Declared a ‘foreigner’ by Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 10 in Nagaon on October 31, 2016 (Case FT(D) No. 24/2015), Matleb had managed to secure bail from the Gauhati High Court in February 2017. But in September 2024, the same court upheld the Tribunal’s declaration. He was detained and sent to the Matia Transit Camp — Assam’s largest and newest detention facility — on December 5, 2024.

For five months, Matleb remained incarcerated in this high-security detention camp, far from his home in Hojai. He was seriously ill for much of that time of detention— taken to hospitals several times, even admitted for 17 days before Eid. Yet, according to his family, he had no serious health issues before his detention. Whatever illness consumed him began only after he was imprisoned. Even as he deteriorated, his family was never provided with a single medical record — neither during his detention, nor after his death.

On the evening of April 17, 2025, the family received a call from Matia officials. Matleb’s condition had worsened, they were told, and they should come see him. Given the long journey — over 300 kilometres from Hojai to Goalpara — the family asked if they could leave the next morning. The officials agreed. But just a few hours later, around 1 a.m., another call came. Matleb had been shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH).

His wife, Husanara Begum, and her brother, Sarmul Islam, immediately left for Guwahati at 3 a.m. They reached the hospital by morning. But instead of finding Matleb under treatment, they were met with silence and evasion. It wasn’t until 3 pm — after hours of waiting and pleading — that Sarmul was allowed into the morgue. That is where he finally saw his brother-in-law, lifeless.

Abdul Matleb was the sole breadwinner for his family — a wife and four daughters, three of them still in school. He worked as a rock breaker, a job his wife also took up to support the household. But now, caught in mourning rituals and with no son to assist her, she cannot return to work. The family is left with no income, no explanation, and no justice.

Even during his medical visits, Matleb was treated as a criminal. He was often taken to hospitals in handcuffs. “Where would he run in that condition?” his brother-in-law had asked the police once. Only then were the cuffs removed.

In the most heart-wrenching moment of this story, the authorities who had insisted Matleb was a Bangladeshi handed over his body to be buried in the land where he was born, lived, and worked all his life. Initially, the family refused to accept the body. “If he was Bangladeshi, send his body there,” they told the officials. But eventually, they relented. His daughters, they felt, should have the chance to see their father one last time.

He was buried in a small graveyard just a few steps from his home in Hojai — the same place his ancestors were buried. A man declared a foreigner by the State was returned in death to the soil of his birth.

This tragedy did not happen in isolation. Similar deaths have occurred in Assam’s detention centres — and in each case, the bodies were quietly returned to their families in India. These stories lay bare the moral and administrative collapse of the state’s ‘foreigner detection’ mechanism.

When a team from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) visited the family, there were no words that could make sense of the grief. Matleb’s youngest daughter, Abida, who studies in Class IV, could not speak. Her eyes were dry, her face blank. Her smile, her family said, has not returned.

Sarmul Islam, her maternal uncle, recounted the events while speaking to CJP Assam team, and said:

      “We got a call at 9 pm on April 17 saying his health was failing. We told them we’d come early next morning. They said okay.      Then around 1 am, they said he had been shifted to Guwahati. We left at 3 am. But when we reached, they kept us waiting for hours. Finally, after 3 pm, they showed us the body.”

      “We didn’t want to accept the body. If he was a foreigner, send him to Bangladesh, we said. But we thought of the girls. They should at least get to see him one last time.”

      “He never had a serious illness. All of this happened after he was taken to detention. He was taken to hospital four or five times. Only once was he in Guwahati for 13–14 days. They would call us, but never give us any reports. And every time, he was in handcuffs. Only once, after we requested, they removed them.”

“He had all his documents. This happened only because of two names — Abdul Matleb and Matleb Ali. That’s it. No one else in the family has a case. His parents, his relatives — all here. If he’s Bangladeshi, then they are too. But it was just him.”

Assam’s detention regime operates on a cruel paradox. People are declared foreigners on the flimsiest of grounds — spelling errors, document mismatches, legacy data discrepancies. They are then locked away in high-security camps, often far from their families, with little transparency, few legal safeguards, and no meaningful remedy.

Worse still, the system makes no sense even on its own terms. If Matleb was not Indian, why was his body given to his family in Hojai? Why was he buried in the local graveyard? The State has no answer. On behalf of CJP, a team of five set out early in the morning and travelled over eight hours to reach Abdul Matleb’s grieving family. But once there, we were left speechless. The pain in that home was beyond words, the moment beyond description. What can be said when a system, in the name of identifying ‘foreigners’, inflicts such relentless cruelty on its own people? Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals and detention camps have become a dark stain on our democracy—where those who belong are treated like criminals, and where justice is lost to bureaucracy and bias.

This issue has been raised repeatedly — by human rights organisations, especially CJP, in the national media, even in the Assam Legislative Assembly. Yet, the cycle of injustice grinds on.

Abdul Matleb was handcuffed in life and returned as an Indian only in death. In seeking to identify ‘foreigners’, the Indian State is erasing the dignity of its own citizens — and in cases like this, even their lives.’

Related:

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

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

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

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

The post Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For the past six weeks, an unprecedented coordination effort has been underway, uniting left parties, progressive organisations, human rights groups, and people’s movements across the state. This united front—comprising the CPI, CPI(M), Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, CPIML, Lal Nishan Party, Satyashodhak Communist Party, Shramik Mukti Dal, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), PUCL, and Sarvahara Jan Andolan, among others—has culminated in this planned day of state-wide action. Major opposition parties including the Maha Vikas Aghadi and its constituents—Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar)—have also publicly extended their support to these protests.

Thousands of pamphlets have been disseminated across the state, particularly those authored by CJP, outlining the bill’s draconian provisions and urging citizens to join the resistance. The agitation on April 22 will span virtually every major district in Maharashtra, covering district collectorates, tehsil and taluka offices, and important public squares. In Mumbai, demonstrators will gather outside the Collectorate in Bandra. In Pune, protests will take place at the Collectorate and in Ambegaon and Junnar. In Nagpur, the protest will take place around Samvidhan Chowk. Thane district will see action at the Collector’s Office, as well as in Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, and Palghar tehsils. Additional protest locations in Thane include Shahapur tehsil.

Planned protests across Maharashtra

On April 22, widespread demonstrations, dharnas, and sit-ins will be held at government offices, district collectorates, and tehsil headquarters across multiple districts of the state. The key protest sites include:

• Mumbai – At the Collector’s Office, Bandra
• Pune – Collectorate and Ambegaon, Junnar offices
• Nashik – Collectorate and Tehsildar Offices in Surgana, Kalwan, Dindori, Chandwad, Peth, Trimbak, Nandgaon, Malegaon, Malegaonshahar, and Niphad
• Thane – Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, Palghar, Shahapur Tehsildar’s Office and District Collectorate
• Ahmednagar (Ahilyanagar) – Collectorate, Sangamner Provincial Office, Shevgaon Tehsil Office
• Nagpur – Samvidhan Chowk
• Wardha – Collector’s Office
• Amravati – Collector’s Office and Tehsildar’s Office
• Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – Divisional Commissioner’s Office
• Jalna – Collector’s Office and Partur Provincial Office
• Nanded, Satara, Sangli, Jalgaon, Solapur, Dhule, Chandrapur, Akola, Gondiya, Bhandara – Collector’s Offices
• Parbhani – Collector’s Office and Tehsil Offices at Shelu, Manawat, Pathri, and Purna
• Buldhana – Tehsildar Offices at Khamgaon, Malkapur, Sangrampur
• Gadchiroli – Tehsildar’s Office, Armori
• Raigad – Uran Tehsildar’s Office
• Kolhapur District – Protests coordinated by the Left Front at multiple locations: Collector’s Office, Ichalkaranji, Gadhinglaj, Kagal, Ajra, Radhanagari, Bhudargad, and Shahuwadi Tehsildar’s Offices

These demonstrations are expected to bring together thousands of protestors, including workers, farmers, students, lawyers, and community organisers. The agitation has witnessed an unprecedented unification of ideological and political forces.

Concerns about the bill

The scale and intensity of the agitation reflect the deep concern that the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 poses a grave threat to democratic freedoms and civil liberties. Although framed by the state as a public safety initiative, the bill has been widely criticised for granting the government extensive powers to enable surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. Civil liberties groups, including CJP and other rights organisations, warn that the legislation empowers the state to criminalise peaceful protest and legitimate political expression under vague definitions of “unlawful activity.”

Incidentally, the Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here.

Problematic sections

The Advisory Board envisaged under Section 5 is also problematic. Unlike earlier legal frameworks which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this Bill allows for individuals merely qualified to be appointed judges, diluting judicial independence and creating scope for politically aligned appointments.

The Bill also provides for arbitrary seizure and eviction powers. Section 9 empowers District Magistrates or Police Commissioners to take over any notified area and evict its residents with little to no legal oversight. Section 10 further extends this to allow the confiscation of moveable property, which could be used to cripple individuals or organisations financially.

Perhaps most shockingly, Section 12 bars those detained under this law from seeking redress in district courts, forcing them to approach only the High Court or Supreme Court. This effectively removes a critical layer of legal protection for common citizens and disproportionately affects the poor and marginalised who may lack the means to access higher courts.

Finally, Sections 14 and 15 grant blanket immunity to police officers and bureaucrats, even in cases where they are found to have abused the law. This creates a culture of impunity, with no accountability for misuse or excesses.

A direct threat to Constitutional freedoms

Legal experts and rights groups assert that the MSPS Bill poses a serious threat to several constitutional rights, including:

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech, assembly, and association
• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• Article 14 – Right to equality before the law

By granting unchecked powers to the executive and removing essential judicial safeguards, the Bill represents an alarming shift toward authoritarian governance. The concerns raised go beyond legal technicalities—this is a battle to preserve the democratic ethos of Maharashtra and, by extension, India.

In response, this April 22 protest will serve as a powerful expression of public resistance. It is not just a symbolic protest, but a collective demand for the preservation of democracy, civil liberties, and constitutional values in Maharashtra. The coming together of political parties, civil society groups, and grassroots organisations is a rare but urgent show of unity against legislation that threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Related:

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

The post Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The recent applications were filed in response to the ongoing misuse of anti-conversion laws by several states. The petition was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Within weeks of the ordinance being first enforced in Uttar Pradesh in 2020 and then being passed as a law (2021) incidents of assault, violence and intimidation against adult couples, especially those belonging to marginalised sections were reported, and these in the past four years plus, have only intensified.  Set in its path the Uttar Pradesh government however, further amended the law last year in 2024, amending sections to further enhance punitive measures, both monetary and penal for those that the state considers “offenders.” CJP’s present applications incorporate these developments.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing CJP, argued that the anti-conversion laws were being “weaponised” to target specific communities and interfaith couples, stressing that the laws were being misused repeatedly. Singh requested the bench to issue a notice on the application for interim relief to prevent further misuse of these laws, which he claimed were infringing upon individual freedoms, including the right to marry across faiths. He also urged that the most damaging sections be stayed until the final hearing of the matter.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, stating that there were no instances of misuse to support the claims made by CJP. At this point, CJI Khanna instructed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to review the various petitions and instances being highlighted, and inform the Court which applications the Union government may not oppose, while also filing responses where objections existed. The Court directed that non-applicants submit their responses to the applications, even in the absence of a formal notice being issued. The matter has now been scheduled to be heard again on a non-miscellaneous day, ensuring that proceedings would move forward expeditiously.

The hearing that took place on April 16 formed part of a larger challenge to the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws, with CJP asserting that such laws violate individuals’ freedom of choice and the right to choose their religion. Additionally, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has also filed a transfer petition to have 21 cases pending in six High Courts consolidated before the Supreme Court. In Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, High Courts have granted partial stays to some sections. These interim orders have also been challenged by these state governments before the Supreme Court.

Details of the IA filed by CJP

The interim application (IA) filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace in the Supreme Court is aimed at emphasising how the practice of the law –over the past four years and more –has resulted in widespread mis-use, to further enhance the original argument on constitutionality of the statutes. The IA contains a detailed table of reported instances of mis-use and attacks on fundamental freedons of life and choice especially from Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh. The application specifically addresses the pattern of abuse of these laws to target women, couples and also to harass minorities, including Christians and Muslims, under the pretext of ‘regulating religious conversions.’

The CJP has contended that these anti-conversion laws, although allegedly framed to prevent forced conversions, are being weaponised by far right organizations and state authorities to falsely accuse individuals, create a climate of fear, and discriminate against minorities. One of the key concerns highlighted in the IA is the pattern of abuse by far right groups, who use these laws to initiate false complaints and pressure law enforcement to act against individuals or communities, often without any credible evidence. In several instances, these complaints are lodged by third parties with vested interests, such as organisations or individuals aligned with right-wing political agendas, rather than the individuals or families affected by the alleged conversions.

The application further argues that the laws do not provide adequate safeguards against misuse, with one of the major concerns being the tendency of state authorities to act on complaints without conducting any preliminary inquiry or verification. This has led to arbitrary arrests, detentions, and the imposition of social and legal stigma on the accused, particularly from minority communities. The CJP has urged that the Court issue detailed guidelines mandating a pre-FIR inquiry by competent authorities to prevent the misuse of these laws. The organisation has emphasised that such safeguards are necessary to ensure that the laws are not used for political or social persecution, which is the current trend in certain states.

CJP has also raised the concern that these laws violate fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to live with dignity. The application has cited multiple instances where individuals, particularly from marginalized communities, have been wrongfully accused under these laws, leading to their harassment, societal alienation, and even criminal charges based on unfounded allegations. This is particularly evident in Uttar Pradesh, where the law has been used extensively to target Muslim communities, despite there being no evidence of forced conversions.

A significant concern raised in the IA pertains to the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. This amendment removed a key safeguard that had previously limited the filing of complaints to the person whose conversion was allegedly coerced or their immediate family. Following the amendment, any individual—including politically motivated third parties or members of Hindutva groups—can now lodge a complaint, regardless of their relationship to the concerned parties. CJP has argued that this has legitimised and expanded the role of communal vigilantes, allowing them to misuse the law to harass consenting adults in interfaith relationships, often with the support or inaction of law enforcement agencies. Additionally, stringent punishments have also been introduced through the said amendment.

In light of these abuses, the CJP has requested urgent judicial intervention from the Supreme Court. Specifically, the IA seeks interim relief in the form of directions to the authorities to ensure that no FIR is registered under the anti-conversion laws without a thorough investigation and a genuine, evidence-based complaint. It has also urged the Court to consider issuing interim guidelines that would prevent the automatic registration of cases and would impose a more rigorous procedural requirement before such charges can be brought.

The application stresses that these anti-conversion laws, instead of protecting individual rights, have become tools for furthering divisive and discriminatory agendas, violating the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. By seeking these safeguards and judicial oversight, CJP hopes to curb the misuse of these laws and ensure that they are not used to further religious persecution or target specific communities under the guise of religious freedom.

Brief background of the petition

In February 2021 notice had been issued to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Then in 2023, the Supreme Court had issued notice to five states—Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—following a renewed challenge to their anti-conversion laws. This petition, filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), was a continuation of their previous challenge to similar laws in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. 

The CJP writ petition, amended in 2023, challenged the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws passed by these states, arguing that these laws violate fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of individuals to marry and convert based on their personal choices. This renewed challenge followed CJP’s initial petition in 2020, which led to the issuance of notices by the Supreme Court. The Court had granted CJP permission to amend its original writ petition to include newer anti-conversion laws enacted in additional states. The petition contends that the laws have been weaponised to harass and intimidate interfaith couples, often under the guise of combating “Love Jihad.” According to CJP, the laws not only infringe on personal freedoms but also legitimize discriminatory and unconstitutional practices that target minorities, especially women, and exacerbate communal tensions.

This table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, computes the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Central to CJP’s arguments has been the assertion that the anti-conversion laws create an atmosphere of suspicion around interfaith marriages, subjecting them to legal and social scrutiny. These laws equate conversion for marriage with coercion, fraud, or force, thus casting a shadow over consensual, interfaith unions. The petition had highlighted several troubling provisions, including mandatory prior and post-conversion reporting requirements, vague and overbroad definitions of “inducement” or “allurement,” and a reversed burden of proof, which forces individuals to prove that their conversion and marriage were not coercive. CJP has argued that such provisions violate key constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, autonomy, and the freedom of conscience under Articles 14, 21, and 25.

Moreover, CJP has contended that these laws disproportionately target interfaith couples, effectively deterring individuals from exercising their right to choose their partner and religion freely. The petition asserted that the laws, while ostensibly neutral, disproportionately affect certain religious communities and undermine the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. By criminalising conversions linked to marriage, the laws place unnecessary hurdles in the way of interfaith unions, undermining both personal freedoms and the very fabric of constitutional equality. As the matter progresses, the Court’s eventual decision could have significant implications for the legal treatment of religious conversions and interfaith marriages in India, potentially reshaping the boundaries of personal freedom and religious choice.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

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

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

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

The post “Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP urges SC to curb misuse of anti-conversion statutes by states appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is the story of resilience, legal perseverance, and an unjust system that continues to persecute the marginalised on the basis of ‘doubt’.

Background: Suspicion cast on a woman born in independent India

Alijon Bibi, a Muslim woman born on February 25, 1955 in Gopalerkuti village, Coochbehar district, West Bengal, was referred to the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) in Assam in 2004 under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. She had moved to Assam after marrying Rahman Ali from Boromera village, Dhubri district, approximately 53 years ago. Despite having lived, voted, and raised five children in Assam, she was labelled a “doubtful voter” and suspected of being an illegal Bangladeshi migrant. The reference continued even after the IMDT Act was struck down in 2005 and was re-registered as FT-10/AGM/2297/2020 under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Tribunal notice sent to Alijon Bibi tore through her family’s life. Sheikh Alimuddin, father of Alijon, was 31 years old when India gained independence, yet decades later, his daughter was being persecuted as an illegal foreigner. She had voted in Assam since 1985, yet the stigma of being suspected as a foreigner was unbearable. The social repercussions were equally severe—her son, a respected Mufti at the local mosque, began facing questions. The family requested CJP not to disclose the case to their neighbours for fear of social ostracisation. Their dignity had come under attack.

For a woman whose father had voted in Indian elections in 1966 and owned ancestral land in West Bengal, it was a cruel irony to be forced to prove her belonging in her own country.

CJP Assam Team with Alijon Bibi

Mounting the Defence: CJP’s tireless efforts

From the moment CJP took on her case, it became a meticulous process of documentation, field visits, and advocacy. CJP’s para-legal team, especially Dhubri’s District Volunteer Motivator (DVM) Habibul Bepari, tracked down her family history and vital records in both Assam and West Bengal. CJP’s advocate, Mr. Iskandar Azad, and team conducted extensive follow-ups with government offices to collect original documents and arrange witnesses.

One of the biggest hurdles was securing witnesses from West Bengal—an entirely different state—to testify in an Assam court. Repeated visits were made to the Pradhan’s house in Balabhut Gram Panchayat to convince him to appear before the Tribunal. This logistical nightmare illustrates how citizenship battles can be stacked against the poor and marginalised.

Legal arguments and documentary evidence presented

In her written statement and oral testimony, Alijon asserted that she was a citizen of India by birth. She supported her claim with the following:

Primary legal evidence:

1. Voter list of 1966 (Ext A): Proved her father Sekh Alimuddin was a registered voter under Tufanganj constituency, West Bengal. This document was authenticated by the Director of the Directorate of State Archives, Government of West Bengal, who confirmed it was genuine.
2. Land records (Ext C): Certified copy of land in her father and uncles’ names—prepared in 1955—proving their residence and landholding before January 1, 1966.
3. Multiple voter lists (Ext D, E, M, N): Her name appeared in Assam voter rolls from 1985, 1997, 2010, and 2022 alongside her husband and children, showing continued residence.
4. Identity documents (Ext G, H, I): Voter ID, Aadhaar card, PAN card—supporting evidence of Indian identity and address.
5. Brother’s testimony (DW-2): Mojammel Hoque corroborated her family background and origin. He submitted his own verified voter ID, Aadhaar, and PAN details as additional linkage evidence.
6. Official witnesses:

1. • DW-3: Head Clerk of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Tufanganj, who authenticated Ext C.
   • DW-4: Gram Pradhan from Balabhut Gram Panchayat confirmed earlier issuance of linkage certificate (though it was ultimately not relied upon due to documentation gaps).

Tribunal’s Finding: Not a foreigner

After reviewing all documents and depositions, the Tribunal noted:

• The 1966 voter list and 1955 land records proved her father’s Indian citizenship.
• Her own presence in voter rolls since 1985 confirmed continuous residence and civic participation.
• No rebuttal evidence was offered by the state; the referral authority itself had noted that she did not appear to be a foreigner.

The Tribunal concluded by holding Alijon Bibi to be a citizen of India.

Broader Implications: Citizenship trials and structural injustice

Alijon’s case is emblematic of the deeply flawed citizenship determination process in Assam. Despite clear documentary proof and a history of voting in Indian elections, she was forced to prove her “Indianness” in a quasi-judicial proceeding lasting nearly two decades.

This process places an unfair evidentiary burden on the accused, often the poor, rural, and marginalised, while the state is not required to prove its claims. Women like Alijon, who move to another state after marriage and often lack birth certificates, are especially vulnerable.

Despite societal stigma and bureaucratic hurdles, Alijon and her family now speak openly, hoping their story will inspire others to resist. On April 8, when CJP state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, Dhubri’s DVM Habibul Bepari and office driver Asikul Hussain went to Alijon’s house to handover the FT order, she told the CJP team:

“Allah gives you strength to be with poor people. I’ll pray to Allah.”

Alijon Bibi sits holding the order that proves her citizenship along with her husband out their home

Her recognition as an Indian citizen is not just a personal triumph, but a powerful indictment of a system that continues to cast suspicion on its most vulnerable. It is a reminder that legal advocacy, community support, and collective resolve can still defeat institutional injustice.

The order may be read here.

Related:

CJP Triumph: Bipul Karmakar wins citizenship battle after a two-year struggle

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

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

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

The post Alijon Bibi’s 20-year battle ends in justice, CJP helps secure her citizenship after 2-year legal battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The FRA 2006, enacted under the UPA-I government, was a watershed moment in recognising the rights of forest-dwelling communities by breaking away from the colonial-era policies that placed forests solely under government control. For the first time since Independence, the Act aimed to correct historical injustices by empowering Gram Sabhas (village councils) to determine land rights and putting an end to the arbitrary control exercised by the Forest Department. However, despite its promise, the on-ground reality remains bleak. The AIUFWP’s letter highlights multiple reasons for the failure of implementation, including:

• Lack of political will among state governments to enforce the FRA.
• Deliberate neglect by administrative officials, who refuse to acknowledge claims under the Act.
• Continued harassment of forest-dependent communities by the Forest Department, which, instead of recognising their rights, evicts them and falsely prosecutes them under various laws.
• Deliberate rejection of individual and community claims by authorities without proper consideration.
• Failure to inform forest-dwelling communities about their legal rights, leaving them vulnerable to dispossession.

By submitting the letter to Gandhi on April 2, the AIUFWP had specifically pointed out that despite repeated submissions, no decision has been made on the community claims filed by the union. A list of these pending claims has been attached to the letter, underscoring the extent of bureaucratic delay.

Given these persistent challenges, the AIUFWP is demanding urgent intervention and has requested a meeting between Rahul Gandhi and representatives from multiple states to discuss the issue in detail. The letter, signed by Sokalo Gond, Chairperson of AIUFWP, makes it clear that without political action, the FRA risks becoming yet another unfulfilled promise for India’s most marginalised communities.

Sokalo Gond was accompanied by Munnar Gond. The meeting took place in Sansad Bhavan.

The complete letter may be read here.

Related:

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

Record number of forest diversion took place in 2023 amidst decline in spend of CAMPA funds, MoEF data reveals

All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) lists out their demands before the Lok Sabha election 2024

With less than two weeks for polling, how concerned are national parties on land and forest rights for Adivasis?

The post AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Framed as a measure to bolster public security, the bill instead severely curtails civil liberties, granting the state unchecked authority for surveillance, to detain, and criminalise dissent. CJP has flagged several provisions that could be weaponised to suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and activism. Calling for its immediate withdrawal, the organisation warns that the bill mirrors the draconian framework of past laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA), both of which have been routinely misused to stifle opposition and target marginalised communities.

Key objections raised by CJP

1. Section (2) (f) (i) to (vii): Overbroad definitions of “an unlawful activity”

CJP has flagged Section (2) (f) (i), which defines “an unlawful activity” in vague and sweeping terms. The broad language allows the government to label almost any activity as a security threat, including peaceful protests, strikes, or political dissent. Such an expansive definition could be used to arbitrarily justify restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

2. Section 5(1)(2): Politicisation of the Advisory Board

The bill provides for the setting up of an Advisory Board under Section 5(1)(2) to adjudicate on actions taken by the state government, police, and administration. However, CJP has raised concerns over the qualifications of its members. Unlike previous laws governing public security and counter-terrorism, which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this bill allows for the appointment of individuals who “are, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of the High Court.”

This wording dilutes the judicial independence of the Advisory Board by allowing for the inclusion of retired judges, non-appointed officials, or lawyers with no prior judicial experience. This opens the door for politically aligned or executive-friendly individuals to occupy key decision-making positions, making the Board prone to bias and manipulation in favour of the state.

3. Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

One of the most alarming provisions flagged by CJP is Section 9, which gives the District Magistrate (DM) or the Police Commissioner unchecked authority to take possession of, or seize, any notified area and evict persons from the premises. The bill provides only minimal protection for women and children, stating that they must be given a “reasonable time” to vacate—a vague and insufficient safeguard.

Such an arbitrary provision could be used to forcibly evict communities under the guise of maintaining public security, particularly targeting politically inconvenient groups, protest sites, or informal settlements.

4. Section 10(1): Extension of seizure powers to moveable property

Further compounding the concerns around Section 9, Section 10(1) grants the administration unchecked authority to seize moveable property, money, and other assets found within a seized premise. This means that not only can entire homes or offices be taken over, but all belongings inside can also be confiscated without clear legal safeguards.

CJP warns that such provisions can be used to financially ruin individuals or organisations that the government views as adversaries. Activists, journalists, and opposition members could be disproportionately affected by these extreme measures.

5. Section 12: Denial of legal redress at district level

Shockingly, Section 12 of the draft MSPP Bill, 2024 prevents individuals arrested under this law from seeking legal recourse at the district level. Instead, only the High Court and Supreme Court are designated as proper forums for filing petitions to challenge any actions under the law.

CJP has strongly criticised this provision, arguing that it directly violates India’s four-tier system of judicial redressal and creates unnecessary barriers to justice, particularly for economically disadvantaged individuals who may not have the resources to approach higher courts. The rationale for this provision remains unclear, raising concerns that it is intended to stifle legal challenges against the law.

6. Sections 14 and 15: Blanket immunity for police and bureaucrats

Under Sections 14 and 15, police officers and district magistrates are granted complete immunity from prosecution, even in cases where courts pass strictures against their misuse of the law. These sections explicitly state that no action can be initiated against such officials, even if they engage in blatant misuse or wrongful prosecution under the MSPS Bill.

CJP warns that these provisions effectively shield law enforcement from accountability, encouraging impunity and opening the door to widespread abuse of power. This provision closely resembles the impunity granted to security forces under draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which has led to grave human rights violations.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

CJP has strongly asserted that the MSPS Bill violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including:

• Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Association) – By allowing the government to criminalise protests, public gatherings, and activism, the bill directly undermines democratic freedoms.
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – Sections on preventive detention and surveillance threaten personal liberty and privacy.
• Article 14 (Right to Equality) – The arbitrary powers granted by the bill could lead to selective enforcement, disproportionately targeting marginalised communities, activists, and opposition groups.

CJP’s call for immediate withdrawal of the bill

The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, as highlighted by CJP, represents a major threat to democracy and civil liberties. By granting the state unchecked powers to surveil, detain, and prosecute individuals without due process, the bill paves the way for state repression under the guise of public security. CJP’s objections serve as a crucial intervention in the fight to preserve constitutional freedoms, urging the government to scrap the bill and uphold democratic values.

The detailed objections may be read here.

Related:       

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill tabled in assembly, using the myth of “urban naxals” to supress dissent?

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

Modi’s government bypasses SC & Law Commission, no nuanced, strong penal sections on Hate Speech: BNS, 2023

The post CJP submits objections to Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 over serious threats to civil liberties appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

Details provided in the affidavit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of Ajabha Khatun

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

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

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

Challenges in the deportation process

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to CJP’s complaint, the broadcast in question by Zee News on March 16, 2025, titled “Taal Thok Ke LIVE: होली करेंगे ‘बदरंग’, ‘भाईजान’ कराएंगे सिर कलम! LIVE #WaqfvsHoli.” (Will they tarnish Holi… will ‘Bhaijaan’ have heads severed?) surrounded the call for protest against the proposed Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, announced by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind earlier on March 13, 2025, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. It is important to mention that the date of the peaceful protest against the Bill was initially set for March 10, 2025, but later rescheduled to March 13 due to administrative reasons.

Subsequently, with the Holi festival on March 14, 2025, AIMPLB, in a press conference at the Press Club of India on March 11, 2025, decided to defer the March 13 protest and scheduled it for March 17, 2025.

The Anchor misrepresented the Waqf protest, fabricated it as a threat to the Holi festival

According to the CJP’s complaint to the channel on March 16, the program “Taal Thok Ke” systematically compromised journalistic integrity through its biased presentation and inflammatory discourse. Host Chandan Singh orchestrated a narrative that deliberately conflated a legitimate protest concerning the Waqf Amendment Bill with a fabricated threat to the Hindu festival of Holi. The program’s reliance on sensationalist tickers and unsubstantiated claims, coupled with the host’s selective questioning and interruptions, created a hostile environment that undermined the principles of fair debate.

CJP stated in its complaint that, Singh’s conduct throughout the broadcast demonstrated a calculated effort to manipulate the narrative. He repeatedly ignored factual clarifications regarding the protest’s rescheduling, instead opting to perpetuate a false narrative of deliberate disruption. His leading questions, such as “Is it normal to start the protest just one day before Holi? Is this a coincidence? Is there a plan behind this?” (Time Stamp: 03:40-03:59), were designed to provoke suspicion and reinforce a predetermined agenda.

Singh’s abrupt interruptions and dismissal of panellists’ explanations, particularly those attempting to provide context for the date changes, revealed a clear bias and a refusal to engage with factual information.

“Moreover, his active endorsement of panellists’ inflammatory statements, like Pawan Bansal’s claim of a “larger conspiracy to turn Holi into chaos” (Time Stamp: 04:55-05:22), further underscored his role in promoting a divisive and misleading narrative. We are complaining because of the host’s deliberate misrepresentation of facts, biased moderation, and the creation of an environment conducive to communal discord” as per complaint

Problematic and misleading tickers used by channel in the show

CJP pointed out in its complaint to channel that, the host aired tickers on the screen with inflammatory sub-titles such as, “शाहीन बाग वाली धमकी: सरकार वक्फ बिल वापस लें,” (Shaheen Bagh threat: Government should withdraw the Waqf bill) “CAA से बड़ा इंकलाब होगा,” (A bigger revolution than CAA will happen) “NRC से बड़ा विरोध होगा,” (There will be a bigger protest than NRC) “एक शाहीन बाग दिल्ली में था, गली गली में शाहीन बाग होगा.” (There was one Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, now every street will have a Shaheen Bagh)

As per the CJP’s complaint, the given tickers such as “वक्फ के नाम पर सिर कटा लेने की धमकी क्यों?”, (Why the threat of beheading in the name of Waqf?), “वक्फ संसोधन के खिलाफ प्रदर्शन होली से पहले क्यों?” (Why the protest against the Waqf amendment before Holi?), “वक्फ संसोधन बिल से मुस्लिमों को क्यों ऐतराज?” (Why do Muslims object to the Waqf amendment bill?), and “हर कानून के खिलाफ भीड़ जुटाने वाला षड्यंत्र कब तक?” (For how long will the conspiracy to gather crowds against every law continue?) are deeply problematic because they sensationalize and polarize an important issue without providing factual clarity or context.

These statements frame the topic in a way that stirs fear, outrage, and confusion among viewers, rather than promoting understanding. By focusing on inflammatory and leading questions, the show manipulates public perception, potentially inciting hatred.

Panellist Bansal threatens Rizvi, Host remains mute spectator

Further, as per the CJP’s complaint, during the show, while discussing the CAA/NRC, panellist Pawan Bansal openly threatened Rizvi over the Waqf protest, making violent remarks. Despite Rizvi objecting, the host remained silent and did not intervene. This silence was concerning as panellist Pawan Bansal openly threatened Rizvi regarding the Waqf protest, saying, “मैं कहता हूँ कि अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया! मैं चैलेंज कर रहा हूँ अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया, अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया! समझ लेना बहुत बुरा हस्र होगा.”( I’m saying, if you create chaos on Holi! I’m challenging, if you create chaos on Holi, if you create chaos on Holi! Understand that the consequences will be very severe). 

When Rizvi objected, urging Bansal not to issue threats, the host, rather than stepping in, remained a mute spectator, failing to uphold any responsibility as a moderator.

This silence was particularly troubling because Rizvi is linked to a specific community and the Waqf Bill, making him a direct target of Bansal’s threats. Even after Rizvi voiced his opposition, Bansal repeated, “ये दुस्साहस मत करना, ये दुस्साहस मत करना,” (Don’t you dare do this, don’t you dare do this) and continued questioning the validity of the protest, saying, “क्यूँ प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं, कानून में क्या कमी हैं? आप कितना भी कुछ कर लीजिये कानून बन कर रहेगा” (Why are you protesting, what is lacking in the law? No matter what you do, the law will be enacted). Despite these inflammatory remarks, the host did nothing to intervene, CJP stated in its complaint to channel

Notably, CJP strongly mentioned in its complaint that during the CAA/NRC protests, as the world witnessed, Shaheen Bagh became a symbol of peaceful resistance. The key fact here is that there was no violence reported at the Shaheen Bagh protest site in Delhi. However, the host in this debate show deliberately invoked the Shaheen Bagh reference in a conspiratorial context. The statement “जगह-जगह शाहीन बाग़ बना देंगे” (We will create Shaheen Bagh everywhere) was used to symbolically refer to organizing protests against the Waqf Bill, drawing a parallel with how Shaheen Bagh was organized during the CAA/NRC protests.

This was not an indication of any conspiracy but rather a reference to a form of peaceful protest that had already been part of India’s democratic tradition.

Violations of NBDSA principles, penal laws and Supreme Court judgements

The CJP, in its complaint, highlighted multiple violations of the NBDSA’s principles by the Zee News broadcast. The channel failed to adhere to Fundamental Principles of professional journalism, as outlined by the NBDSA. These include seeking truth, reporting with integrity, and avoiding bias in selecting news (Principles 1 and 4).

The program violated Principles of Self-Regulation, especially the duty to ensure neutrality and avoid portraying allegations as facts (Principle 2), and it also breached Racial and Religious Harmony guidelines by propagating content likely to incite religious intolerance (Principle 9). Additionally, the program disregarded the guidelines for Anchors conducting Programs, as it allowed inflammatory and divisive statements without intervention (Specific Guidelines for Anchors).

The channel also violated the Cable Television Network Rules (Rule 6), which prohibit content promoting communal attitudes or encouraging violence. The inflammatory content presented on the show amounted to hate speech, an offence punishable under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), sections 196, 298, 302, and 356, as it promoted enmity between communities and maligned religious beliefs.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) emphasized the need to address content that fosters divisiveness, and the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) case clarified the damaging societal impact of hate speech. The actions of Zee News align with the concerns raised by the court in these cases, as the show perpetuated a narrative that undermines the unity and integrity of the nation. Given the impact of such content, CJP urges the channel to remove the offending material, issue an apology, and adopt more responsible reporting practices to ensure that divisive rhetoric does not continue to harm communal harmony.

CJP’s complaint to channel on March 16, 2025 may be accessed here:

Related:

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post CJP urges Zee News remove debate show “Taal Thok Ke” over divisive Waqf-Holi debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yesterday, a division bench of the Gauhati HC, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stayed her deporation taking note of the order passed by the SC on her IA in the Rajubala case. The court has also requisitioned records from the Foreigners Tribunal to examine her prayer for bail given the procedural validity of the FT declaration. In the writ petition before the HC filed last November, Ajabha Khatun’s has challenged her declaration as a foreigner by the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta. Khatun’s case is that the tribunal had issued an ex parte order on February 8, 2019, declaring her a post-1971 foreigner, effectively stripping her of Indian citizenship. The HC has issued notice returnable on April 4, 2025 and directed the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond.

Recognising the seriousness of her situation, the High Court granted temporary relief by staying her deportation, ordering that she shall not be removed from the country without an order of the high court. Her prayer for bail will be heard once the tribunal records are received.

The present order of the Ajabha Khatun’s case came after Supreme Court, through the ongoing matter of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India, where the apex court is examining the overcrowded conditions of detention camps in Assam. As part of the proceedings the issue of the deportation of those individuals declared foreigners in Assam arose. The Union government had made the (unsubstantiated) claim that 63 persons from the Matia Relief camp were in line for deportation. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been closely monitoring the case and when it’s team found that Ajabha Khatun, whose case was still pending in the Gauhati HC also figured as number “18” on this list of 63, CJP assisted her in filing the IA before the apex court. In the order on Ajabha’s case passed by the SC, the court stated that the petitioner should seek interim relief from the High Court in her case. On February 25, 2025, it was on the basis of this order that the deportation was stayed yesterday.

Details of the Gauhati High Court proceedings and immediate relief

Thereafter, on March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court took cognisance of her pending writ petition challenging the tribunal’s decision that had declared her foreigner. A division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi issued a notice returnable on  April 4, 2025, directing the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond. The court also requisitioned relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal to further decide the case.

The court has also ordered the requisition of relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal that have been challenged by Ajabha Khatun with legal aid assistance from CJP.  Given that the writ petition has challenged the declaration of Ajabha Khatun as not Indian”, and prayed for her release on bail, the procedural or substantive lapses in the FT order will now be considered by the High Court. Counsel Mrinmoy Dutta appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioner is currently detained at Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. A crucial relief granted to the petitioner is the court’s order that she shall not be deported from the country without the court’s explicit permission, while her prayer for bail and release from the relief camp is pending hearing. Yesterday’s order ensures that she is not removed from India before the matter is fully adjudicated.

The order may be read here.

Supreme Court proceedings in the Raju Bala Das Case

Ajabha Khatun’s case is part of a broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. On February 25, 2025, Khatun, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), sought impleadment as a party petitioner in the Supreme Court case of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India.

During this hearing, senior advocate Aparna Bhat argued that since Khatun’s challenge to the tribunal’s order was still pending before the High Court, any deportation order against her would be legally untenable. Deportation without exhausting legal remedies would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, acknowledged that her case was still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. While the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief, it instructed her counsel to seek appropriate orders from the High Court.

In the ongoing Raju Bala Das case, the Assam government had been directed to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. During previous hearings, the state argued that 63 detainees, including Khatun, were foreigners and should be deported. However, when questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about their country of origin, the Assam government failed to provide concrete proof which is why they have been asked to file further affidavits.

Denial of fundamental rights and legal violations

Ajabha Khatun’s case demonstrates the systematic denial of fundamental rights in Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system. Her ordeal began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for the Barpeta Assembly Constituency raised doubts about her citizenship and referred her case to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Barpeta, under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, later subsumed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The tribunal ultimately declared her a foreigner in 2019, but she was only arrested in September 2024. CJP subsequently assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. Her case resurfaced when the state submitted an affidavit in the Raju Bala Das case, listing her as one of the 63 detainees marked for deportation.

Her citizenship has been in question for over two decades, during which her fundamental rights have been severely curtailed:

• Since 1997, she has been denied the right to vote, as her name was arbitrarily struck from electoral rolls without justification.
• The Foreigners Tribunal disregarded evidence such as voter rolls featuring her father, husband, and herself.
• The burden of proof was misapplied, and her father’s testimony confirming her identity was ignored.

Beyond procedural violations, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp amounts to a grave infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. She remains confined without a criminal charge, in deplorable conditions that the Supreme Court has previously criticised. Her right to equality under Article 14 is also at stake, as citizenship determination processes in Assam disproportionately target the state’s most marginalised sections.

Her detailed story may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, seeks Tribunal records for review of FT’s order declaring her foreigner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Similarly, T Raja Singh, notorious for his divisive views, has with his statements about “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” a theory that frames Muslims as a threat to India’s identity. Alongside these leaders, right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani has propagated harmful stereotypes and hate against Muslims.

Nitesh Rane: spreading misinformation and suspicion through alleged theories of ‘Love Jihad’ and ‘Land Jihad’

Nitesh Rane, the BJP MLA from Kankavli in the Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra and now the Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister, has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of aggressive hate speech in the state. Many of his speeches from February 2025 have caused a significant uproar, raising concerns for the social climate in the state. 

February 20, 2025 

February 20, during a public felicitation event at Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj Nanijdhama in Ratnagiri, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a hate-filled speech targeting Muslims. 

Rane in his speech said that, “Because issues like Love Jihad and Land Jihad are actively happening around us. Through Love Jihad and religious conversion, a large-scale effort is underway to bring countless Hindu mothers and sisters into Islam by those engaging in Jihad.”

He propagated unfounded conspiracies about ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ intensifying his rhetoric by labelling Muslims as “jihadis.” Rane also criticised Mazhars and Dargahs, claiming that the said structures “pop up anywhere,”.

He further added that, “I have initiated a program through my ministry to make our 720-kilometer coastline Jihad- free. Therefore, in all these matters, it is extremely important for me to receive Swamiji’s guidance and blessings from time to time. All the illegal activities happening around us—wherever you look, spreading the green cloth, building mazars and tombs everywhere—against all this, our Maharashtra government will take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias. On this occasion, I assure Swamiji of this today.”

His words not only spread fear but are also baseless accusations against an entire religious community. His speech serves as another example of the dangerous rhetoric emerging from political figures in the region.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 19, 2025 

On February 19, at a Shiv Jayanti event organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a series of inflammatory remarks targeting Muslims. He boldly declared, “This is a Hinduwadi government,” and went on to threaten that in Sindhudurg, anyone who even “looks at Hindus in an incorrect manner” would face consequences, urging people to contact him directly to “settle it before next Friday.”

Rane said that, “the Chief Minister is a staunch Hindutva. If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday. Don’t worry about anything.”

He also labelled Muslims as “green snakes,” who are involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy against Hindus. Rane’s speeches continued in this vein throughout the month of February, spreading more hateful conspiracy theories, and even suggesting that if Muslims “looked at Hindus in an incorrect manner,” they would face consequences. He stated that, “Our government is very bad. What is going on around I am aware of everything. You don’t have to struggle. Wherever something wrong is happening, wherever someone tries to slaughter a cow, wherever someone tries to smuggle, wherever green snakes try to wriggle, just make one call, and leave the rest of the arrangements to me.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 8, 2025 

On February 8, at the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Kudal, Sindhudurg, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a divisive speech, alleging that ‘jihadis’ were targeting Hindu temples and again referring to Muslims as ‘green snakes.’ He said that India is a Hindu nation and alleged that Muslims were conspiring to turn the country into an Islamic state by 2047. Rane then propagated the baseless conspiracies of ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ fearmongering about the supposed Islamization of India. He accused Muslims of attempting to seize Hindu lands and religious sites, symbolically covering them with a ‘green shroud.’ 

Nitesh Rane’s speech is deeply problematic due to its divisive and inflammatory nature. He quite deliberately, and repeatedly perpetuates harmful stereotypes and spreads fear by framing certain religious communities as a threat to Hindu society. His speech begins with claims of “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references to the “Waqf Board,” which without evidence, target Muslims and imply a coordinated effort against Hindus:

“While taking out these rallies, there were some cases of Love Jihad, some cases of Land Jihad, and some cases related to the Waqf Board. We, as the Sakal Hindu Samaj, took out those rallies and went to meet the affected families and we tried to provide them justice. How far have these Islamization and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should all imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.”

This statement fuels unfounded fear and animosity, casting Muslims as a monolithic and hostile group. He further stokes this narrative by discussing the supposed encroachment of Muslims on religious sites, such as temples:

“I always wonder—if you want to spread Islam, why do you always target our temple lands? If you want to build a mosque or a dargah, then buy an open piece of land yourselves and say, ‘We want to build a mosque here, a dargah here.’ But they always want to do these things on the land of our temples.”

Such rhetoric incites division, mistrust, and hostility. He concludes by framing this as a grand conspiracy:

“By 2047, they want to turn our Hindu nation into an Islamic nation. Their evil eyes are on the temples, and we should be moving towards ensuring how to keep them safe,” Rane Said.

Rane referred Savarkar in his speech and said, “Swatantryaveer Savarkar has written very well that the Hindu society suffers more from Hindus themselves than from Muslims. Some of these people ask me how I can call it a Hindu nation, as it does not fit within the Constitution.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 5, 2025 

On February 5, at a public event organised by a coalition of far-right groups in Wagholi, Pune, BJP MLA Rane delivered an inflammatory anti-Muslim hate speech, propagating the baseless conspiracies of ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ while falsely claiming that Muslims aim to turn India into an Islamic state. 

During his speech, he urged Hindus to rent homes only to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.” Targeting the azaan, he claimed that if Hindus rented to Muslims, soon they would be overrun and the azaan would echo five times a day. He openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging the audience to “just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.” Rane further fuelled the conspiracy of ‘love jihad,’ continuing to spread baseless fears of a demographic threat.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 3, 2025 

On February 3, in Chandrapur, Rane made a chilling threat towards Muslims, declaring that acts like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and “cow slaughter” would no longer be tolerated. At a religious assembly, Rane openly warned the minority religious community, stating that the state had a Hindutva-based government, and if these issues persisted, they would take direct action.

He was quoted as saying:

“If these people sporting beards do not stop this Love Jihad, Land Jihad, and the drama against Hindu society in time, then even those sitting in Pakistan will not be able to recognize you. I guarantee.”

His rhetoric targets Muslims as a collective threat to Hindu society, presenting them as part of a grand conspiracy to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047. The speech perpetuates harmful myths such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” which have no basis in reality but are used to fuel hatred and division. Rane asserts:

“When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”

This unfounded claim creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, portraying Muslims as scheming to overthrow the country’s demographic makeup.

He continues with further inflammatory statements:

“Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave. Then, five times a day, their loudspeakers will start blaring.”

This passage not only reinforces the idea of Muslims as an invasive force but also promotes communal fear by linking Muslims to undesirable behaviour.

Additionally, Rane makes claims about “Love Jihad,” where he manipulates personal stories to push the narrative of Hindu girls being brainwashed:

“I have met sisters who have been victims of Love Jihad. You would be shocked to see their miserable condition. These girls are brainwashed to the extent that they refuse to recognize their own parents.”

This kind of rhetoric is not new for Rane, who has long harboured views that fuel communal animosity. At this event, he claimed that a strict law against religious conversions would be introduced in Maharashtra. He further warned Muslims involved in such acts of “trapping” Hindu women that the government would deal with them harshly, reinforcing the idea of an aggressive, intolerant Hindutva ideology.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister #NiteshRane on Monday sounded a stern warning to a particular community, stating that “Love jihad, Land Jihad, and cow slaughter” will not be tolerated. He emphasised that the state has a #Hindutva-oriented government and discussed the… pic.twitter.com/OZfJAUR67L

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) February 4, 2025

Recently, two FIRs were filed against Nitesh Rane for alleged hate speech targeting Muslims in Ahmednagar. Both FIRs were filed by the Ahmednagar Police against Nitesh Rane for his controversial remark. Rakesh Ola, the Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, confirmed the registration of two FIRs—one on September 1, 2024, and the other on September 2, 2024. These FIRs were filed at the Shrirampur and Topkhana police stations, respectively. Rane made his speeches during public meetings in the Shrirampur and Topkhana, in support of Hindu seer Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, who had made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Rane warned of repercussions if the Maharaj was harmed. In his address, Rane had said, “If anything happens to Maharaj, there will be repercussions. I’m going to give this threat in the language which you understand. If you have done anything against our Ramgiri Maharaj, we will kill you after barging into your mosques. You must remember this threat,” Rane had said, reported Times of India.

On September 5, an FIR was also filed against Nitesh Rane for his hate speech. The case was registered by the Gittikhadan police in Nagpur under sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR follows a complaint lodged by Mohammed Yunus Patel (47), a resident of Awasthi Nagar in South Nagpur, who alleged that Rane hurt the religious sentiments of a specific community during a speech he delivered in Ahmednagar on September 1, 2024, as HT reported.

Rane’s rhetoric, including claims of Love Jihad and Land Jihad, is not an isolated incident but part of a wider strategy by certain BJP leaders to stoke communal fears for political leverage.

T Raja Singh: Escalating divisive narratives

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often extremist views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh went on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. 

His rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Singh’s speeches only contribute to a growing sense of fear and mistrust between India’s communities, feeding into a larger narrative of religious confrontation and division.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Kajal Hindustani: A right-wing influencer encouraging harmful communal divisions

February 19, 2025 

Kajal Hindustani is another key figure spreading dangerous communal poison. At a Shiv Jayanti event in Nagpur on February 19, Hindustani not only pushed the harmful “love jihad” narrative but also revived harmful stereotypes about Muslims. She referred to Muslims as “jihadis,” equating them with violence and radicalism. Additionally, she launched an attack on the Muslim practice of Azaan, fuelling the existing prejudice against Islamic religious practices.

This kind of speech is highly problematic, as it promotes an environment where one community’s practices and identity are vilified and targeted. Hindustani’s reach as an influencer amplifies her harmful messages, reaching a much wider audience.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Following the complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) on October 25, 2024, against Kajal Shingala, also known as Kajal Hindustani, for delivering an anti-Muslim hate speech at an event in Thane, an FIR was registered on October 30, 2024, at the Wagle Estate Police Station in Thane. The FIR charges Hindustani under sections 299, 302, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which address offenses related to promoting religious animosity and public mischief. In addition, the event’s organizer, Veer Bahadur Yadav, was also booked for his involvement in permitting the speech. 

Ashwini Upadhyaya: Legitimising hate and conspiracy theories

February 20, 2025 

Ashwini Upadhyaya, a Supreme Court lawyer and prominent BJP leader, has also been vocal in spreading far-right narratives. On February 20, at a lecture on the Indian Constitution in Parbhani, he advocated for the restoration of “historic sacred places” like Kashi, Mathura, and Bhojshala, referring to which he claimed that the Mosque had been built after destroying temples. This rhetoric is rooted in the ideological push for the Ram Mandir, built at the destruction site of Babri Majid, and other religious sites to be reclaimed as symbols of Hindu supremacy.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Upadhyaya’s speeches are filled with conspiracy theories, including baseless claims about “love jihad” and “land jihad.” He further exacerbated these fears by drawing on international examples, citing China and Israel as models for population control measures. Linking population control to “love jihad” reflects a troubling trend where he frames demographic changes, especially Muslim migration, as a grave threat to India’s Hindu identity.

February 11, 2025 

On February 11, in Raigarh, Upadhyaya made statements about “infiltration jihad” and the alleged presence of six crore “infiltrators” in India, many of whom, according to him, were Muslims. Such claims serve no purpose other than to stoke fear and division in society.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 2, 2025 

On February 2, in Pune, at the V.D. Savarkar Memorial Lectures organized by Swanand Janakalyan Pratishthan, Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay demonized Muslims by selectively citing cases where Hindu women were murdered by Muslim men. He stirred fear about ‘infiltration’ and led the audience in an oath against alleged ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ promoting unfounded and divisive claims about demographic threats.

The video of speech can be seen here:

The role of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti: furthering hate and division

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, a far-right organisation, also plays a significant role in spreading of conspiracies and peddling hatred with potential to harm our social fabric and harmony. On February 3, during a press conference on Bangladeshi ‘infiltrators’ at Marathi Patrakar Sangh, Mumbai, organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Sanatan Sanstha leader Abhay Vartak claimed that on alleged Bangladeshi “infiltrators,”. Abhay Vartak, claimed that up to ten lakh Bangladeshi immigrants live in Mumbai, which he linked to an increase in crimes and unemployment. His remarks were clearly aimed at inciting fear and suspicion towards the Muslims living in Mumbai, holding them responsible for collectively attacking the Indian economy. Vartak further promoted the conspiracy of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” underscoring how these controversial and harmful ideas are being propagated at multiple levels.

The impact of hate speech on Maharashtra and beyond

The hate-filled speeches delivered by these lawmakers and influencers are not only harming Maharashtra’s social fabric but also endangering the unity of the nation. Such rhetoric creates an environment where one minority community feels persecuted, that can lead to a cycle of hate and retaliation. Moreover, these statements are dangerous as they normalize a call for violence and discrimination against a particular religious community, portraying them as collectively acceptable responses to perceived grievances.

By invoking divisive terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “infiltration jihad,” these above-mentioned leaders are playing on people’s fears, creating imaginary threats to the nation’s demographic and religious balance. 

Furthermore, these speeches shrinking the very foundation of India’s secular democracy, where all religions are meant to be treated equally. Instead, they promote a vision of India where one religion is dominant and all others are viewed with suspicion and hostility.

The role of authorities in curbing hate speech

The time has come for a serious conversation about the accountability of public figures, particularly legislators, who use their platforms to promote hate and division. In Maharashtra, BJP leaders like Nitesh Rane, T Raja Singh, Ashwini Upadhyaya, and others have proven that they are willing to sow communal discord for political gain. Their speeches not only undermine the values of unity and secularism but also pose a grave threat to the fabric of society.

It is critical for the authorities to take swift action against hate speech and hold leaders accountable. The continued silence and inaction will only embolden others to follow in their footsteps, further poisoning the political discourse and deepening the divisions within our society. The future of Maharashtra, and indeed India, depends on the strength of its commitment to secularism, equality, and justice. It is time for the nation to stand united against hate, no matter where it originates.

Related

Mtra Elections: On CJP’s complaint on an MCC violation FIR has been registered against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

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

The post Leaders and the spread of divisive narratives appeared first on SabrangIndia.