Saibaba NOW!

Concerned about GN Saibaba’s frail health after his hunger strike: Vasantha Kumari

Wheelchair-bound paralysed prisoner GN Saibaba was on a hunger strike for 10 days!

The post GN Saibaba wheeled out of Nagpur Central Jail on March 7 two days after the Bombay HC resoundingly acquitted him & 5 others in Maoist links case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that this is not the first time that the government has employed these censorship tactics. Since the beginning of the protests, the union government has indulged in such mass censorship and mass withholding of social media accounts two other times too. (Can be read here and here).

The ones silenced:

Amongst the ones whose accounts have been withheld is journalist Garvit Garg, working for Gaon Savera, who had been covering the farmers protest from on-ground. Previously, the X accounts of ‘Gaon Sawera’, a page run by independent journalist Mandeep Punia had been withheld, as was Mandeep’s personal page. Gaon Savera is a prominent name supporting the farmers’ protest and had been arrested in 2020. It is also pertinent to highlight here that even in August of 2023, when farmers had been protesting to demand compensation for the entire north India region to deal with the crop loss owing to floods, similar undemocratic tactics were employed by the government against Gaon Savera. Then, the Facebook page of Gaon Savera had been blocked to stop them from covering the protest.

Garg spoke to the Wire on the issue and said that the government has blocked all channels of information dissemination and attacked a citizen’s right to freedom of expression. Garg stated, “It is not just an attack on freedom of expression but a professional loss for us. Independent journalists work very hard to gather factual news and sustain their work. We are being continuously targeted by the government. Earlier the government had withheld the official page of Goan Savera and that of its editor, Mandeep Punia. This time, they targeted me”.

Terming this as an effort of the government to muzzle every voice on the ground, Garg called this is as a bad precedent that has left the farmers and those supporting them with no option to provide reports from the ground. As per the report of the Wire, Garg said, “There is a total blackout of farmers’ protests news everywhere. See, we could not even share the information of the Delhi Chalo call of March 6 on social media. It is a dangerous precedent, even those working with bigger media houses will also be attacked. Right now, we do not even see any way of fighting back”.

As per the report, many farmers have claimed that the union government has also targeted those accounts which have been promoting the farmers’ cause since the 2021-21 farmers’ protest. In line with the same, the account belonging to Sheena Sawhney, a dentist and US citizen, who has been supporting the farmers’ protest since the 2020-21 protests, was also withheld. Speaking with the Wire, Sawhney said “We led a huge group of people in the US and campaigned against the farm laws. I remained in touch with all the SKM leaders like Rakesh Tikait, Balbir Singh Rajewal and others to mobilise people but nobody blocked my Twitter account then. Now, when the farmers’ protest has just started, the government withheld my X account, which basically hints at moles within the farmers’ groups who were sharing our information with the government”.

Such oppressive moves by the union government have also clarified that not only Indian citizens, but even people abroad are on the radar of the union government and their social media accounts are also not safe. But, Sawhney asserted that the employment of such tactics will not stop her from supporting the cause of the protesting farmers and she will continue to support them. She also alleged that with the 2024 general elections around the corner, the government is not willing to have such protests take place.

“I am not rattled by the government’s action. Even if the government did not retrieve my X account, I would make a new account and continue to raise [my] voice for farmers. I was trolled and labelled as a ‘Khalistani’ for supporting farmers but the government never took any action against the trolls and it hurts. I spoke for farmers earlier; I will speak even now”, she said.

As per the report, Sawhney provided that the supporters of the farmers’ cause will write letters to senators, council members and higher authorities in the US to gain momentum for the farmers’ protest. Sawhney said, “We will reach out to people in the US, UK, Canada, Australia. Interestingly, the BJP and RSS people who supported George Floyd’s protest in the US were questioning the farmers’ protest and the tragic killing Shubhkaran Singh”.

The report also provides the statement of Gurshamshir Singh, a lawyer-turned-independent journalist from Patiala, whose X account was withheld for the first time. As per the report, Singh alleged that the government is employing censorship tactics as it does not want any information about the farmers’ protest to reach the masses. Talking to the Wire, Singh said that “The Delhi Chalo call of March 6 is the biggest reason why so many social media accounts were blocked in India. It has almost become a modus operandi of the government to block social media accounts whenever they see a potential of mass mobilisation”.

According to Singh, the union government is able to take such bold authoritarian steps in a democratic country without providing any explanation as no one is questing them. Singh said “The government knows that nobody is going to hold them accountable for this action, hence such emboldened actions. It is also an attempt to create a fear psychosis among people related to the farmers’ protest in the country. It is sad that the country was heading towards an authoritarian regime and in case you are from Punjab, you are more prone than others.”

Among others, Samita Kaur, an independent researcher from Chandigarh working for farmers and who was also running a campaign titled ‘We support our farmers’ was also targeted. Talking to the Wire, she said “We have been simply sharing news of the farmers’ protest. This time, the government was also targeting those accounts who were using the hashtags of farmers’ protest. We had just shared an article of the Human Rights Watch on the KMM page, after which our account was withheld”. Notably, Kaur had also spearheaded the ‘No farmer, No food’ campaign along with her peers in Chandigarh.

Kaur also expressed concern over the fact that farming was going to the corporations, against which the farmers have been leading this fight. Kaur said, “The corporations want to control and change the eating habits of the people. They want to decide what we are going to eat, hence the fight between the farmers and the corporates/government”.

Blocking social media ‘modus operandi’ of Modi government: Farmer leader

Farmer union leaders have showed no shock at the withholding of the social media accounts ahead of their planned march. Rather, they have termed the same to be the ‘modus operandi’ of the Modi government, where social media accounts were being repeatedly withheld in bulk whenever they gave a call to move to Delhi.

Speaking to The Wire, farmer union leader Gurpreet Sangha said that overnight, around 100 social media accounts belonging to farmers, farmer union leaders and people supporting the protest were withheld in India. Sangha also provided how his own accounts have been withheld three times since the beginning of this protest. Sangha said, “Till date, the government has withheld my three X accounts, which I made after each one of them was blocked in India”.

Sangha said that the union government does not want the voices of the farmers to reach the masses and these attempts of suppression are being employed out of fear. As per the report, Sangha said “The [Union] government’s message is clear: that they will not even let the farmers speak, leave alone the debate of right or wrong. Basically, the government fears the farmers’ protest that is why they were banning social media accounts. Even killing its own people should be the last resort of any regime, but either in panic or in despair, the government has misacted big time.”

Referring to the March 6 Delhi Chalo call, Sangha said that whether it is 100 farmers or 10,000, they will simply reach Jantar Mantar in Delhi and sit there in protest. As per the report, Sangha said “It is a purely organic announcement, where farmers from the rest of the country other than Punjab and Haryana would lead the protest”.

Sangha also provided that they will be taking legal recourse against the withholding of accounts and said, “We have decided to approach the Supreme Court in this case. Our legal team was working on it”,

Meanwhile, the legal team of the KMM, led by its coordinator, advocate Akhil Chaudhary from the Rajasthan high court, and Anjali Sheoran from the Punjab and Haryana high court, said in a statement that some social media accounts were blocked on the instructions of the Union government.

“We see this as a violation of our freedom of expression and plan to challenge it in the Supreme Court. We have urged all affected individuals to join our petition and contact our team for necessary paperwork, including signing the vakalatnama and completing other formalities”, the Wire report quoted Chaudhary.

Visuals of security beefing up at the border:

Images and videos showing tightened security of the Delhi Police at Tikri, Singhu, and Ghazipur borders have emerged on social media. As per a report of the Times Now, metro and railway stations is also seeing beefing up of security ahead of planned farmer protests in the Delhi. As per the report, high vigilance is being maintained at crucial transit points such as railway stations, metro stations, and bus stands, and this heightened security posture may result in increased police checks across the city.

VIDEO | Farmers’ protest: Security tightened at Delhi-Haryana #Tikri Border in view of farmers’ planned Delhi march. #FarmersProtest

(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvqRQz) pic.twitter.com/KJbQpqzDxT

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) March 6, 2024

STORY | Farmers Protest: Commuters must prepare for traffic jams, say police; security mounted

READ: https://t.co/z6kBca8zN3#FarmersProtest

(PTI Photo) pic.twitter.com/sLC4zIpjrL

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) March 6, 2024

VIDEO | Farmers’ protest: Security remains tightened at Delhi’s Ghazipur border.

Earlier this week, the farmers had called to march towards Delhi from March 6 to press the government to fulfill their demands.#FarmersProtest pic.twitter.com/qkperoHULm

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) March 6, 2024

Related:

Farmers protest: Documentary ‘Kisan Satyagraha’ barred from Bengaluru film fest

Farmers protest: “The law is clear on internet suspension” Court asks state government to submit internet suspension orders

Farmers’ March: Police threatens protesters with cancellation of passports and visas

Farmers protest: Death of a farmer after teargas shells dropped by Haryana cops, protests intensify as 77 SM accounts banned by MEITY/MHA

Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices

The post Day 23 of Farmers March: Mass withholding of social media ahead of march to Delhi, third time since the beginning of the protest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP’s 2023 Assam Story

End 2022 early 2023

The case of 68 year-old Ajibun Nessa was referred by the S.I. (Border) of Goalpara district in Assam. The officer, who suspected Ajibun Nessa of being a foreigner did so simply because she failed to present any documents during the “spot inquiry.” Following this, (without further probe or giving her any chance to make her case), the S.I. (Border) sent her case to Goalpara’s superintendent of police (Border). The S.P. (Border) then submitted the case to the IM (D) T Tribunal for further opinion. Due to the IM (D) T Tribunal (Act) being struck down, this case was referred to Goalpara Foreigners Tribunal No. 2 of case nos. GFT-2/764/22 and GFT-2/765/22, and a notice was issued to Ajibun Nessa.

The charge against victim Ajibun Nessa was that she unlawfully entered India between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971 or after March 25, 1971, and has been living there ever since, although this was completely incorrect and unsubstantiated. Even though, Ajibun, her father Abdul Sheikh, and her grandfather Rahamatulla were all born in the village Dabpara (Revenue village- Karipara Part 3) in Matia Revenue circle, District Goalpara, Assam, India. She was born and raised in the village of Dabpara (Revenue village- Karipara Part 3) in the Matia Revenue circle of the district of Goalpara, Assam. She also hails from the Goriya Muslim community and has already been identified as the “khilonjia,” or the Assam’s original inhabitants.

 CJP’s advocates submitted Ajibun’s written statement, along with the NRC list of 1951 that contained the name of her father, grandmother, and step mother before the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The CJP legal team further submitted a purchase deed dated May 6, 1954 and a copy of Khatian of Tea Estate dated November 29, 1961, both of which were in the name of her father, along with a certified copy of the voter list of the years 1966, 1971, 1979, 1985, 1997, and others necessary documents. All voters lists since 1966 record and show that Ajibun’s father, Abdul Shaikh was a registered and legitimate voter. Ajibun’s father’s name is Abdul Sheikh Rahmatulla and her mother’s name is Motijan Bewa. She stated, through CJP’s legal assistance at the Tribunal that her parents names are enlisted in the voter’s list of 1966, 1970, 1979 & 1985. Ajibun married one Abjel Ali S / O- Tofik Sheikh of Village- Bamunpara. P.S. Matia, Dist. Goalpara, Assam about 47 years ago and thereafter, her name is first time enlisted in the voter list of 1979 along with her husband as Ajibun Nessa W/o- Abjel of the 37th  Goalpara East L.A.C. in the voters list. Her elder brother, Amzed Ali, son of Abdul Shaikh Rahmatulla also deposed that Ajibun was his younger sister.

In addition, as Exhibits, CJP’s lawyers annexed the Karipara Gaon Panchayat’s Linkage (Police Station Matia, district Goalpara) Certificate that recorded that Ajibun is the daughter of Abdul Shaikh. This certificate has been signed by Secretary Karipara, Gaon Panchayat and countersigned by BDO, Matia Development Block. This was accepted by the FT as a Linkage document. Annexed also is Ajibun’s own PAN Card which was accepted by the FT as a supporting document. The Voter’s Lists of 1979 and 1985 that reflect Ajibun’s own presence as a registered voter were accepted as evidence after the copies were verified with a certified copy of the original. One set of documents established her father, Abdul Shaikh’s legitimate Indian Citizenship, witnesses and the linkage certificate established hers, Ajibun as in fact as the daughter of Abdul Shaikh and then finally her own documents of identity established her as Ajibun who is an Indian Citizen. After two months of hard work put in by the CJP Team, Ajibun Nessa being declared an Indian citizen, in a relatively short amount of time. After six years of gruelling work creating para legal history and jurisprudence, CJP’s legal and paralegal team have been consistent in the quality of evidence they produce, Written Statements (WS) submitted and witnesses produced.

This order was passed on December 29, 2022 and copies made available some months later.

The order may be read here:

February 2023

Ramila Begum

With Ramila’s parents and grandparents both born in the Jotsorobdi village, Goalpara (now under the Krishnai police station in Assam, both her parents and grandparents were and are citizens by birth. She also belongs to the Goriya community, which has been designated by the Assam government’s cabinet as an indigenous Muslim community. Yet a person like her, unassailingly Indian, still received the dreaded notice from a Foreigner’s Tribunal (FT).  Deeply distressed, she approached and received assistance from CJP’s paralegal and legal team in Assam. Advocate Ashim Mubarak of the CJP legal team handled this case before the FT. The notice asking her to prove her citizenship was received by Ramila, her husband and step-son too.

Ramila’ parents, Late Kofur Ali @ Fokir Ali Sheikh and Late Kosiron Bibi, were from the Jotsorobdi village in Goalpara district, now under the Krishnai police station in Assam, India. Her parents and grandparents were both born and raised in the same village, which meant that her parents and grandparents were all Indian citizens by birth.

Ramila married Jhanuddin Sheikh of village Milannagar Santipur, Borpahar, Goalpara district, on September 9, 1990, after her father passed away. Her name was then added to the voter lists for the years 1997, 2005, 2017, 2021, and 2022, along with her husband’s. Then began the rigorous battle to establish that she was Indian as under the Foreigners Order, 1964 arising out of the 1946 Foreigner’s Act the onus of burden of proof is on the individual, not the state making the accusation!

The accusation levelled against victim Ramila Begum is that she had illegally entered India. CJP’s legal intervention in the form of Written Statements, annexures of adequate documents and arguments established how the accusation was without foundation. We proved that the Investigation Officer (IO) had neither visited Ramila’s home nor even bothered to request any documents as proof of her citizenship and nationality. In sum, the IO did not conduct a fair investigation of the claims levied against her, and had falsely submitted a case against Ramila, without carrying out a proper inquiry or investigation.

In the eight months that her case was heard in 2023, CJP’s legal team presented to the Tribunal land deeds from 1965 and 1996, which were registered in the names of her father and uncle. Furthermore, it was established that the names of Ramila’s parents appear in the voter list, beginning from 1966, and after the death of her father, the name of her mother appears in the voter list from 1989 onwards.  Ramila also presented a linkage certificate issued on June 19, 2015 before the tribunal.

All these documents – that the IO should have examined without vicariously issuing notice and submitting hapless Ramila to the tortuous procedure before a Tribunal – were adequately presented and after eight months of hard work by the CJP team, Ramila has finally been declared an Indian citizen by the FT.

While the above narrative sounds simple and logical, a perusal of the six page order of the FT that list as many as 14 annexures that the CJP Legal Team submitted in the case to ensure successful determination tells its own tale. These included the land deeds in the name of her father and uncle, five separate copies from 1997, 2005, 2017, 2021, and 2022 of Voters Lists that find the name of her parents and husband and herself; death certificates of her parents, her marriage certificate, the linkage certificate in the form of the Village Panchayat/elders sworn affidavit proving her to be the progeny of her parents. The Secretary of the Manikpur Bhelakhamar Gaon Panchayat was also examined before the FT when the Kazi certificate on Ramila’s marriage to Jhanuddin was not found to be clear. Several of her family and extended family members were also examined in the demanding process.

The Order was delivered on February 2, 2023.

The Order may be read here:

February 2023

Hajema Khatun

Forty-seven years ago, Hajema Khatun was born in 1977 and was a resident of Garugaon Part-I village formerly part of undivided Goalpara and is now located in Bongaigaon District. She grew up in the same village and later married Julfikar Ali, settling with her husband and his family in Dankinamari village, Bongaigaon district. Hajema’s father passed away on May 20, 2017, while her mother, Jafiran Nessa (also known as Jafiran Begum) is believed to have passed away around the year 2014.

Distressed like many victims of the citizenship crisis in Assam, Hajema and her family turned to the CJP’s team in Assam for assistance. The case against Hajema Khatun was registered in 2007, but Hajema received notice of it only in 2020, after a lapse of 13 years, thereby exceeding the legal time limit for investigation. This unjust delay added to the already arduous journey for Hajema and her family.

The investigating officer (IO) responsible for the case submitted an inquiry report that were filled with falsehoods and unfounded claims against Hajema. Shockingly, the IO had, prior to this, failed to conduct a proper investigation and never even visited Hajema’s home or the residences of the alleged witnesses mentioned in the report. This lack of due diligence resulted in the inclusion of fabricated statements from Hajema and the supposed witnesses, painting an inaccurate picture of the case.

Furthermore, the IO failed to either seize or submit –before the Tribunal–any supporting documents, including passports or other relevant paperwork, to substantiate the claim that Hajema was a foreign national. The investigation process was marred by serious procedural flaws, with the IO neglecting to obtain a statement from Hajema herself and failing to issue any notices or provide an opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.

The crux of the legal battle in Hajema Khatun’s case revolves around her claim to be the daughter of the late Hazrat Ali Sheikh and Jafiran Nessa, and her assertion of Indian citizenship.  Hajema Khatun’s argument rests on the premise that her grandparents, Saraddin Sheikh and Sokina Bibi, were Indian citizens, and therefore, she too is entitled to Indian citizenship. The voter lists that the CJP team annexed with her Written Submissions (WS) prove that her grandparents were registered voters in the past, further bolstering her claim. Additionally, the land records from Garugaon demonstrate ownership of property by her father, Hazrat Ali Sheikh, affirming his Indian citizenship and establishing his relationship as her parent.

Besides this already sufficient proof, Hajema Khatun has also submitted various identity documents such as voter identity cards and a ration card, which serve as evidence of her own existence as an Indian citizen. These documents, along with the next of kin certificate, validate her relationship to Hazrat Ali Sheikh as his daughter.

 The historical records of Khatun’s family played a crucial role in shaping the court’s decision. Moreover, Hajema Khatun’s active participation in Indian electoral proceedings, alongside her husband, underscored her citizenship and integration into the democratic process. Finally after looking at all the evidence, annexures and witness statements the Tribunal found the evidence in favour of Khatun’s citizenship compelling and conclusive. Advocate Dewan Andur Rahim, and Advocate Sahidur Rahman appeared for Halima Khatun with the long-awaited FT judgement copy.

The Order was passed February 3, 2023.

A copy of the Order may be read here:

February 2023

Sukur Ali

In the first quarter of 2022, CJP’s team Assam was informed through its wide community volunteer network of the notices received by Sukur Ali, a citizen and voter of India, from the Bongaigaon Foreigners Tribunal. Bongaigaon is a district of Assam located north-west of Guwahati. His was a family living in acute economic distress with a mother with a severe disability. CJP took up the case.

How and why did the FT at Bongaigaon serve this notice? Without any proper investigation, an ‘inquiry report was submitted” to the tribunal wrongly alleging that  that Sukur Ali of the Bongaigaon district of Assam was a migrant (read “suspected foreigner”) from Bangladesh. Ironically this report was arbitrarily written without the investigating officer even visiting the home of Sukur Ali. Neither did he visit the home of any village “witnesses” or submit any supportive documents that would support the fallacious inquiry’s claims. As has not become a routine practice with the Assam Border police, the IO had therefore falsely written/recorded the statements of the opposite party and the so-called ‘witnesses’, without even questioning them, submitting a false inquiry report.

Sukur and his story is a fitting example of those Indians who are oppressed by state functionaries. Sukur, born and brought up in India, was the only son of Abdul Jalil @ Abdul Jalil Sheikh and Majiran Nessa @ Majiran Bewa. He was born in the village of Kawadi No. 2 (Sonaikhola) under the Manikpur police station of the Bongaigaon district in 1981. He grew up in the same village. Notably, Sukur is also a regular voter. It was only after careful verification and investigation that the Election Officer of the concerned area recorded/enrolled his name in the Electoral Roll. Since, only Indian citizens can have their names added to the electoral roll, no doubt should even have arisen regarding his citizenship. Additionally, his parents and grandparents are both Indian citizens, thus, making him an Indian citizen by birth.

Presenting Sukur Ali’s case, CJP’s legal team presented hard data to show that Sukur is Indian by birth with his name contained in the 1951 NRC. Besides, the name of Sukur Ali’s late father, Abdul Jalil Sheikh, was also present on the 1966 voters list. Additionally, Sukur’s mother was still a voter (in 2022 when we got the case). When it came to land documents, however, there appeared to be some sort of family feud. Despite the fact that they had some land documents, one of Shukur’s relatives had taken possession of all of them and had refused to part with them. After enlisting local community support on this issue, the team began with the process of arranging for a bailor. This is because, according to the rules of the Bongaigaon Foreigners Tribunal, a bailor is required for the preliminary level hearing of FT cases. After locating a bailor with a request for his own documents, CJP worked with the village community to ensure that Sukur Ali was provided with local, moral support during the proceedings.

Such rigorous and seemingly extraneous community level paralegal work is required since often unexpected issues and hurdles crop up at the Foreigners Tribunal hearing stage. Otherwise legally unacceptable terms like ‘projected father’ or ‘projected mother’ are used by authorities including in orders of the FTs. If the process if not monitored with legal acumen, diligence and honesty, for differences/changes in small spelling errors or date differences, a person can be unilaterally declared a foreigner!

CJP’s legal team had to prepare a competent and comprehensive written statement. Here we were confronted with the (change in name) of Sukur Ali’s mother after the death of her husband from ‘Majiram Nessa Khatun’ to ‘Majiram Nessa Bewa” a practice within the local Muslim community. This had to be established and explained thoroughly in the Written Statement before the Tribunal.

Finally in the WS (Written statement) submitted, the legal team enunciated the case clearly, “The IO of the case did not seize and submit any documents, such as the passport or any other relevant documents, along with an inquiry report to substantiate their claims of the opposite party (Sukur) being a foreign national.” Moreover the WS clarified that in this case, the IO never recorded any statement from the opposite party (Sukur). “Thus, it would not be a reach to say that the names of the witnesses tagged with the case record are nothing, but an attempt to build a false case against the opposite party.” It was also pointed out that during the time of investigation the I/O of this instant case had not even issued any notice to the opposite party for appearance or produced any documents to prove the citizenship of the opposite party, as is the due process of law.

Finally, within a year, and hard untiring work by the CJP legal team, Sukur Ali was declared Indian.

The Order was delivered on February 16, 2023.

The Order may be read here:

March 2023

Usman Ali

Despite the prevalent notion in law of res judicata (the principle that a cause of action may not be re-litigated once it has been judged on the merits), no just norm or law applies to the hapless marginalised communities in Assam. After being a “suspected foreigner” and then “declared Indian by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) way back in 1999 after he had all the necessary documents— again in 2018 two more separate cases were filed against him all over again. First in the year of 1997 when an IM(D)T[1] case was registered against Usman, simply based on “doubts” Usman dug his heels in, fought for and finally, received justice. After a thorough examination of his and his father’s documents, the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) of Goalpara district dismissed the case against him in 1999, and the tag of illegal migrant was removed.

“Jorimuddin Sheikh, father of Usman was listed in SL no 1 in village Khariabari under the PS Bijni as per the NRC of 1951,” the Tribunal stated clearly in the order copy. The Tribunal also discovered that his father’s name was recorded under the 42 Abhayapuri LAC in the 1966 voter list. As a result, the issue of illegal migration or those who arrived in India after March 25, 1971 does not arise. That was the earlier Order in 1999. But his ordeal did not end there. Again, in 2017, 18 years later, he was again sent a notice via the border of the local police station to prove his citizenship once more. Two identical cases were filed against him, with the case numbers BNGN/FT/CASE NO. 1396/09 and BNGN/FT/CASE NO. 51/10.

The legal issue –left unanswered – can the tribunal send a man a suspect foreigner notice even after he has been declared an Indian not once, but twice by the same agency, the FT? Is it only in Assam that an Indian, a Muslim who was declared Indian by a Tribunal in 1999, be condemned as an illegal immigrant/foreigner and tested three times? Under the guise of the Assam citizenship test, the Assam Foreigners Tribunal and border police continue to follow arbitrary mal-practice targeting the innocent and marginalized, affecting their right to life (Article 21) with equilibrium and without repeated harassment, equality before the law (Article 14) and a life without discrimination (Article 15). Pertinently who will provide reparation (compensation) for the 24 years, two dozen years, of continual harassment by the State?

Hence, Usman Ali, a daily wager, has had to go through the arduous process of the Foreigner Tribunal no less than three times in Assam. A daily wage earner, he was born in the village of Barbakhra, which was then part of the Bijni Police Station and is now part of the Bongaigaon district’s Manikpur. Jorimuddin Sheikh, his father, was also a son of this soil. Jorimuddin Sheikh’s name had even appeared in the 1951 NRC. However, in later years, his name was recorded – as often happens in a bureaucratic slip in spelling – as Joshimuddin, Joshi, or Josim Sheikh. Determined to fight, he did and then with the help of his family, he was for the second time in his life, he was recognised as an Indian in his own country in the year 2017.

Then came the third blow! In May 2022, Usman was, for the third time, accused of being a suspected foreigner. In the inquiry report filed in his case, the investigating officer of the case had, without even looking into the previous back ground and speaking order of the FT in 1999, without therefore properly investigating the case, falsely alleged that he is from East Pakistan (Bangladesh). While doing so, the I/O of the case never once visited his home or the homes of the so-called witnesses, as mentioned in the inquiry report.

The I/O had simply and falsely written/recorded the opposite party’s and so-called witnesses’ statements without questioning them, and then proceeded to submit a false inquiry report. Arbitrary action? It was then that Usman then contacted the ground team of the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) team, working tirelessly in 19 districts. He explained his case: that this foreigner notice is the third such notice that he has received, and he has dealt with this twice in the past too.

In the arguments made before the FT, a member of our CJP legal team stated unequivocally that Usman is Indian by birth. According to the written statement (WS) submitted, it was mentioned that “The I/O of the case did not seize and submit any documents, passport or any other documents along with inquiry report in connection with the above-mentioned case to prove the opposite party as a foreign national.” To substantiate that the case’s I/O submitted a false inquiry report against the opposing party, the CJP legal team highlighted that in the inquiry report, the I/O of the case did not disclose the interrogation report or the address of the foreign national. It was further provided that the I/O seized no documents from the opposing party that could be used to prove that the opposing party is a foreign national.

The CJP’s legal team also emphasised in their arguments that the I.O. in this case never accepted any statement from the opposing party (OP that is Usman Ali). The names of the witnesses attached to the case record served the purpose of only making a false case against the opposing party. During the investigation, the I.O. of this case did not issue any notice to the opposing party to appear or show any documents to prove the opposing party’s citizenship as required by law. After these elaborate and substantive submissions, CJP has now been able to claim Usman’s citizenship for the third time.

[1]The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 was a legislative attempt to correct the rapacious test of citizenship in force under the Foreigners Order of 1964 and the Foreigners Act, 1946 but was struck down by the Supreme Court in Sarbanda Sonowal v/s Union of India in 2005.

The Order may be read here:

March 23, 2023

Anowara Khatun born and brought up in the village of Nagajan under Kharupetia Police Station, Darrang District, Assam had to face an eight month long process before the Foreigner Tribunal of Darrang. She had all the documents, even her father and forefathers names were in the voter list of 1966, 1971 and 1989. However, due to a small error in her father’s name led her into the clutches of the legal citizenship imbroglio. CJP’s legal team member Advocate Abdul Hai and DVM of Darrang District Joinal Abedin worked intensely to collate and produce documents along with her existing family members, namely her brothers, as witnesses. Misspelt names and having to move due to soil erosion nearly left Anowara Khatoon stateless.

Anowara Khatoon, a resident of Assam who had been unjustly served a notice and accused of being a foreigner by a Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) in Darrang District, was born and brought up in the village of Nagajan under Kharupetia Police Station, Darrang District, Assam, Anowara’s journey to reclaim her identity has been long and arduous. She comes from an impoverished household, and she and her family have no socioeconomic resources. Her husband earns a living as a cart driver. Her father, Asaruddin Deu, cast his vote in 1966 and 1970. Her mother’s name is Moiful Nessa, and she passed away a while ago. In 1988, due to the erosion of their original village, Satrakanara, by the Brahmaputra River, Asaruddin Deu and his family were forced to relocate to Nagajan, where they have since settled permanently. Anowara and her family have been residing there and participated in the 1989 elections as legitimate voters.

Anowara, along with her own substantial set of documents, including the 1997 voter list, Aadhaar card, and land documents, submitted everything she had to prove her Indian citizenship. When she received notice of being a suspected foreigner, Anowara was stunned and in shock; she could not eat or sleep for days. Being economically and socially disadvantaged, Anowara sought legal representation after receiving the notice from the Foreigners’ Tribunal. CJP’s legal team presented a robust case based on documents of Anorwar’s parents as well as grandfather, along with other evidence they had painstakingly collected in the FT. CJP also facilitated evidence of two brothers of Anowara’s who took to the stand and testify as witnesses for her.

To disprove allegations of being a suspected foreigner, there was a hurdle. Her father’s name was registered differently in the voting lists of two different regions. Due to climate change, the river Brahmaputra is prone to floods. The river, when it shifts its course, often submerges existing villages and settlements. This presents a huge hurdle for people in Assam, because for the residents of the erstwhile submerged village, their village has sunk underwater. Several people every year are erroneously relegated as suspected foreigners due to this reason. Another hurdle was that Anowara’s father’s name was spelt differently in two voter lists. The difference between Asudeu and Assaruddin Deu that seems to be nothing more than a spelling mistake due to local dialects as well as due as a variation that often arises in documents due to haste and bureaucratic slips, even illiteracy. Often when making documents, especially in Assam, people who have no education depend on an officer or a bureaucrat in charge to spell and write out their name. This exercise, if performed mechanically or even indifferently, with no cross-checking with previous records can cause such bloomers: the same person gets a document with a changed spelling of their name, such as in the case of Anowar Khatoon’s father. This small error can cause someone to become potentially stateless. Women, as well as other marginalised communities, have been disproportionately affected by the citizenship crisis, and due to a lack of resources, have to face the brunt of the process, despite having documents to prove their residence in India since their birth.

Thereby, not only are Asudeu and Assaruddin Deu (as proven in the FT judgment later) one and the same person, given the presence of his name in 1966, 1971 and 1989 Voters Lists of the state, but moreover, he was not an illegal immigrant. Besides the legitimacy and presence of the mother of Anowara, Moiful Nessa in 1989 and 1997 Voters’ Lists irrefutably established her to be the daughter of legitimate citizens whose names were in the voting lists, and hence claims by the Assam Border Police in the notice that she was an illegal immigrant were categorically disproved. Based on this, the Foreigner Tribunal Darrang Mangaldai has held Anowara Khatoon to be an Indian rejecting the claims in the reference case made out by the Border Police.

Both issues presented a challenge to CJP’s legal team. Therefore, the legal team laboured intensively to produce documents along with her existing family members, namely her brothers, as witnesses. The team showed voter lists with Anowara’s parents’ names in them from multiple years and argued that her father initially resided in Baghbar but later relocated to the Darrang District. To substantiate her assertion regarding the citizenship status of her parents, the team presented voter lists from 1966 and 1970, respectively. These lists featured Anowar’s father’s name as Asudeu. Additionally, a copy of the 1989 voter list includes the name of Asaruddin Deo as a registered voter. The legal team argued that Asudeu and Asaruddin are one and the same. Upon comparing the 1966 and 1970 voter lists with the 1989 voter list, it was concluded that despite the difference in names, Asudeu and Asoruddin Deu this is the father of Anowara, much to her relief.

The Order was passed on March 23, 2023

The Order may be read here:

April 2023

Omesha Bibi

Omesha was born and brought up in the West Garo Hills, Meghalaya about 55 years ago. She

Is the daughter of Sopial Sheikh and Saleha bibi. On April 15, 1983, she got married to Mojaffar

Hosen, son of late Naibulla Sheikh of Village Dharai under Lakhipur police station Goalpara

Of Assam. Since then she has been a resident of Assam. However, she was served the Foreigner Notice for being a suspected foreigner. The case erroneously filed by the Assam Border Police relates in 2009, Omesha Bibi however received a notice from the FT at Goalpara in 2022 and heard in 2023. The Order declaring her an Indian was passed on April 10, 2023 and copies made available on May 6 of last year.

What did the arduous process entail? For CJP’s paralegal and legal team it meant counselling Omesha Bibi and her family, assisting in the collection of over two dozen documents, preparing a Written Statement (WS) and making oral submissions before the FT. Advocate Ashim Mobarak from CJP’s team appeared in the case.

Omesha Bibi’s story, like all others in Assam, is unique. Omesha with the legal assistance of the CJP team established that her grandparent’s name were L.t. Asmatulla Sheikh and L.t. Sakila Khatun @ Sakila Bibi and parent’s name are L.t. Sopial Sheikh @ Sofial Sk @ Sofial Saikh @ Sofiar Rohman @ Sofial Seikh and Saleha Bibi. That, her father has been recorded in the NRC of 1951 of Village Takimari under Lakhipur police station in the Goalpara district of Assam. As in many of the cases who’s citizenship has been unjustly targeted by the state, it was only due to the natural calamity caused by erosion of the Brahmaputra that her grandfather along with father had been shifted in to the village of Haribhanga in the village of Takimari that is within the Phulbari police station area of Meghalaya in the West Garo Hills.

Born here, Omesha Bibi got married to Mojaffar Hosen, son of Naibulla Sheikh of the Dharai village in the Goalpara district of her Assam and her name, along with her husband’s is even recorded in the voter list of 1985,1997,2005,2015 & 2021.

In the course of the hearing and submissions that include the WS of Omesha Bibi had to, with CJP’s assistance ensure that her mother, Saleha appeared as a witness to establish that she, Saleha, wife of Sofial Sheikh from Haribhanga village of Meghalaya was in fact Omesha’s mother and that the latter was brought up by her mother and father, after which she got married to Mojaffar Hosen, son of Naibulla Sheikh of Goalpara, Assam. The mother steadfastly denied and proved that her daughter was not a foreigner who had come to India from Bangladesh after 1971. Her brother, namely Abdul Salam Sheikh, also from Meghalaya had to appear as defence witness who had to depose and assert that Omesha was in fact his younger sister, born to the family living in Meghalaya and denied the allegation that she was from Bangladesh. Another defence witness was Mantaz Ali, from Dhubri, Assam, who testified on Omesha Bibi’s marriage to Hasen, son of Nayeruddin of Dharai village and also verified the Kabin Nama, which is the marriage certificate with signature of the Kazi that was also annexed. One Jel Haq Fesku Sorkar from Haribhanga Village in Meghalaya was also brought in by CJP as defence witness for Omesha Bibi to prove the Gaon Bara Certificate that was issued by him and carried his signature. Finally, a defence witness, Kamala Kantra Ray from Dhubri in Assam was brought in to establish and prove the land deed recorded in possession in January 18, 1962 (Khaitan) that proves that Omesha Bibi’s father Asmatullah  Shaikh had land (3 bigha, 3 katha, 3 lecha) here before the flooding of the Brahmaputra and shift of residence to Meghalaya.

The order records the facts and background of the case and how, while the names of Omesha Bibi’s father and grandfather figure in the 1951 NRC Enumeration from Goalpara, Assam but due to the erosion of the Brahmaputra village, were settled in Haribhanga (Police Station Phulpari), West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Both her and her husband’s name figure in the Voter’s list from 1985 to date.

In the long and onerous list of documents meticulously collected collated by CJP and presented to the FT were: 1985, 1997, 2005, 2015, 2021 certified copies of the Voters List, an original copy of the 1951 NRC enumeration, land documents from Meghalaya and Assam, death certificate of Sofial Shaikh, father of Omesha Bibi, the 1981 Kabin Nama (Muslim Kazi Marriage Certificate of Omesha Bibi dated April 15, 1983, the Gaon Bara Certificate from Haribhanga Village, West Gharo Hills, Meghalaya. It took the CJP team eleven months to finally get the Order that declared Omesha Bibi an Indian citizen by the FT.

Not only the collection and filing of such disparate documents but the physical presence of so many Defence Witnesses for a hapless woman, that too from Meghalaya a fair distance away shows the demands made on the CJP Team to ensure a successful outcome for Omesha Bibi.

The Order declaring her an Indian was passed on April 10, 2023.

The Order may be read here:

June 20, 2023

Taijuddin Ali

Taijuddin Ali, a 49 year-old, physically challenged person from the Salabila village under Bongaigaon district was not also spared from the Foreigner Tribunal of Assam. “Suspected” of being an “illegal immigrant” Taijuddjn, who has 60% of disability and cannot easily move anywhere was taxed by the authorities to access and submit documents and evidence, difficult to obtain. With the support of CJP and its legal team, all the necessary documents were assembled to prove his Indian citizenship, a battle that took a gruelling two long years.

Taijuddin Ali is an Indian citizen by birth having been born to Kashem Ali and Surjiya Bibi in 1974 in a village which comes under the Bhandara police station area, which is now part of Manikpur in Bongaigaon district. He was born and raised in the same village. His father passed away in 1977, while his mother is alive. In 2005, Taijuddin married Sahera Bhanu and they have four children. Due to the erosion caused by floods from the Manas River around 1983, as is the case for many poverty ridden people in Assam, Taijuddin’s family was forced to relocate from Bhandara to Salabila, under the jurisdiction of Manikpur Police Station. They continue to reside in the village of Salabila with their family members. Taijuddin Ali’s citizenship was first called into question when he received a notice from the Assam border police alleging that he was a suspected foreigner who had entered India from Bangladesh after March 25, 1971. Again in Taijuddin’s case as in the case of countless others, this “notice” was served without even the mandatory visit of the investigating officer (IO) or authorities to Taijuddin’s residence; without recording his statement or that of any other witness. Besides, as in several such cases, crucial documents including Taijuddin’s passport etc. were neither seized nor submitted as evidence to support the claim that he was a foreign national.

Further adding to the many shortcoming on behalf of the authorities, it was noted that the legal action taken against Taijuddin had lapsed due to the huge delay. For a while the case had initially been registered in the year 2000 Taijuddin received a notice only in 2021 after over two decades of inactivity.

Yet despite these lapses on the side of Indian (Assamese) officialdom, Taijuddin’s battle for justice came at a high personal cost. Suffering from severe health issues, including a 60% disability, he struggled to take care of his family of seven members. His income was also derived from a small paan shop at the local market further decreased as his health deteriorated which ended up forcing him to beg to make ends meet.

Despite the challenges, Taijuddin Ali was determined to fight for his rights. With the support of CJP and its legal team, he assembled all the necessary documents to prove his Indian citizenship and this struggle ended in a long-awaited victory and on September 21, 2023, the judgement declaring him an Indian citizen was handed over to him by CJP Assam’s state in-charge Nanda Ghosh and CJP’s legal team member Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim on behalf of CJP.

The Order is dated June 20, 2023.

Seje Bala Ghosh

Order passed on November 4, 2023

A breakthrough also came from the Bongaigaon Foreigner Tribunal in November 2023. This was the case of a now 70 year-old widow, Seje Bala Ghosh who’s case had made news in 2020 since she had been served a foreigners’ notice by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Bongaigaon. Being the daughter of a valiant freedom fighter, her father Lt. Digendra Chandra Ghosh, was a freedom fighter who corresponded with Chandra Shekhar Azad during the Indian independence movement and her mother had donated a huge sum to the Indian National Security Fund after selling her property, the now widowed Seje Bala had to suffer the indignity and trauma of “proving her citizenship” before the Foreigners’ Tribunal on March 21, 2020. Ironically, her father, Digendra Ghosh, was a refugee who moved to Assam from the Sherpur town in the erstwhile Maymonshing district of what was then called East Pakistan. According to the refugee registration certificate dated March 7, 1951, Digendra Chandra Ghosh, son of Padma, has been duly registered as refugee along with his four other family members. The refugee certificate bears the official seal and is signed by Deputy Commissioner of the then Goalpara District of Assam. Yet the ordeal for Seje Bala.

 It was three long years, physical impediments and mental trauma before she finally obtained relief. On November 4, 2023, the Foreigners Tribunal finally passed the final order declaring simply that, “Smti. Seje Bala Ghosh, W/O- Lt. Amulya Chandra Ghosh, D/O- Lt.Digendra Ghosh of village-Salbagan, W/No.2, Presently 10, P.S.-Bongaigaon, Dist Bongaigaon, Assam is not a Foreigner.” The jurisprudence this case has set is interesting: Seje Bala, on whom the onus under the Foreigners Tribunal Order of 1964 is to prove her “Indian citizenship” was able to produce sufficient documents (legacy documents) of her parents dated before January 1, 1966. All these establish that her father was a citizen of India. Besides, Seje Bala Ghose has produced three linkage documents that include, her own ration card, the linkage certificate issued by local Municipal Board and her OBC certificate. Out of these three linkage documents the tribunal did not accept the ration card nor the linkage certificate issued by local Municipal Board but did accept the OBC certificate.

The intricate details of Seje Bala Ghosh’s battle for justice, aided by CJP’s team in Assam over three years may be read here.

The Order along with the actual order declaring her Indian by the Foreigners Tribunal in November 2023 may be read here:

Other success stories for CJP

Sher Ali:

Sher Ali son of Lt.  Jahad Ali (@ Jahadali Sheikh @ Jahad Ali Sheikh) of Village no 2  Kawadi under Manikpur police station of Bongaigaon district, Assam is another victim of the citizenship crisis in which, in 2023, CJP battled his case before the Bongaigaon Foreigners Tribunal and finally ensured he was declared Indian in April, 2023. The order is still awaited.

Sher being the only earner of the family always worked hard to run the family. He was also ill for a long time. It was during this time that he was served with a notice to appear and defend himself in the court. It was a huge challenge for him to face and fortuitously due to CJP’s vast network and credibility, the three year long legal battle bore fruit. This is the fate of many marginalised groups, especially religious minorities, in Assam. For this case, we submitted certified copies of several documents from decades back, the year 1966. Along with these other documents, he has also submitted the Ration Card authorised by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) through which his advocate did his best to establish his linkage with the Ration Card.

Jamila Bibi:

Jamila Bibi @ Jamila Khatun aged about 52 years, is the wife of Sher Ali of No 2 Kawadi village under Manikpur police station of Bongaigaon Distict, Assam. CJP contested her case before foreigners’ tribunal and finally declared Indian by Bongaigoan FT on November 10, 2023. Her husband had been declared Indian in April 2023. The case had started in 2019 and for four long years the sword of statelessness hung over her existence.

In her defence, with the CJP team, she argued that she was the born in India and her father has well proven documents from voter list of 1966. Their names were recorded in the voter list from the Balarpet village Bongaigaon district. These, along with all land document were submitted along with several copies of certified copies of electoral rolls (in which she is a registered voter) of different years.  Finally, after an arduous and rigorous battle she was declared India,

Ramjan Ali:

Ramjan Ali (@Habijuddin son of Lt. Mulukchand Ali) and Hajera Khatun, who is about 55 years from Dangshiapara village under Bijni police station of Chirang District is also one of CJP’s success stories. CJP contested his case before Chirang Foreigners Tribunal and was finally declared Indian on March, 2023.

Ramjan was born in the year 1974 at the Malibheta village under than Kokrajhar now Chirang district. His father shifted from village Daranga to Malibheta in the year 1972 for a better livelihood. Shockingly some radical groups from Assam burnt their houses into ashes. Even through this tragedy, he saved the documents that ultimately helped establish his citizenship! It was then that they had taken shelter out of compulsion at a Government refugee camp for five-six years. Later they shifted to a refugee camp at Bangaldoba where they have stayed till 2010. Thereafter they shifted to their present village of residence.

Sarathi Arjya:

Sarathi Arjya @ Saruti Bala Arjya @ Saroti Arjya, born in No 2 Daranga, D/O- Lt. Subal Arjya @ Subal Chandra Arjya and  Rani Bala Das @ Rani Bala Arjya , W/O- Chandra Kumar Arjya @ Chandra Kanta Arjya of Jaraguri village under Manikpur police station Bongaigaon district Assam.  CJP contested her case before foreigners’ tribunal and finally declared Indian by Chirang FT in July, 2023.

Apart from all the troubles of this legal battle, this family has had to suffer from the worst flood condition in the village. Every year the village was inundated with water and life’s normal cycle paused for a few months. Summons to the t tribunal never stopped for helpless Sarathi, however. After two years of tribulations, and the sheer perseverance of team CJP, the strong will power of Sarathi justice was hers when she was declared Indian!

Ashad Ali and Rofikul Islam

Ashad and Rofikul, both brothers, are residents of Goalpara district of Milan Nagar village under Bhalukdubi Revenue village of Goalpara Police station. Both were targeted by the state in the name of citizenship. Their whole family has to suffer the tragedy on the issue. Their parents Ramila (step mother) and Lt. Jainudin SK has undergone through the same challenge.

Sadly, it was while Ramila was fighting her first case with the help of the CJP team, she was served a second FT notice in her name with all the other names of her family members i.e. her late husband and two sons Arshad and Rafikul. The family faced another round of trauma and huge mental pressure for the case. CJP’s team also appeared for the second notice and fought both cases parallel. After a long legal battle CJP won the first case which was only against Ramila. Later, in the second case, it was this judgement that was delivered on February 2, 2023, by which she was declared as Indian that was submitted in the second case and the CJP advocate argued the case in lines of the first. The first judgment which declared Ramila as Indian helped her son Ashad and Rafikul to also secure their fate as Indian on October 19, 2023. In the case of her husband, Jahanuddin Shaikh, the advocate submitted the death certificate to the tribunal.

Guwahati High Court setback

Meanwhile, on November 21, 2023, the entire jurisprudence painfully developed by victims of the citizenship crisis and legal aid groups like CJP received a setback with the Guwahati HC, while noting discrepancies in orders by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) directed “reviews” by the state government. This judgement could give vicarious powers to a state, already in the doc for an insensate attitude to the mammoth humanitarian crisis.

A bench comprising Justices Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Mitali Thakuria not only addressed Ali’s request for a review of the aforementioned Bongaigaon Tribunal’s ruling, but it also provided a severely critical assessment of the Foreigners Tribunal system, particularly its rather scattered operational procedures. Given this, the court instructed the Assam government to examine situations in which the Foreigners Tribunals determined an applicant’s nationality or immigration status without conducting a thorough study of the supporting documentation.

The aforementioned High Court ruling may have a further negative effect on the already suffering people of Assam, the majority of whom are being singled out due to their religious beliefs. While the High Court correctly observed there to be inconsistencies in the orders of the Tribunals, the ones on trial will now have to endure an additional round of bureaucratic scrutiny in addition to proving their Indian citizenship in these Tribunals. This step, especially in terms of the visible biasness showcased by this executive authority on many occasions, has created another loop of legal arbitrariness for the ones put to trial as well as those who have already sustained the trial as the High Court has granted the Assam government the power to “review”.

Jurisprudence

At the heart of the problem is a problematic base.

Despite the passage of seven decades since the independence of the country, the debate on citizenship is far from over. The recent engagement with the construction of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam, has again opened the flood gates of contestation on the citizenship question. Cardinal to this debate is the invocation of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 which are seen as the pillars for both the detection and deportation of immigrants. This analysis intends to examine some provisions of the legislations and in particular, Section 9 of the Act.

The Foreigners Act, 1946, a pre-independence era legislation was enacted for regulating the entry, presence and departure of foreigners into and from  India, section 2(a) of the Act defining a ‘foreigner’ to mean a person who is not a citizen. But, it is important to note that the Act, per-se does not prescribe any methodology for detection or any mechanism for identification of foreigners which makes the role of the foreigners’ tribunal cardinal to the understanding of the Act.

The formation of tribunals for the identification of foreigners only finds strength from the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order 1964 issued in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Act. The said order however, primarily leaves the procedure to be adopted for disposal of the proceedings to the discretion of the members. For a long time now, tribunals have been formed for the detection of perceived foreigners in the state of Assam, persons who are charged with illegally living in the state, perhaps for decades.

In actual fact, these ‘so called’ foreigners are mostly faceless human beings, without any apparent record of their “infiltration”. They are “charged” with having infiltrated predominantly from a specified territory, i.e. the present day Bangladesh. This charge is based on their ethnic character and their linguistic back ground even though such a similarity of both language and ethnicity is found from both sides of the border – in Assam/Bengal and Bangladesh. These ‘facts’ makes their ‘detection’ apparently more complex. These people, according to popular perception have entered India crossing the supposedly porous borders and have intermingled with the citizens of the country. We must remember, however that the borders are not entirely open and do not permit free entirely free access.

Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 has a very important bearing on the determinations made under the Act. In a nutshell, it stipulates that in a case not falling under section 8 of the Act, when there arises a question as to whether a person is a foreigner or not, the onus of proving that the person is not a foreigner is on the person concerned. Section 8 deals with the issue of determination of the nationality of two categories of foreigners (i) those having more than one nationality, (ii) those of uncertain nationality, by the central government. Section 9, therefore, by implication, excludes cases under section 8 and appears to pertain to foreigners, whose specific foreign nationality is attributable with a certain amount of certainty, but where the said foreigner disputes the allegation that he is a foreign national and claims to be citizen.

It is important to note that by definition the term ‘foreigner’ appears in Section 2 (a) of the Act, and means “a person who is not Indian Citizen”. Thus ‘foreigners’ in context of the statute appear to mean foreigners i.e. those who are not Indian citizens –on the face of it — without any requirement of elaborate exercise at identification, which becomes conspicuous by the absence of any detection machinery in the Act. It is also relevant to note that Section 9 does not deal with any question as to whether a person is an Indian Citizen or not, unlike Section 3(8) of the Immigration Act, 1971 which specifically refers to determination of a question as to whether a person is a British Citizen or not.  This distinction though very subtle can have wide-ranging ramifications on the scope and manner of application of the Act in question.

Read the entire article by an expert here arguing why Section 9 of the Act needs to be re-visited.

The post CJP Assam’s teams legal triumphs in 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These tactics of frequently intensifying state-censorship have an adverse impact on an individuals’ right to free speech and expression, guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. A post uploaded on ‘X’ by Alt News Fact Checker showed the number of ‘X’ accounts of ground reporters/influencers/prominent farm unionists covering Farmers Protest in India remain suspended in the country. Notably, most of these accounts are critical of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government.

A lot of X accounts critical of BJP Govt have either been suspended or withheld in India. Many influential X accounts of ground reporters/influencers/prominent farm unionists covering Farmers Protest in India are suspended too.
Sharing a few accounts. But there are many more X… pic.twitter.com/rfPR4EX18u

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) February 19, 2024

Farmer leader Sarwan Singh Pandher has accused the Union government of suppressing the voice of the people by employing such tactics. Reportedly, the government had suspended the accounts of around 70 YouTubers who were showing farmers’ protest. This suspension, along with imposition of internet bans and their continuation, ensures that on-ground reports from the protest sites do not reach the common people and it becomes easier for the state to spread disinformation. It is essential to note here that as per the latest notification, on the orders of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the suspension of internet services has been extended in certain areas of some Punjab districts, including Patiala, Sangrur and Fatehgarh Sahib, till February 24. Earlier, the internet services were suspended from February 12 till February 16 in view of the farmers’ ‘Delhi Chalo’ march.

As per a report in The Hindu Business Line, according to the Ministry’s February 16 order, internet services will remain suspended in areas falling under Shambhu, Julkan, Passian, Patran, Shatrana, Samana, Ghanaur, Devigarh and Balbhera police stations in Patiala; Lalru police station in Mohali; Sangat police station in Bathinda; Killianwali police station in Muktsar; Sardulgarh and Boha police stations in Mansa; and Khanauri, Moonak, Lehra, Sunam and Chajli police stations in Sangrur; and areas under Fatehgarh Sahib police station. The aforementioned powers to suspend internet had been invoked by the Union government under the Telegraph Act of 1885.

Meanwhile, in the state of Haryana, the ban on mobile internet and bulk SMS services in seven districts had been extended till February 20 in seven districts, namely are Ambala, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad and Sirsa. The government had earlier extended the suspension on February 13, 15 and 17. Now that the farmers’ have declared that they will be resuming with their protest on the morning of February 21, the suspension of internet will presumably also be extended.

In addition to suspending the accounts of those involved or supporting the farmers’ protest, the ‘X’ account of prominent Tribal leader Hansraj Meena, a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, was also withheld. Along with him, the ‘X’ account of Tribal Army, who frequently reports on atrocities taking place against Tribal in India, also saw its suspension.

A statement by Internet Freedom Foundation had been released regarding the imposition of internet bans and suspension of social media accounts. Through the statement, the organisation that works on digital rights had said that “Reports also indicate that X/Twitter accounts documenting protests and alleged human rights violations are also being withheld in India, purportedly due to legal demands under the IT Act, 2000. However, authorities haven’t disclosed these blocking orders, depriving individuals of the reasons for blocking and an opportunity to challenge their legality. This undermines both freedom of expression and the right to information. These actions reveal a disturbing trend of resorting to internet suspensions and online censorship in response to peaceful protests.”

With this, the organisation had urged for the unblocking of X/Twitter accounts of those who are closely documenting the protest and had also called upon the State Authorities to lift the ongoing internet suspension.

Related:

Farmer Unions reject Union’s proposal for 5 year contractual MSP on three pulse crops, maize, and cotton, calls it “eyewash”

Farmers Protest: Union proposes contractual MSP for 5 years for three pulse crops, maize, and cotton, no law on MSP; farmer union to decide

Day 5 of Farmers Protest: BKU (Ekta Ugrahan) holds sit-in protests outside houses of 3 Punjab BJP leaders, farmer leader Pandher demands Ordinance on MSP

Day 4 of Farmer Protest: Excessive state force at protestors leads to death of elderly farmer, first death to be reported as of now

Bharat Bandh: Nationwide strike by farmers sees highways blocked, toll plazas opened up, rallies held

The post Extension of internet bans, suspension of social media accounts: state action on farmers’ protest focuses on suppression of voices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Expressing grave concerns at the impact of the recently enacted law on journalistic activities, the EGI, established post-Emergency in 1978[1], The detailed representation explains how this law, ostensibly brought in to “protect data privacy” will, in fact bring journalistic activity to a standstill.

The representation points out that while the DPDPA does not address journalists or their activities, it regulates the underlying processing (e.g., collection, use, storage) of personal data that is inevitable in almost every instance of journalism.

The EGI statement states, “ The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 inadvertently endangers the freedom of the press 1.1 The DPDPA, while a laudable initiative towards protecting the personal data of individuals, if applied indiscriminately to the processing of personal data in a journalistic context, will bring journalism in the country to a standstill. This will have a long-standing impact on the freedom of the press, and the dissemination of information not just in reporting in print, TV, and the internet, but also the mere issuance of press releases by all parties including political parties. 1.2 The continued existence of the press – the fourth pillar of democracy – enables the dissemination of news, thoughts, and opinions and ensures a free and fair democracy. It informs public opinion, promotes civic engagement, and empowers individuals to make informed decisions including political choices. Its centrality is recognised by the Constitution of India (Constitution), which only permits reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

As the statement points out, the Srikrishna Committee Report also recognised these consequences in noting that the untrammelled dissemination of news, current affairs, and documentaries, especially when they inform, criticise, and analyse issues of public importance, is in the public interest.

Journalistic Conduct regulated by Press Council of India (PCI) norms

The protection of personal data in the course of journalistic activities is built into journalistic conduct, such as those issued by the Press Council of India (PCI), established under the Press Council Act, 1978, Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards released by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association. 6.2 Notably, the PCI prescribes safeguards in the context of communalism in the press and cautions against defamatory writings and objectionable investigative reporting, obscenity, and vulgarity in, for example, news stories, or feature reports.

Through this, journalists are barred from (i) intruding upon or invading the privacy of an individual unless outweighed by the genuine overriding public interest; (ii) tape-recording a conversation without that person’s knowledge or consent, except where the recording is necessary to protect the journalist in a legal action, or for other compelling good reason. Journalists are also required to (i) obtain the prior consent of a minor’s parent, if “public interest” overrides the minor’s right to privacy; (iii) to apply due care by not disclosing the real names of persons involved in incidents affecting personal lives; and (iv) refrain from publishing inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material. 6.3 Given that these codes of conduct, which apply to all journalists, achieve a balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy applying a second framework to the same processing activities, concerning the same personal data will only create duplicate compliance requirements, impose an unwarranted burden on journalists, and more importantly, impair free speech and expression. This is particularly true since these applicable codes of conduct for journalism provide a more tailored compliance regime in balancing the competing rights at hand.

Concerns over DPDP Act

The newly enacted DPDP Act requires individuals or entities that determine the purpose and means of processing such personal data outside a personal or domestic context, i.e., data fiduciaries, to meet various requirements (e.g., provision of notice and obtaining consent, erasure, etc.). These requirements are undeniably onerous in the context of processing for journalistic purposes. Given the nature of the profession and the implications for fundamental rights involved processing personal data for journalistic purposes is an ideal case and must be an exemption from the provisions of the DPDPA. The DPDPA requires all processing of personal data to proceed on the basis of either consent or certain legitimate uses (e.g., for employment purposes or in the case of a medical emergency) under Section 7 of the DPDPA, which is narrow and specific in nature. Processing personal data for journalistic activities will invariably fall outside these narrow buckets.

While certain journalistic activities involving interviews, collecting responses to questionnaires, etc., may be covered under Section 7(a) of the DPDPA, which recognises voluntary provision of personal data by the data principal, most other forms of journalism, such as investigative journalism, general news reporting, opinion pieces, analyses, etc., are still largely dependent on private research and investigative study by journalists, which is remarkably absent in the current list of legitimate uses.

Explains the representation, given this, journalists will invariably have to rely upon consent to process any personal data in the course of their journalistic activities.

In fact, the onerous nature of this requirement was critiqued in the Report published by the Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Srikrishna Committee) titled ‘A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians’ (Srikrishna Committee Report)/ The Committee, which prepared the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, noted that mandating consent for processing such personal data would be unfavourable, as the data principal could simply refuse to consent forestalling all such publishing. The fundamental role of the press and its ability to ensure transparency and accountability would thus be severely undermined by the data principal’s ability to simply refuse consent to the processing of their data.

As the EGI’s representation to MEITY points out, the Srikrishna Committee Report that accompanied the 2018 Bill, too, recognised that exempting journalistic activity from compliance with the 2018 Bill was necessary for greater public interest. Accordingly, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 (2018 Bill), prepared by the Srikrishna Committee, exempted processing for a ‘journalistic purpose’ from complying with all provisions of the 2018 Bill, except for the duty to process personal data in a fair and reasonable manner that respects the privacy of the data principal, and the obligation to implement reasonable security safeguards.³ The 2018 Bill defined ‘journalistic purpose’ as any activity intended towards the dissemination through print, electronic, or any other media of factual reports, analysis, opinions, views, or documentaries regarding:

• news, recent or current events; or
• any other information that the data fiduciary believes the public, or any significantly discernible class of the public, to have an interest in, which would be absolved from obtaining consent from data principals.⁴

 The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (introduced in the Parliament) and the Data Protection Bill, 2021 (prepared by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on data protection), contained similar provisions to exempt processing for journalistic purposes.

This position is notably consistent with other jurisdictions with data protection regimes that provide for exemptions from processing for journalistic purposes. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enables Member States to provide for exemptions or derogations from certain provisions (e.g., have a lawful reason or basis for using data, provide privacy information, comply with individual rights that people have about their data, etc.) of the GDPR for journalistic purposes and freedom of expression.⁵ Similarly, Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 provides an exception for news organisations to collect, use, and disclose personal data without consent solely for its news activity to collect, use, and disclose personal data without consent solely for its news activity.

Despite this, processing for journalistic purposes is not exempt from the obligations under the DPDPA.

It may be possible to argue that Section 17(1)(c) of the DPDPA, which permits processing in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any offence or contravention of any law, would exempt processing for a specific kind of journalism: investigative journalism. However, the lack of a broad exemption that applies to all journalistic activity (as envisaged under prior iterations of this law and international statutory frameworks) and the absence of any clear guidance for this exemption severely hampers the ability of journalists to investigate, report, and publish any articles or reports of journalistic import. It is, therefore, crucial that an exemption be made available to cover processing related to journalistic purposes.

Unfortunately, India will be the sole modern democracy without an exemption for journalistic activities, which could severely impair the fourth pillar of democracy. Moreover, India is currently ranked 161 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index maintained by Reporters Without Borders below other Asian countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, and risks falling further down in the ranking if the DPDPA is enacted in its present form states the representation.

The detailed representation may be read here:

[1] Editors Guild of India [“EGI”] is an organisation established in 1978 to protect freedom of the press and to raise the standards of editorial leadership of newspapers and magazines. Since it’s establishment, EGI have consistently defended the freedom of speech and expression of publishers and the right to information of the citizens of India.

Related:

Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild

FIR against editors, Prabhat Khabar, Editor’s Guild voices concern

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

The post Grave concerns on DPDP Act, 2023 as journalistic activities threatened: Editor’s Guild to MEITY appeared first on SabrangIndia.

EGI statement on attack against journalist Nikhil Wagle in the city of Pune on Friday pic.twitter.com/vZyIHYZTRR

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) February 10, 2024

Both the Press Club of India and the Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI) have vehemently condemned the assault on senior journalist Wagle.

Simultaneously, the NWMI has also highlighted how there is a concerning pattern of intolerance exhibited by the BJP towards journalists who dare to question the party. The use of brute force to stifle dissent, as witnessed in Wagle’s case, the statement argues, a part of the party’s unwillingness to engage in civilised debate.

NWMI has urged authorities to take immediate and urgent action against the culprits who organised the attack on Wagle. Moreover, the NWMI’s statement further described that the assault on Wagle is a manifestation of a broader issue which is the growing targeting of journalists in India for practising journalism.

We at @NWM_India strongly condemn the assault on senior journalist @waglenikhil in Pune on Friday, and extend unwavering support to him. This assault is further evidence of the BJP’s recurring pattern of intolerance toward journalists. https://t.co/penlDE661d

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) February 10, 2024

Meanwhile, news reports have further come in that there is another FIR filed against Wagle. The Indian Express has reported that this time, more people, which includes the organiser of the Nirbhay Bano event at the Rashtra Seva Dal premises in Pune are the subjects of an FIR. According to the report, a police constable named Aniruddha Anerao filed the FIR for allegedly violating a police notice. The FIR also has included members of different parties, including Dhiraj Ghate, the Pune unit chief of the BJP and with 250 party members, Arvind Shinde, the Congress party city chief, Prashant Jagtap from the Sharad Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party, and Sanjay More from Shiv Sena.

Related:

Nikhil Wagle, others attacked in Pune as police watches, meetings of Nirbhoy Bano gather large crowds

 Govandi slum demolition: Temporary halt after protests outside BMC office by residents, those rendered homeless to rebuild their homes at the same site

The Reign of Unfreedom: IIT-Bombay & the cancellation of the Dr Ganesh Devy lecture

The post Media fraternity stands with Nikhil Wagle after attack, EGI, PCI, NWMI release statements in support appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Farmers are coming back to Delhi to agitate for law on MSP. This will disrupt BJP’s dreams of an imminent third term.

pic.twitter.com/1GxhNrNRLO

— rkhuria2 (@rkhuria2) February 8, 2024

At present, there four protests are going on in the Gautam Buddha Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh. The Jai Jawan Jai Kisan organisation heads the protest against the Ansal builders, All India Kisan Sabha against Greater Noida Authority and Bharatiya Kisan Parishad at National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) headquarters in Sector 24 and Noida Authority in Sector 6.

All these organisations have together called a Mahapanchayat on Wednesday at the Greater Noida Authority office, where a decision was taken to march to Parliament on Thursday, demanding the resolution of their issues in a time-bound manner.

The farmers have two major demands. First, as compensation for their land acquired by the authorities for different developmental projects, they demand 10 per cent of residential plots for their families on the developed land.

The farmers also argue that most of their land was acquired making them landless. They ask how their families and future generations would survive even as the government boasts of development by taking their land.

Presently, the Noida Authority grants the farmers 5 per cent of the total acquired land, which they have termed insufficient. The Greater Noida Authority gives them 6 per cent of the developed plot while the Yamuna Authority gives them 7 per cent as land acquisition compensation.

In addition, farmers have demanded additional monetary compensation — amounts based on market rates when the land was acquired for different projects. The farmers allege that their land was acquired many years ago at a cheap rate and they are suffering even now as a consequence.

The farmers have also been demanding jobs and medical facilities for their families for the last several months. The Authority officials said they are in talks with farmer leaders and an amicable solution would be reached soon.

Massive Repression by UP Police

Meanwhile a press release  of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) stated that despite the fact that several leaders were put under house arrest, the protest was successful

 Farmers and landless from various villages under the leadership of All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) Gautam Buddha (GB) Nagar district committee, Bharatiya Kisan Parishad and other organisations began the rally on the Yamuna Expressway but were soon barricaded by the UP Police.

The repressive measures of the UP governmenthad started the night before when AIKS GB Nagar district president Comrade Rupesh Verma and convenor Comrade Veer Singh Nagar were arrested and taken to Dadri police station. District president of the AIKS, Jagbir Namberdar has been put under house arrest, along with other leaders. In a disproportionate manner, the UP police also stopped the people from Sadhopur village who were en masse joining the Parliament March and put them in an open jail in a public park. These incidents show the anti-democratic attitude of the UP government towards the rural population of Greater Noida states AIKS

Despite the repression, farmers were able to reach the Yamuna Expressway and are currently blocking the expressway at the police barricading. Their immediate demand is that the UP police must release the leadership as well as release the jailed farmers of Sadhopur village, which include women and elderly as well.

The farmers and landless of the region have been holding sit-in protessat the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and Noida Industrial Development Authority (NIDA) headquarters since 2023 demanding fair compensation according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 2013, return of 10% developed land, lease-back of acquired abadi land, permanent employment for affected families, 40 square metre plots for landless families, and other demands. After a 120-day protest by AIKS at GNIDA office last year, the CEO had accepted a number of these demands. But despite more than four months passing since, the UP government failed to implement any of the accepted demands. This has enraged the farmers who not only restarted their indefinite dharna at the GNIDA office but also gave a call banning entry of any political leader, MLA or MP associated with the BJP from entering the villages in Greater Noida.

The AIKS, through ots secretary, Vijoo Krishnan has demanded that all the arrested and detained be released from police custody immediately and that the UP government hold discussion with the leadership of the farmers.

Related:

Tractor parade by SKM on Republic Day in 500 districts, farmers to take pledge to protect the principles of democracy, federalism, secularism and socialism

To expose ‘lies’ of Narendra Modi-led BJP govt on MSP for rabi crops, farmers to protest during forthcoming state polls

SKM: Farmers to protest against union government’s attempt to undermine farmers’ protest through Newsclick FIR 

The post Farmers in Noida, Greater Noida are protesting, which are the farmer unions are leading them appeared first on SabrangIndia.