A thelawala by occupation, Kashem Ali earns his living by pulling a handcart through the heat and rain, working day after day to support his wife, Suraton Khatun, and their two sons, Sahjahan Ali and Sahajamal Ali. He is neither a politician nor a person of influence. He is a working man whose life has been consumed by a legal battle over his citizenship, despite documentary records linking his family to Assam decades before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date.

On October 25, 2026, Kashem finally received a measure of relief. The Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, held that he had successfully discharged the statutory burden of proving that he was not a foreigner and was a citizen of India. The decision came after a prolonged legal fight, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

But the end of Kashem’s ordeal does not mean the end of the family’s suffering. His wife, Suraton, was declared a D-voter in 2019 and remains unable to exercise her voting rights for ten years, until 2029. The husband has now been recognised as an Indian citizen, while his wife continues to live with the consequences of a citizenship-related determination that has deprived her of a fundamental democratic entitlement.

Kashem Ali, outside his home in Assam, looking through all his case related documents

A case registered in 2004, notice served only in 2022

The case, State of Assam vs Md. Kashem Ali, was heard by Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Bongaigaon, under BNGN/FT Case No. 1205/2010, arising from BNGN/IM(D)T Case No. 1944/2003. According to the case records, proceedings were registered in 2004 based on an order issued by the Superintendent of Police (Border). Yet Kashem did not receive notice until March 2022. Eighteen years had passed between the registration of the case and the service of notice upon him.

For a man dependent on daily earnings to sustain his family, such prolonged uncertainty carries consequences far beyond a courtroom. The years between registration and notice, followed by the legal proceedings themselves, meant that Kashem had to confront an allegation of foreign origin while continuing to make a living through manual labour. When his wife’s case had previously come up, Kashem was unaware of CJP and had incurred considerable expenses. This time, knowing that legal assistance was available, he approached the organisation for help.

CJP’s legal team, led by legal member Dewan Abdur Rahim and his two junior colleagues, took up his case before the Tribunal. The defence challenged both the basis of the allegation and the way the investigation had purportedly been conducted. In his written statement filed on December 10, 2025, Kashem put his position in straightforward terms: the case was not maintainable in law or on facts, he was not a foreigner, and he had been born in Assam.

Born in Assam, with family records predating 1971

Kashem Ali was born in 1968 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri, under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon district, Assam. He was the son of Nojumuddin Sheikh, also recorded under variations of the name Naju Sheikh, and Panful Nessa, also known as Panful. His father died in 1974, while his mother died in 2018. His paternal grandfather, Najirulla, also recorded as Nojib, was the father of four children: Naju Sheikh, Yunus Ali, Khalek Miya and Khatim Bibi. Kashem has one sister, Toshiran Bibi, against whom, according to the information placed before the Tribunal, no foreigners case is pending.

Kashem married Suraton Khatun, daughter of the late Toyab Ali of Village No. 2 Dhupuri, in 1988. Together, they raised two sons. These were not merely family details. They formed part of the chain of relationships and documentary evidence through which Kashem sought to establish his identity and his connection to Assam.

The defence placed particular emphasis on records showing that Kashem’s parents were enrolled as voters in Assam in 1966, five years before the March 25, 1971, cut-off date relevant to the determination of citizenship in Assam. Subsequent electoral records also documented Kashem and his wife as voters over several decades. Despite this documentary trail, Kashem was compelled to establish before a Tribunal that he was not a foreigner.

Eighteen documents to establish what should never have been in doubt

To discharge the burden imposed under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Kashem produced 18 documents before the Tribunal, recorded as Exhibits A to Q, with Exhibit A-1 as an additional document. He also obtained a Panchayat certificate. The evidence included land and revenue records, historical electoral rolls, school records, identity documents and a death certificate. Together, these materials were relied upon to establish his family links, place of birth and long-standing presence in Assam.

Among the most significant records was the certified copy of the 1966 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I under the Bijni Legislative Assembly Constituency. It recorded Nojumuddin, son of Nojir Ullah, and Panful, wife of Nojumuddin, as voters. The 1971 electoral roll for Dhupuri Part I also recorded Nojmoddin Sheikh, son of Nojib, and Panful Nessa, wife of Nojmoddin, alongside other members of the extended family.

The records connecting Kashem himself to the electoral rolls began with the 1997 list for Dhupuri Part II, which recorded Kasem Ali, son of the late Nasimuddin Sheikh, and Suraton Khaton, wife of Kasem. The 2008 list also included both husband and wife. Kashem appeared in the electoral rolls for 2010, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, with variations in the spelling of his name and his father’s name across different records.

The documentary evidence also included a land record showing Kashem’s father as the recorded owner and possessor of 4 bighas, 1 katha and 17 lessas of land under Annual Patta No. 27, with Dag Nos. 155, 156 and 200 in Village No. 1 Dhupuri. A revenue payment receipt in Kashem’s name accompanied the record.

A school certificate issued by the head teacher of 480 No. Dabaguri Lower Primary School recorded Kashem Ali, son of Noju Sheikh, as having studied in Class I in 1975. His Election Commission of India-issued Elector Photo Identity Card, dated March 6, 2024, was also produced.

Other documents included a ration card issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in the name of Suraton Khatun, identifying her as Kashem’s wife; Kashem’s PAN card and Aadhaar card; and the death certificate of Panful Bewa, issued by the relevant health authorities in Manikpur.

The documents did not all serve the same evidentiary purpose. Rather, the defence relied on them collectively to establish the links between Kashem, his parents, his wife, his residence and the historical records of his family. The sheer volume of documentation required to defend his citizenship underscores the burden imposed on ordinary people facing allegations of foreign origin. For Kashem, years of family history had to be assembled, authenticated, translated and placed before a Tribunal before he could obtain legal recognition of what he had maintained from the outset: he was not a foreigner.

Defence challenges the investigation

CJP Team Assam with Kashem Ali outside his home in Assam

A central part of the defence was its challenge to the investigation that had led to the reference against Kashem. The CJP legal team argued that the investigating officer had submitted a report without conducting a genuine inquiry. According to the defence, the officer had neither visited Kashem’s home nor recorded his statement, seized any documents or examined any witnesses. The defence further questioned the credibility of the witnesses named in connection with the case.

The allegation, the advocate argued, rested on the assertion that Kashem had entered Assam from a specified territory after March 25, 1971. Kashem denied this outright, maintaining that he had never come to Assam from East Pakistan or Bangladesh and had been born in the state in 1968.

The defence also addressed discrepancies in the spelling of names across official records. Kashem appeared as Kasem Ali or Kashem Ali, while his father’s name was variously recorded as Nojumuddin, Nasimuddin, Najim Uddin Sheikh and Nojim Uddin Sheikh. The legal team argued that these variations were clerical inconsistencies and did not establish that the records referred to different individuals.

Such discrepancies can create serious difficulties for people whose names are recorded across different government departments, particularly when records are handwritten, translated or entered by officials over several decades. For poor families with limited means to scrutinise or correct official documentation, a spelling variation can become a formidable obstacle in proving identity and family links. The defence maintained that the differences in Kashem’s records had to be assessed in their proper context, alongside the broader documentary evidence, rather than treated as grounds to doubt his citizenship.

Revenue official corroborates land records

Kashem and two other defence witnesses gave evidence before the Tribunal. One of them, Defence Witness No. 2, Subash Medhi, a S.K. of the Manikpur Revenue Circle, proved the Jamabandi produced as Exhibit A after furnishing official documents underlying its issuance. The revenue official’s evidence provided an official basis for the land record relied upon by the defence. It formed part of the wider evidentiary case through which Kashem sought to establish his family’s links to the land and locality.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concluded that Kashem had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It held that the opposite party was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. The decision brought relief after years of uncertainty and a prolonged legal battle. It also meant that the allegation of foreign origin could not stand in the face of the evidence accepted by the Tribunal.

A husband declared Indian, a wife still denied her vote

Yet Kashem’s relief is incomplete in the most painful sense: his wife continues to bear the consequences of a separate citizenship-related proceeding. Suraton Khatun’s case had come before a Foreigners Tribunal in 2019, when she was kept in the D-voter category. As a result, she remains unable to vote for ten years, from 2019 to 2029.

Her name appeared alongside Kashem’s in the 1997 electoral roll, and she was again recorded as a voter in the 2008 roll. The family ration card also identifies her as Kashem’s wife. She is the mother of their two sons and has shared the same home and family life through the years in which her husband was forced to defend his citizenship.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the proceedings against her remain in place. Kashem’s successful defence does not, by itself, restore Suraton’s voting rights or resolve her separate case. The contrast is stark. In 2026, a Tribunal recognised Kashem as an Indian citizen after examining the documentary evidence. His wife, whose name appeared in electoral records decades earlier, remains unable to participate in elections until 2029 because of her D-voter status.

For this family, the cost of citizenship proceedings is not measured only in legal expenses or years spent answering an allegation. It is also measured in the democratic rights lost while the proceedings cast a shadow over their lives.

CJP’s intervention brings relief, but the larger questions remain

On October 25, Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and CJP State In-charge Nanda Ghosh, representing Team CJP, visited Kashem’s home and handed him a copy of the Tribunal’s judgment. After years of uncertainty, he could finally breathe a sigh of relief. He welcomed the team with tea and expressed his gratitude to CJP for helping him navigate the legal battle.

For Kashem, the judgment is a hard-won victory. For CJP, it is another reminder of the importance of accessible legal assistance for people facing citizenship proceedings, particularly those without the financial means to sustain a prolonged fight on their own.

But his case also raises questions that extend far beyond one family. Why did a case registered in 2004 result in notice being served only in March 2022? What safeguards exist to prevent allegations resting on inadequate investigations from subjecting people to years of uncertainty? How should authorities assess discrepancies in names across decades of public records, particularly when historical documentation is inconsistent? And what happens to those who cannot assemble 18 documents, secure witnesses, pay legal expenses or find an organisation willing to help?

Kashem Ali with his wife outside their home in Assam

Kashem Ali is not a case number. He is a man who pulls a handcart to feed his family, a husband to Suraton, a father to two sons, a brother to Toshiran and the son of parents whose names appear in Assam’s historical records. His case demonstrates how the burden of proving citizenship can fall on ordinary people even when documentary records trace their families to Assam before the 1971 cut-off date. It also shows why legal aid can make the difference between confronting a case alone and having the opportunity to place one’s evidence before a Tribunal.

CJP’s intervention helped Kashem secure relief. But how many others face similar allegations without access to legal assistance, the resources to gather documents or the means to sustain years of proceedings?

And while Kashem can finally put this chapter behind him, Suraton must still wait for the restoration of her democratic rights. Their story is not simply one of a man declared Indian after a long legal battle. It is a reminder of the human cost of citizenship proceedings in Assam, where the right to belong can become a prolonged struggle for people whose lives, families and records are already rooted in the state.

The order may be read below:

Related:

Assam citizens’ forum demands scrapping of SIR, completion of pending NRC process; police block protesters at Guwahati Press Club

CJP helps secure Ajabha Khatun’s release after 772 days in Assam’s Matia detention camp

Floods | Documents | Courts: CJP’s Fight for Citizenship in Assam

Nationality Before Deportation: The Rajubala Das case

Aadhaar, Voter ID and PAN Cannot Prove Citizenship: Calcutta High Court’s Foreigners Order and the burden of belonging

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

The post After 22 years under suspicion, Assam’s Kashem Ali declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“A Hindu should only buy from a Hindu. We should only do business with Hindus,” Rane declared at the launch of the HARHAR (Hindu Association of Restaurants, Hotels, Aahar & Refreshments) campaign in Jui Nagar. In a video shared on his official X account, he called on Hindus to ensure that the person they traded with was Hindu, presenting this religious test to strengthen a Hindu Rashtra.

आज जुईनगर, नवी मुंबई येथे HARHAR (Hindu Association of Restaurants, Hotels, Aahar & Refreshments) या मोहिमेच्या शुभारंभ सोहळ्यास उपस्थित राहिलो.

हिंदू उद्योजकांना एकत्र आणून त्यांच्या व्यवसायाला आर्थिक बळ, व्यापक बाजारपेठ आणि नवी संधी उपलब्ध करून देणारा हा उपक्रम निश्चितच कौतुकास्पद आहे.

‘हिंदूंकडून खरेदी, हिंदू व्यापाराला प्रोत्साहन’ या संकल्पनेतून हिंदू उद्योजकता, भारतीय खाद्यसंस्कृती आणि स्वावलंबनाला अधिक बळ देऊया.

संघटित हिंदू समाज, सक्षम हिंदू उद्योजक आणि समृद्ध हिंदू अर्थव्यवस्था हेच आपले ध्येय!

HARHAR मोहिमेस मनःपूर्वक शुभेच्छा!

#HARHAR #HinduEntrepreneurs #HinduUnity #स्वावलंबीभारत #NiteshRane

— Nitesh Rane (@NiteshNRane) October 24, 2026

He then directed this call for economic exclusion towards the Nashik Kumbh Mela, demanding that Muslims not be allowed to set up shops at the gathering. His rhetoric escalated into an outright threat: “If Muslims come to the Kumbh Mela, they should not go back on their feet.”

This is not a call for self-reliance. It is a call for exclusion, backed by the threat of violence. A minister advocating that citizens refuse to trade with fellow citizens because of their religion, while warning of physical harm to those who attend a public religious gathering, raises concerns that cannot be brushed aside as political rhetoric or community mobilisation. In a separate video shared by news agency IANS, Rane referred to vandalism in France, claiming that Muslim-owned shops had been spared. He used this account to reinforce his demand that Hindus verify the religious identity of those with whom they conduct business.

“When you buy things, do business, or engage in trade, you must ensure that the person in front of you is a Hindu before moving forward,” he said. He also asserted that a country with a Hindu majority did not need any certificate to be a Hindu Rashtra.

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra: Minister Nitesh Rane says, “During all those riots and vandalism, the moment they realized a shop belonged to a Muslim, they didn’t break it. They immediately moved to the next shop and continued their vandalism. When you buy things, do business, or engage in trade, you must ensure that the person in front of you is a Hindu before moving forward. That is why I am telling you this. This is how our Hindu Rashtra will be strengthened. In a country where 90% of the population is Hindu, we don’t need any certificate to be a Hindu Rashtra…”

(Source: Nitesh Rane PR Team)

— IANS (@ians_india) October 24, 2026

The logic is stark: Muslims are to be treated not as fellow citizens participating in the economy, but as people from whom Hindus must withdraw their custom, business and trust.

An economic boycott dressed up as entrepreneurship

HARHAR was presented as an initiative to bring Hindu entrepreneurs in the food and hospitality sectors together, expand their markets and strengthen their businesses. There is nothing objectionable about entrepreneurs organising around shared interests, promoting domestic products or preserving food traditions. But these legitimate objectives cannot be used to sanitise a campaign that explicitly calls for Muslims to be excluded from economic life.

As reported by The Free Press Journal, Swami Vigyananand, joint general secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and founder of the World Hindu Foundation, identified food imports, the alleged dominance of Muslims in certain sectors and the popularity of foreign brands as obstacles to creating a Hindu food ecosystem. Restaurateur Sachin Shetty spoke of building a network of Hindu entrepreneurs and restoring Hindu dominance in the fruit supply chain. Although Shetty reportedly clarified that he did not want Muslim traders thrown out, the language of restoring religious dominance sits uneasily alongside the stated aim of building an inclusive and prosperous economy.

Rane, however, left little room for ambiguity. Hindu traders, he insisted, should sell only to Hindus, while Hindu consumers should purchase only from Hindu shopkeepers, including during Diwali. The issue is not whether Hindu businesses deserve support; they do. The issue is why that support must be built on the exclusion of Muslims.

Economic self-reliance is about strengthening domestic production, supporting small enterprises, improving supply chains and creating livelihoods. A religious boycott does none of this by definition. It instead seeks to turn everyday transactions into tests of religious loyalty, casting Muslim traders as people whose businesses should be avoided simply because they are Muslim.

Rane also invoked allegations of “love jihad”, “land jihad”, “halal jihad” and “corporate jihad”, claiming that money earned through business with Muslims was being used for “jihad” against Hindus. He urged people to stop buying from Muslims and portrayed ordinary commercial relationships as a potential source of danger. These sweeping allegations were offered as justification for collective economic punishment, without credible evidence presented at the gathering to establish the claims.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Hindutva Watch (@hindutvawatchin)

The consequence of this rhetoric is to transform an ordinary act of buying or selling into a communal choice. A trader’s religion becomes a reason to distrust them; a customer’s religion becomes a condition for serving them. The economic boycott is presented as solidarity, while the people targeted by it are made to bear the cost of that solidarity.

When exclusion becomes a political objective

The demand to exclude Muslim vendors from the Nashik Kumbh Mela makes the stakes even clearer. Organisers and authorities may establish rules for licensing, sanitation, safety and the management of commercial spaces. But demanding a blanket ban on Muslim traders because of their religion raises fundamental questions about equal treatment and the right to earn a livelihood.

The threat that Muslims attending the Kumbh Mela should not return on their feet is especially grave. It goes beyond advocating a boycott or expressing hostility. It invokes physical violence against people based on religious identity. Coming from a serving minister, such language demands public scrutiny rather than being dismissed as a provocative flourish.

The constitutional implications are equally important. Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution establish guarantees of equality before the law and protection against state discrimination on grounds including religion. Their application to specific private transactions or the rules governing a particular religious gathering depends on the circumstances. But the larger democratic principle is unmistakable: religious identity cannot be turned into a general licence to threaten citizens or demand their exclusion from public life.

What is being advanced in the name of Hindu entrepreneurship is a much more consequential proposition: that Hindus should withdraw economic support from Muslims, that Muslim traders should be excluded from a major religious gathering, and that Muslims who attend should face intimidation. This is not simply a debate about food culture or domestic industry. It is a demand to organise economic and public life along religious lines.

The question raised by Rane’s remarks is not whether Hindus should support Hindu entrepreneurs. It is whether that support should be weaponised into a campaign against Muslim livelihoods and accompanied by threats of violence. In a constitutional democracy, the answer must begin with a basic principle: no citizen should have to fear exclusion from economic life, or threats to their physical safety, because of their religion.

Related:

“Festivals Must Be Fun. Not Vehicles of Hate” | Teesta Setalvad

‘Abandon Christianity or Face Consequences’: Christian families face three days of violence in Bengal

Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

The post Economic Boycott as Hindu Solidarity: BJP leader Nitesh Rane calls for Muslims to be shut out appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The attacks, reported by The Indian Express, took place under Chandrakona police station limits on October 18, 19 and 20, amid allegations that the families had faced sustained harassment for embracing Christianity. The assailants allegedly threatened to kill them, burn their homes and force them to renounce their faith. Despite the families approaching the police, the intimidation continued for three days before a formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered on October 20.

Thirteen people have been named in the FIR. As reported by The Indian Express on October 23, no arrests had been made at the time of publication, although police personnel had been deployed near the families’ homes.

Women assaulted, clothes torn; families threatened over their faith

Lakshmi Mondal, one of the victims, told The Wire that the harassment intensified on October 16, when a group allegedly threatened the Christian families with consequences unless they abandoned their religion. Two days later, the threats escalated into physical violence.

Recounting the assault, Lakshmi said she was struck below her ear by Ranjit Dolui and lost consciousness. When she partially regained consciousness, she could feel people removing her sari and tearing her blouse. She subsequently learnt that Dolui, Pocha Patra and Bapi Mondal had allegedly stripped and assaulted her.

The attackers allegedly splashed water on her face to revive her before pouring water over her body in front of onlookers, chanting “Jai Shri Ram” and declaring that she had been purified. Lakshmi said she was left lying on the floor of her home in that condition. The group also allegedly took away a Bible kept in the house.

The violence was accompanied by explicit threats against her family. According to Lakshmi’s account to The Wire, the assailants threatened to rape her Class X daughter and burn the family alive if they refused to abandon Christianity and return to Hinduism. The group allegedly attacked the homes of two other Christian families, including that of Saraswati Mondal and her husband, Ashok Mondal. Saraswati’s 15-year-old daughter was allegedly subjected to an attempt to strangle her, according to the family.

The account provided by a 40-year-old victim to The Indian Express corroborated the allegations of assault and forced religious purification. She said that on October 18, a group dragged her and her husband out of their home, beat them and tore her clothes before making her consume Tulsi and Bel leaves and pouring water over her as a purification ritual.

The allegations point to more than physical violence. The victims describe being publicly humiliated and subjected to rituals intended to undermine their religious identity, in an apparent attempt to force them to abandon a faith they say they had adopted voluntarily.

Forced to offer anjali at Durga Puja pandal

The attacks allegedly continued on October 19, when members of the group forced the families to participate in Hindu religious rituals. Lakshmi told The Wire that Madan Manna and Bappaditya Chatterjee, who were allegedly part of the previous day’s assault, took her and her husband, Tapan Mondal, along with Saraswati and her husband, Gopal Mondal, to a Durga Puja pandal in Dangal.

“They took us there against our will and forced us to offer anjali,” she alleged.

The families said they were made to participate in the ritual in front of others despite having been assaulted the previous day. The incident, as described by the victims, illustrates how religious rituals were allegedly used as instruments of coercion rather than voluntary expressions of faith.

On October 20, the intimidation allegedly continued. Lakshmi said that Manna and his associates took the men of the affected families to an isolated location and threatened to kill them if they did not renounce their belief in Jesus Christ. According to the complaint, the accused also abused and threatened Lakshmi and other family members and confined her inside her house. The families said they were too frightened to leave their homes and sent three minor girls to stay with relatives for their safety. Lakshmi eventually approached the police station again and lodged a formal complaint naming 13 people. The families said a police picket was deployed only after the FIR was registered.

Harassment allegedly began last year

The families told The Wire that the hostility did not begin with the October attacks. According to their account, Lakshmi’s husband, Tapan, his brother Gopal and another villager had embraced Christianity several years ago. Other residents of neighbouring villages had also converted. Lakshmi maintained that the decision was voluntary and rooted in their religious beliefs. She said the families continued to respect other religions and had been practising Christianity peacefully inside their homes.

However, she alleged that her relatives, Asit, Arun, Barun and Tarun Mondal, began harassing the family during Durga Puja last year, questioning their decision to convert. The family said they had submitted a written complaint to Chandrakona police station at the time. Although the police visited the village, they alleged that no effective action was taken against those accused of harassment.

The families said the intimidation later intensified, particularly after the change of government in West Bengal in May. According to Lakshmi, the attackers allegedly invoked the arrival of a new government and claimed that the Bajrang Dal would ensure that the families abandoned Christianity. Several witnesses who spoke to The Wire reportedly corroborated aspects of the victims’ account. 

Police security offered, but families remain afraid

Patlapur, located around 15 kilometres from Chandrakona town, is home to approximately 150 families belonging to different social and religious communities. Agriculture and the manufacture of copper ornaments are among the principal sources of livelihood in the area. Local primary school teacher Soumitra Gharui told The Wire that the village had not witnessed caste-related disputes or violence of this nature for decades. Residents alleged that efforts to disturb the area’s social harmony had begun around a year ago.

The families said the three days of violence had left them traumatised. Lakshmi also expressed concern for her elderly father-in-law, Krishnapada Mondal, who has reportedly been living with paralysis for several years and witnessed the harassment of the family. Speaking to The Indian Express, one of the victims said that four police personnel had been stationed outside their homes. While welcoming the security, she expressed fear that the protection might not last.

“We are happy the police helped us. But threat calls are coming. One day the police will leave. What will we do then?” she said. She added that she wanted only to live peacefully in her own home.

On October 21, Paschim Medinipur Superintendent of Police Papiya Sultana told The Wire that an FIR had been registered and that the police would provide security to the families and investigate the incident. Speaking to The Indian Express, Sultana said a police picket had been deployed because the families felt insecure and that the police were taking steps to prevent further incidents. An advocate who assisted the victims told The Indian Express that the FIR was registered after he visited the police station on October 20, but the accused had not been arrested.

For the families, the immediate concern remains their safety. They have alleged that they were threatened, assaulted and pressured to abandon their faith despite seeking police intervention. While a police picket has been established, the absence of reported arrests has added to their apprehension.

Related:

Dalit Class XI student dies by suicide after alleged casteist harassment in Coimbatore

CJP helps secure Ajabha Khatun’s release after 772 days in Assam’s Matia detention camp

Six police personnel suspended after custodial death of Dilshad Ansari in Bihar

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

Six Days, One Unanswered Question: What happened to Shaheen and Nafisa Khan at Saket Police Station?

The post Christian families assaulted, humiliated and forced into Durga Puja rituals in West Bengal village appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For Ajabha and her family, her release marked the end of an agonising wait. For CJP’s Assam team, it was a deeply significant milestone in 2026. But the relief was accompanied by a painful reminder of the many people who remain trapped in detention, separated from their families, their health deteriorating and their futures uncertain. Her freedom is also a reminder of what timely legal assistance can mean to someone who has been left without the resources to fight alone.

From a forgotten case to a sustained legal fight

On September 2, 2024, twenty-eight Bengali-speaking Muslims from Barpeta district were taken into custody and placed in a detention camp. When the CJP team met their families, it learnt that Ajabha’s family had not approached the Gauhati High Court on her behalf. The family was extremely marginalised and lacked the means to pursue the legal remedies available to her. At the family’s request, CJP took up Ajabha’s case, providing legal and paralegal assistance and helping bring her plight before the Gauhati High Court.

Detailed story may be read here.

On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation and sought the Foreigners Tribunal records to review the order declaring her a foreigner. The legal challenge, however, remained pending, and Ajabha continued to be held at Matia.

Detailed piece may be read here.

The High Court proceedings were crucial, but the immediate reality remained stark: an unwell woman was still confined in a detention camp, separated from her family, with no certainty about when she would return home. Without timely legal intervention, Ajabha could have remained without effective recourse to challenge her situation, while the threat of deportation continued to hang over her.

CJP’s work did not end with bringing her case before the Court. The team continued to stand by Ajabha and her family, pursuing every available avenue to secure her release while her substantive legal battle remained unresolved.

Two years in detention. A new effort to bring her home.

On September 1, 2026, Ajabha completed two years in the Matia Transit Camp. Her illness and prolonged confinement made the urgency of securing her release all the more pressing. Although her case was still pending before the Gauhati High Court, CJP’s Assam team began exploring additional avenues for her release on the grounds of her two years in detention and her deteriorating health. The effort drew upon the Supreme Court’s and Gauhati High Court’s suo-motu proceedings concerning detention during and around the COVID-19 period.

From August onwards, the team intensified its efforts. Alongside its continuing legal work, it counselled family members, visited the detention camp, documented her circumstances and initiated the administrative process required to secure her release. CJP Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury contacted the relevant authorities and submitted an application through Ajabha’s son. The work that followed was painstaking and often bureaucratic: identifying suitable bailors, verifying their documents and preparing the necessary applications, affidavits and supporting papers for submission to the District Border Police Office.

By October, Ajabha had spent more than two years and one month in detention. After the documents were submitted to the District Border Branch, officials informed the team that they would be forwarded to Guwahati and that the remaining process would depend on a favourable response. A few days later, the team received word that the processing in Guwahati had been completed and that the next steps could begin.

The team continued to follow up with the authorities through the following week. On October 11, the process was finalised for Ajabha’s release on conditional bail. On October 12, the Border Branch informally indicated that transportation difficulties could delay her release, but that an alternative arrangement might make it possible for her to leave the following day. CJP immediately coordinated with the Border Police and Ajabha’s family to ensure that the arrangements could be made. After more than two years of waiting, October 13 would finally bring her home.

October 13: The long journey back to freedom

CJP Team Assam with Ajabha Khatun after being released

The day began before dawn. At 3:40 a.m., Nanda Ghosh, on behalf of CJP’s Assam team, and office driver Ashikul Hussain set out for Barpeta. The journey involved multiple stops: the Border Branch police quarters, the local police station and Ajabha’s home, where family members had to be brought together with the police for the journey to the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. They reached Matia at around 9:30 a.m. After completing the required formalities, the team accompanied Ajabha out of the camp and began the return journey to Barpeta.

By around 1:30 p.m., after hours on the road without food, Ajabha, the CJP team and the three police personnel accompanying them stopped to eat. It was a small, ordinary moment, but one that underscored how much had gone into making this day possible. The journey continued to the Barpeta District Border Branch at the Superintendent of Police’s office, where Abhijeet Choudhury had already begun the necessary work. CJP’s Barpeta District DVM, Jafar Ali, and the two bailors were also present.

Once the team arrived, the remaining formalities involving Ajabha and the bailors were completed, and the Border Police handed her over to the bailors. There was one more official requirement. The team accompanied Ajabha, the two bailors and a family member to Barpeta Sadar Police Station, where she is required to report once a week under the conditions of her release. Only after all these formalities were completed could the team finally take Ajabha home.

“The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain.”

As soon as Ajabha got into the car, the weight of her long ordeal began to surface. Overcome with emotion, she struggled to find words to express her gratitude to the CJP team. “Baba, may God bless you all!” she said.

Then, speaking about her time in detention, she described the suffering she had endured. “What can I say about the suffering in that detention camp? It is a hell. The suffering there is indescribable. Only those who have been there know that pain!”

But even in that moment of relief, Ajabha was thinking of someone she had left behind. She told the team about Sehera, a visually impaired woman from Barpeta district who remains in the detention camp. Ajabha had cared for her during their time together, bringing her food, washing her clothes and plate, and making her bed.

“Baba, there is a blind woman there who cannot see. She suffers a lot. I used to bring her food, wash her clothes, wash her plate and make her bed. Her name is Sehera. She is from Barpeta district itself, but I don’t know exactly where. I only know her name. Can you please get her released, Baba?”

Ajabha recalled that as she was leaving, Sehera had hugged her and wept. She had asked Ajabha to appeal to the people who had helped secure her release to do the same for her. When I was leaving, she hugged me and cried a lot. She told me to request those who got me released to get her released too. Please get her out of that detention camp just like me. Allah will surely bless you,” Ajabha pleaded.

The request was heartbreaking. After 772 days of confinement, after enduring illness, separation and the uncertainty of her own future, Ajabha’s first concern was for another woman still inside. The CJP team knew Sehera only by name. They assured Ajabha that they would make every effort to trace her and explore the legal avenues available to help secure her release, while acknowledging that they could not guarantee the outcome. Ajabha had finally found her way out. Yet, even as she returned to freedom, she carried with her the anguish of someone who had not.

A village waits. A family welcomes her home.

 

As the sun began to set, the CJP team reached Koetkuchi village with Ajabha. Word of her return had drawn almost the entire village to her home. The moment the car arrived, people rushed forward. Tears, cries and overwhelming emotion filled the scene. After such a long separation, the sight of Ajabha returning home proved almost too much to bear. She fainted several times amid the emotional upheaval.

The team finally handed her over to her family, urging them to take particular care of her physical and mental well-being over the coming days after her prolonged confinement and the strain of the journey. Ajabha’s son, Buddu, works as a migrant labourer in the coal mines of Meghalaya. Unable to be present throughout the release process, he called the team by telephone and expressed his heartfelt gratitude to CJP for helping bring his mother home.

For a family that had spent months grappling with uncertainty and helplessness, her return offered a moment of immense relief. Yet Ajabha knows that her release is conditional and that her case before the Gauhati High Court remains unresolved. Before the team departed, she folded her hands and made one final plea. “I pray that my case ends permanently, Baba, as soon as possible, so that I never have to go to the camp again!”She prayed to Allah for the CJP team.

It was around 9 p.m. when the team finally began its journey home. The day had been long, physically exhausting and emotionally overwhelming. For months, the distress of Ajabha’s family had weighed heavily on the team as it worked to find a way to bring her home. That night, there was finally some relief.

It was not the end of the legal battle. It was not yet the permanent resolution Ajabha desperately wants. But it was a moment when sustained legal work, careful documentation, administrative follow-up and the determination to stand by a marginalised family had helped make a tangible difference.

The fight is not over

Ajabha Khatun’s release is an important milestone for CJP’s Assam team in 2026. It demonstrates the importance of legal assistance that does not stop at filing a petition, but continues through the practical, often exhausting work required to secure relief for a person who may otherwise struggle to navigate the system alone.

Her case also brings into focus the human consequences of prolonged detention for people declared foreigners, particularly those who are ill, economically marginalised and separated from their families while legal proceedings remain pending.

For Ajabha, freedom has meant returning to her village, embracing her family and sleeping once again under the open sky. But her relief remains shadowed by the knowledge that Sehera and others continue to endure detention.

As CJP’s team celebrates Ajabha’s return, it also carries forward the responsibility her plea has placed before it: to try to trace Sehera, explore the available legal remedies and continue working towards relief for those still confined.

After 772 days, Ajabha is home. Her legal case must still reach its conclusion, and the conditions of her release must be respected. For now, a family has its mother back, a village has welcomed one of its own, and a woman who endured the suffering of detention has found the strength to speak for someone still inside. Her freedom is a milestone. Her plea for Sehera is a reminder of the work that remains.

Related:

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

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

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

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

The post After 772 Days in Detention, Ajabha Khatun Returns Home: CJP helps secure her release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by The Indian Express, Ansari was arrested in connection with a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. He was allegedly being taken to Sahodra police station when he sustained serious head injuries.

The suspended personnel have been identified as sub-inspectors Ravi Shankar Kumar and Arun Kumar, and constables Saudagar Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Rishi, Kundan Kumar and Suman Kumar. All six were posted at Sahodra police station and have been suspended with immediate effect, police said.

In a statement issued on Monday, Bettiah Police said Ansari had jumped from a moving police vehicle while being taken into custody, resulting in grievous injuries. He was taken to a subdivisional hospital in Narkatiaganj and subsequently referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Bettiah, where doctors declared him dead on arrival.

Ansari’s family has rejected the police version of events and alleged that he was assaulted in custody.

Following the death of Dilshad Ansari in police custody in #Bettiah, #Bihar, six policemen including the Station House Officer have been suspended. The family alleges that Dilshad was beaten and his death occurred due to a head injury.
The Bihar Police should conduct a fair investigation into the matter.

— Siraj Noorani (@sirajnoorani) October 12, 2026

दिलशाद अंसारी की मौत पर कई गंभीर सवाल हैं। आखिर उस रात क्या हुआ? @Bettiah_Police से माँग है कि CCTV फुटेज, पोस्टमार्टम रिपोर्ट और सभी साक्ष्यों के आधार पर निष्पक्ष जाँच हो। सच्चाई सामने आए, पीड़ित परिवार को इंसाफ मिले! @bihar_police

#JusticeForDilshadAnsari https://t.co/beZXydymQg

— Sartaj Alam Champarni سرتاج (@YouthSartajAlam) October 12, 2026

Family disputes police account

Speaking to the media, his wife, Nagma Khatoon, said a police team took him from their home at around 2 am on October 12. She alleged that the officers assured the family he would be released by morning after questioning. The family later received a call from Banuchhapar police station asking them to reach GMCH in Bettiah, reportedly on the grounds that Ansari had fallen ill. They found him dead on arrival at the hospital, she said. Ansari’s father, Akhbar Ansari, alleged that police personnel had struck his son hard on the head and called for a thorough inquiry into his death. 

Ansari, a resident of Badhayi Tola in Auraiya, under the Banuchhapar police station area, was named as an accused in NDPS case number 65/25, registered on August 8, 2025. Ansari leaves behind his wife and their six-month-old daughter. His family is seeking a high-level investigation into the death.

Calls for accountability

The incident has also drawn criticism from former Rajya Sabha MP Ali Anwar, who heads the All India Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz. In a statement, reported India Today, Anwar urged Bihar Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary to take action against the police personnel allegedly responsible for Ansari’s death.

Citing accounts from social activists in West Champaran, Anwar questioned the claim that Ansari had jumped from a moving vehicle, arguing that the reported absence of injuries to his arms and legs warranted further scrutiny. He also urged the National Human Rights Commission to intervene and called for ex gratia compensation for Ansari’s family.

Related:

When a Student Dies, Who Questions the Institution? | Sahil Wakode’s Parents Seek Justice | Teesta

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

The post Bihar custodial death: Six suspended after Dilshad Ansari’s death in custody; family demands high-level probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Organised by People’s First, Citizens for Justice & Peace (CJP) and Vote for Democracy (VFD), the consultation examined the growing concerns surrounding electoral-roll revision, the exclusion of eligible voters, transparency and accountability within the Election Commission of India, and the legal and democratic consequences of conducting elections on disputed or procedurally defective electoral rolls.

Among the prominent voices at the consultation were MG Devasahayam, soldier, economist, administrator and public servant and an expert on India’s electoral system; Dr Pyarelal Garg, former Dean and Professor of Surgery and an expert with VFD; Professor Harish Karnick, formerly of IIT Kanpur; senior RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; former Union Home Secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai; former Union Finance Secretary EAS Sarma; former bureaucrat Amitabha Pande of the Constitutional Conduct Group; actor Prakash Raj; human rights activist Usha Ramanathan; Thomas Franco, former General Secretary of the All India Bank Officers Confederation; Tara Rao and Noor Sridhar of Wake Up Karnataka; and academic Ashoke Chatterjee.

The consultation reflected the breadth of concern over the SIR process, with participation from Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand, among other States. Independent journalists Prashant Tandon of DB Live and Indra Kumar Theradi from Tamil Nadu also participated.

The strong representation from Assam was particularly significant. In a State where citizens have for decades faced the enormous burden of establishing their citizenship through documentary records, Dr Ghyansham Nath, senior academic; Nanda Ghosh of CJP; advocates Mrinmoy Dutta, Abhijeet Chowdhury, Abdur Rahim and Jamal Uddin; Harkumar Goswami; Dr Rituraj Kalita of the Forum for Social Harmony; and Professor Taijuddin Ahmed brought the experience of Assam’s citizenship and electoral processes into the national discussion. The consultation was conducted by Teesta Setalvad, Secretary of CJP.

The diversity of those participating was itself a reflection of the seriousness with which the question of SIR is being viewed. Electoral-roll revision is not merely an administrative exercise. It determines who is recognised as an elector and therefore who is able to exercise one of the most fundamental forms of democratic participation: the right to vote.

The consultation consequently resolved to bring together public mobilisation, systematic documentation, social audits, legal intervention and institutional accountability around a single overarching demand: SIR must be scrapped and the electoral rights of every eligible citizen must be restored and protected.

Demands for the Public Campaigns/ Protests

1. CEC GYANESH KUMAR MUST RESIGN: Resignation/ removal Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) (Impeachment is the legal provision for this process if there is no resignation)

2. SIR MUST BE SCRAPPED: Completely reverse SIR. All future elections to be based on 2024 rolls + any revisions made as per law and past practice for addition/deletion for the past 2 years.

3. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA MUST BE DISBANDED

4. 2023 ACT THAT GRANTS IMMUNITY TO ECI ETC FROM PROSECUTION & NON-TRANSPARENT APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS BE REPEALED: Repeal 2023 law giving commissioners immunity for decisions taken.
5. RE-ENACT A LAW FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ALL ELECTION COMMISSIONERS: This new law should ensure that the Appointment Committee and procedure is broad-based, diverse and ensures some accountability: Appointment by/through a broad based committee of 8-10 people containing two government nominees, two opposition nominees, two past election commissioners (not holding any position given by govt.), two representatives of the higher judiciary (retired judges of high/supreme court not holding any position). The Final Selection should be by two-third majority.
6. ANNUL AND RE-DO ELECTIONS CONDUCTED AFTER THE SIR 2025 PROCESS: Elections to be conducted based on Electoral rolls verified and transparent after annual Summary Revision of 2025 and 2026 as the case may be.
7. TRANSPRENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY IN ECI FUNCTIONING: Complete transparency and public access to all data in machine readable form as soon as it is available to the EC both during elections and during normal times. In particular all electoral rolls, all forms filled by presiding officers during elections, counting related data.
8. MAKE SOURCE CODES(S) PUBLIC: Source code of EVM software, ECInet/EROnet software and any other s/w used for any sanity checks of the electoral roll (e.g. logical discrepancy) should be in the public domain.

Electoral transparency is a constitutional necessity

The Assembly has called for complete transparency in the functioning of the ECI, including public access to electoral data in machine-readable form, electoral rolls, relevant forms filled by election officials and counting-related information. It has also called for the source codes of EVM software, ECINet, ERONet and other software used for electoral-roll verification and discrepancy detection to be placed in the public domain. These demands arise from a fundamental democratic principle. Citizens cannot effectively challenge an electoral decision if the processes producing that decision remain inaccessible or impossible to independently scrutinise. Digitalisation cannot become a substitute for accountability.

If an elector’s name is deleted, the citizen must be able to know why. If a deletion application has been filed, the grounds and source of that application must be capable of scrutiny. If a claim for inclusion is rejected, the elector must have access to the reasons. If an appeal is pending, its status must be ascertainable. If software contributes to identifying a discrepancy or exclusion, there must be an auditable record of how that decision was generated and reviewed. A constitutional election process cannot be allowed to operate as a black box.

Legal intervention must be narrow, rigorous and evidence-based

The Assembly has resolved to assist in exploring appropriate legal remedies concerning the SIR and electoral processes conducted on the basis of disputed or procedurally defective rolls. The legal strategy must begin with evidence. It must document patterns of exclusion, bulk deletion applications, Forms 6 and 7, software-related exclusions, unresolved appeals, failures of restoration and instances where citizens were denied meaningful opportunities for verification or hearing.

This approach is especially important after the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerning Bihar. The appropriate constitutional question now is not simply whether the ECI possesses the power to undertake an intensive revision, but whether particular exercises of that power comply with the statutory framework and constitutional safeguards.

Where elections have already been conducted on rolls shown to have been seriously compromised, remedies must be examined through the statutory framework governing election challenges and on the basis of constituency-specific evidence. The Assembly has specifically identified the large number of pending appeals and limited restoration of voters in West Bengal as matters requiring close examination before any conclusions are drawn about the validity of elections conducted on the revised rolls.

Give every excluded voter a name and a face

The Assembly has therefore called for a nationwide Public Social Audit of electoral rolls across SIR-affected States. Civil-society organisations, community groups, youth organisations and citizens are being encouraged to undertake participatory verification at the booth, ward and Gram Sabha levels, with the involvement of the concerned Booth Level Officer and Electoral Registration Officer wherever possible.

Such exercises have already been undertaken in parts of Delhi and across approximately 100 booths in Karnataka. The Assembly seeks to expand these efforts into a systematic national campaign documenting exclusions, pending claims and objections, Forms 6 and 7, deletion notices, bulk applications and procedural violations.

This public process will include comparing the SIR-driven deletions and additions with a comparison of earlier electoral records, including the 2002-03 rolls where relevant, with the 2025-26 SIR rolls is intended to establish what happened to individual voters rather than allowing their exclusion to disappear into administrative statistics.

The campaign is intended to give a face and name to the 13.60 crore Indians so tragically and shamefully excluded. That too by a constitutional authority like the Election Commission of India. The conduct of this Campaign for a Public Social Audit is crucial to drum up and sustain the demand for a Scrapping of the 2025-2026 SIR.

Every proposed deletion and addition must be publicly disclosed, with the voter given a meaningful opportunity to contest the deletion and have their name restored where wrongly excluded. The process must ensure transparency regarding who sought a deletion, on what grounds, whose name is proposed to be deleted and what verification was undertaken. No electoral-roll change should be affected without public notice, verification and an effective opportunity to object.

Independent inquiry must strengthen public accountability

The Assembly has welcomed the Independent Commission of Former Supreme Court and High Court Judges constituted by the Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) to examine the constitutional and statutory validity, methodology and impact of the SIR. The five-member Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur, includes former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Patnaik and former judges of the Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi and Patna High Courts. It proposes to conduct public hearings, collect testimony from affected citizens and analyse electoral-roll data, with a report expected by December 2026.

The Assembly will assist this process by placing before the Commission relevant data, documentation and evidence emerging from public campaigns, independent investigations and social audits. Such an inquiry must complement, not replace, judicial and statutory remedies. Its importance lies in bringing together evidence that is otherwise dispersed among individual voters, election officials, civil-society groups and independent investigations.

Electoral democracy cannot survive exclusion without accountability

The controversy surrounding SIR has brought together questions that cannot be treated separately: the integrity of electoral rolls, the right to vote, institutional independence, and transparency, collective decision-making and judicial accountability. The integrity of an election begins long before polling day. It begins with the electoral roll.

If an eligible citizen is removed without adequate notice, verification or an effective remedy, the democratic injury occurs before that citizen ever reaches the polling station. The October 3 Assembly has therefore resolved to combine public mobilisation, social audits, evidence-building, legal intervention and institutional accountability around one central demand.

Every eligible citizen must have the right to remain on the electoral roll, to know why any deletion is proposed, to challenge it effectively and to have a wrongful exclusion corrected.

Scrap SIR and restore electoral rolls

The Assembly has called for the SIR process to be completely reversed and for future elections to be conducted on the basis of the 2024 electoral rolls, subject to additions and deletions carried out through the ordinary statutory processes and established safeguards. The demand comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar SIR. That judgment, however, cannot be read as placing every subsequent decision or implementation of SIR beyond judicial scrutiny. The present controversy concerns not merely the existence of a power to revise electoral rolls, but the manner in which that power is exercised, the safeguards accompanying it and the legality of particular decisions taken during the process.

The distinction is crucial. A constitutional power must still be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, the Representation of the People Acts, the Registration of Electors Rules, applicable directions and the principles of procedural fairness. The Assembly therefore proposes an evidence-based legal strategy focused on specific violations, documented exclusions, defective procedures and departures from statutory safeguards rather than relying on broad assertions about the SIR in the abstract.

The Election Commission cannot function without accountability

The Assembly has demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and has also called for a fundamental restructuring of the institutional framework governing the Election Commission. These demands have acquired renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s October 5 proceedings concerning allegations that important decisions connected with the SIR were taken unilaterally by the CEC despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners.

Reports based on an investigation by The Indian Express have stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over ten months concerning decisions and orders connected with the SIR, with some objections alleging that decisions were taken without their knowledge or contrary to their recommendations. The Supreme Court has now sought responses and records from the concerned authorities. The Court declined, at this stage, to suspend the CEC, but made clear that the legality of the alleged unilateral decisions remains open for examination. It also indicated that decisions of the Commission must comply with the legally prescribed mechanism of collective decision-making.

The controversy over Form 6 makes the issue particularly serious. During the October 5 hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved modifications allegedly made to Form 6 and indicated that the Court would examine who authorised those changes.

Form 6 is a form distinctly and procedurally meant for enrolment of first-time new voters. The ECI, by using this process meant for a limited and specific purpose, for the re-enrolment of wrongfully deducted previous voters is itself committing a flawed illegality and asking citizens to do the same. Making matters worse, the amended Form 6 includes a declaration on oath by an older voter to the effect that ‘she or he has not voted before’, making matters worse.

The question before the country is consequently larger than whether one particular administrative decision was correct. It is whether a constitutional body exercising enormous power over the democratic franchise is functioning collectively, transparently and within the limits imposed by law.

The complete resolution may be read below:

Related:

Census 2027: When a population count starts asking for more than just numbers

From Statelessness to Citizenship: CJP helps Adori Bibi reclaim her Indian identity

Who had access to 3,404 SIR forms? CJP, VFD and BCS seeks statewide audit after Kharghar breach

The language of the lathi

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

The post Scrap SIR, Restore Electoral Integrity: A national call to defend the right to vote appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incidents documented this month of September range from demands linked to the Mathura temple-mosque dispute and provocative religious sloganeering outside a mosque to warnings against alleged “infiltrators”, claims of Hindu demographic decline and repeated exhortations to acquire weapons. While the speakers and settings differ, the rhetoric follows recognisable patterns of exclusion and otherisation.

From a place of worship to a demand for its “liberation”

Location: Basti, Uttar Pradesh

Date: September 4

On the occasion of Krishna Janmashtami, Vishva Hindu Mahasangh leader Akhilesh Singh asserted that if those celebrating Janmashtami had taken an oath to celebrate it only after demolishing the mosque in Mathura, similar to the Babri Masjid, and “freeing” the temple, it would have been “freed” long ago. He claimed that Krishna had been imprisoned in a jail and that the temple had been occupied. He also announced a march for “Krishna Janmabhoomi” in October.

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5188

On September 4 in Basti, Uttar Pradesh, Vishva Hindu Mahasangh leader Akhilesh Singh used the occasion of Krishna Janmashtami to invoke the Mathura mosque-temple dispute. He said that if those celebrating Janmashtami had taken an oath to celebrate it only after demolishing the mosque in Mathura, “like the Babri Masjid”, and “freeing” the temple, it would have been “freed” long ago. He also announced a march for “Krishna Janmabhoomi” in October.

The significance of this rhetoric lies in the transformation of a contested place of worship into a religious obligation. The mosque is not presented simply as a structure involved in an ongoing legal and political dispute. Its presence is rhetorically framed as an obstacle to the fulfilment of a Hindu religious claim.

The invocation of the Babri Masjid demolition is particularly concerning. A constitutional and legal dispute over a place of worship is thereby connected to a historical episode in which a mosque was demolished by a extremist mobilisation. The language of “liberation” further recasts the removal of a Muslim religious site as an act of religious restoration. This is one of the recurring mechanisms through which religious difference becomes exclusionary: a particular religious community is represented as occupying space that rightfully belongs to another.

When religious practice becomes a public assertion against Muslims

Location: Achalpur, Amravati, Maharashtra

Date: September 8

During a grand Kanwar Yatra organised by Jableshwar Baba Mitra Mandal, participants recited the Hanuman Chalisa and raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans outside a mosque, with former MP Navneet Rana seen reciting the Hanuman Chalisa. The religious recitation and slogan-shouting reportedly led to brief communal tension, following which security was tightened in the area.

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5194

A similar dynamic appeared in Achalpur, Amravati, on September 8, where participants in a Kanwar Yatra organised by Jableshwar Baba Mitra Mandal recited the Hanuman Chalisa and raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans outside a mosque. Former MP Navneet Rana was seen participating in the recitation. The incident reportedly generated brief communal tension, after which security was increased.

When religious activity is deliberately performed outside another community’s place of worship and accompanied by slogans that have acquired a powerful political resonance, religion can cease to function merely as an expression of personal faith. It can become a public demonstration of dominance, particularly where the immediate setting is already communally sensitive. The issue, therefore, is not the Hanuman Chalisa itself. It is the use of religious symbolism in a setting where the identity of another religious community becomes part of the spectacle.

Constructing the Muslim as the outsider

Location: Howrah, West Bengal

Date: September 11

A Hindu nationalist speaker, defending religious preacher Dhirendra Shastri’s comment about banning non-vegetarian food from Durga Puja, warned that anyone who insulted a saint again would be “beaten so badly” that they would be unable to get up. He targeted those he termed “Bangladeshi infiltrators”, accusing them of disrespecting Bengali culture and vandalising Durga Puja pandals, breaking Saraswati idols, and setting fire to pandals. He named Muslim leaders from opposition parties and alleged that such people had “become Bengalis” and accused “intellectuals” of abusing Hindus who worship Durga and Saraswati. He claimed that efforts had begun in Bengal to get rid of this “drug” from their minds.

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5258

In Howrah, West Bengal, on September 11, a Hindu nationalist speaker defending religious preacher Dhirendra Shastri’s remarks on non-vegetarian food during Durga Puja threatened that anyone who insulted a saint again would be “beaten so badly” that they would be unable to get up. The speech then moved from defending a religious figure to identifying an alleged enemy.

The speaker referred to people he described as “Bangladeshi infiltrators” and accused them of disrespecting Bengali culture, vandalising Durga Puja pandals, breaking Saraswati idols and setting fire to pandals. Muslim political leaders were named, while “intellectuals” were accused of abusing Hindus who worship Durga and Saraswati. This is a familiar form of otherisation: disparate questions of nationality, religion, culture, political affiliation and alleged criminality are collapsed into a single hostile category.

The label “Bangladeshi infiltrator” is particularly potent in this construction. It does not merely describe an alleged immigration status. In the speech, it becomes attached to a broader image of the Muslim as someone who does not belong to Bengal, does not respect its culture and is therefore positioned outside the legitimate social body. The result is a rhetorical equation in which defending Hindu religious culture is presented as requiring resistance to an allegedly Muslim threat.

From demographic anxiety to militarisation

Location: Rasdhan, Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh

Date: September 14

During a Ganesh Utsav program, far-right monk Madhuram Sharan Shiva, leader of the armed monks’ group Shiva Shakti Akhada, invoked Partition to claim that Hindus were again facing a similar “tragedy” because they were “weapon less.” He claimed that 10 lakh Hindus were killed during Partition and suggested that a similar number of “Miya” could have been killed had Hindus been armed. He contrasted Hindus’ worship of Ram with his killing of demons and urged Hindus to take up weapons to protect their religion. He also alleged that Hindus were converting to Christianity and Islam because they lacked knowledge of Hindu deities and religious teachings. He urged organisers to establish classes in temples to teach children aged 6–14 about Hindu deities, arguing that merely installing Ganesh idols was not enough to establish dharma.

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5263

The speeches by far-right monk Madhuram Sharan Shiva across Uttar Pradesh in September took this logic further. At a Ganesh Utsav programme in Rasdhan, Kanpur Dehat, on September 14, Shiva invoked Partition to claim that Hindus were again facing a similar “tragedy” because they were “weapon less”. He referred to the deaths of Hindus during Partition and suggested that a comparable number of “Miya” could have been killed had Hindus been armed. He invoked Ram’s killing of demons and urged Hindus to take up weapons to protect their religion.

Location: Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

Date: September 15

During a Ganesh Utsav program, far-right monk Madhuram Sharan Shiva, leader of the armed monks’ group Shiva Shakti Akhada, questioned why the Ganesh idol does not carry weapons and alleged that Hindus were gradually declining across the world because they had abandoned weapons. He claimed that religious scriptures are torn and places of worship destroyed when Hindus do not practise weapons training, asserting that “if there is knowledge of dharma and shaastra (religious scriptures), that knowledge is incomplete without weapons.”

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5256

The following day, at another Ganesh Utsav programme in Kanpur Nagar, he questioned why the Ganesh idol did not carry weapons and argued that religious knowledge was incomplete without weapons.

Location: Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh

Date: September 16

During a Ganesh Utsav program, far-right monk Madhuram Sharan Shiva, leader of the armed monks’ group Shiva Shakti Akhada, fearmongered about the decline of the Hindu population, citing Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and alleging that Hindu populations in nine states had fallen from around 90% to as low as 5–10%, leaving Hindus unable to organise religious events. He claimed that religious scriptures are torn and places of worship destroyed when Hindus do not practise weapons training, alleging that more than 500,000 temples were destroyed over 500 years. He questioned why “no god” came to protect temples when the Ram temple and Somnath temple were destroyed, arguing that Hindu religious teachings require Hindus to protect their own faith and that “without weapons, protection is impossible.” He urged Hindus to study their religious scriptures and become “dharma yoddhas,” declaring that those who carry weapons become “veers” (brave warriors).

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5255

On September 16 in Makhi, Unnao, the rhetoric centred on alleged Hindu demographic decline. Shiva invoked Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and made claims about the Hindu population having fallen dramatically in several Indian states. He also alleged that hundreds of thousands of temples had been destroyed over centuries and asked why Hindu gods had not protected temples such as the Ram temple and Somnath. His conclusion was that Hindus themselves must become “dharma yoddhas” and that protection of the faith was impossible without weapons.

The argument begins with fear. Hindus are portrayed as a community in demographic decline, surrounded by hostile forces and historically dispossessed of temples. That fear is then connected to a solution: Hindu unity, physical preparedness and weapons. Religion thus becomes not simply an identity but a justification for militarisation.

The invocation of Hindu gods and religious texts plays an important role in this process. Religious figures are selectively interpreted through the vocabulary of battle, while the distinction between spiritual instruction and physical confrontation is deliberately narrowed. The implied message is that to be a sufficiently committed Hindu, one must be prepared to defend the community against an identified adversary.

The making of an internal enemy

The rhetoric also repeatedly moves beyond an abstract “threat” to identify Muslims as the people against whom Hindu unity must be consolidated. That distinction matters. A speech about preserving one’s religion does not automatically constitute hate speech. But when religious preservation is constructed through the identification of another religious community as dangerous, disloyal, invasive or responsible for historical and contemporary grievances, religious identity becomes a mechanism of exclusion.

The September speeches repeatedly follow this trajectory. Muslims are represented variously as occupants of Hindu sacred spaces, cultural outsiders, demographic threats, political enemies or people against whom Hindus must physically organise. The vocabulary changes, but the underlying structure remains strikingly similar.

From “Hindu culture” to political ownership

Location: Dongri, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Date: September 23

During a Ganesh celebration, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane declared that India was a Hindu Rashtra and said that in Dongri he wanted to hear “Har Har Mahadev” and not “I Love Mohammed”, while describing the government as one based on Hindutva ideology. He also referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and said he would always stand with Hindus in disputes with Muslims.

https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/5278

The September 23 incident in Mumbai brought this directly into electoral and political language. During a Ganesh celebration in Dongri, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane declared that India was a Hindu Rashtra and said that he wanted to hear “Har Har Mahadev” rather than “I Love Mohammed” in Dongri. He described the government as one based on Hindutva ideology, referred to Muslims as “green snakes” and said he would stand with Hindus in disputes involving Muslims. Here, religious identity is explicitly linked to political authority and territorial belonging.

Dongri is not merely a neighbourhood in this formulation. It becomes a symbolic site in which one religious expression is presented as belonging and another as something that should not be heard. The contrast between “Har Har Mahadev” and “I Love Mohammed” is particularly revealing. It converts religious expression into a test of communal ownership: one slogan is presented as appropriate to the space, while the other is implicitly marked as alien. The reference to Muslims as “green snakes” goes a step further by reducing an entire religious community to a dehumanising metaphor.

A recurring grammar of exclusion

Read individually, these incidents come from different contexts. Taken together, however, they reveal a recurring rhetorical grammar.

First step: Sacred injury- A mosque is presented as occupying a Hindu sacred site. A temple is described as having been destroyed. A religious figure is portrayed as having been insulted. Hindu festivals are presented as being under threat.

Second step: Collective identification- The alleged perpetrator is no longer an individual. “Muslims”, “Miya”, “Bangladeshi infiltrators” or an undefined Muslim political establishment become collective categories.

Third step: Invoke fear- The community is portrayed as demographically declining, culturally threatened, historically victimised or physically vulnerable.

Final step: Mobilisation- The proposed response ranges from marches and public religious assertions to demands for religious unity and, in the most extreme speeches, weapons training and physical confrontation.

This progression is important because hate speech does not always begin with an explicit call for violence. It can begin by changing how a community is imagined. A mosque becomes an encroachment. A Muslim becomes an outsider. A demographic change becomes an existential threat. A historical grievance becomes a present danger. Religious self-defence becomes a justification for arming. And eventually, violence or confrontation can be presented as the logical consequence of protecting the community.

Religion as an instrument of otherisation

The central issue running through these September incidents is therefore not religious belief itself. It is the political use of religious identity to divide the population into those who supposedly belong and those who supposedly threaten that belonging. Hindu festivals provide the setting. Temples and mosques provide the symbols. Religious figures provide moral authority. Historical episodes provide grievance. Demographic claims provide fear. Political slogans provide mobilisation. Muslims are repeatedly positioned at the other end of this construction.

This matters because constitutional secularism does not require citizens to abandon their religions. It requires the State and public institutions to recognise citizens as equal members of the political community regardless of religion. The danger in this rhetoric lies precisely in the opposite proposition: that religious identity determines who has a stronger claim to public space, cultural legitimacy or political belonging.

Related:

CJP Demands FIR, Independent Probe into Alleged Police Assault on Journalists Shaheen and Nafisa Khan

The Kanwar Yatra: Between devotion and domination

From Statelessness to Citizenship: CJP helps Adori Bibi reclaim her Indian identity

Hate Watch: Jihad rhetoric, forced sloganeering mark UP-Uttarakhand week

Clashes, Slogans, Stone-Pelting: How Eid Milad processions turned tense across India

The post ‘Free the Temple’, ‘Protect the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How September’s festivals became stages for anti-Muslim hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A documentary about Khalid scheduled to be screened at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) on September 14, was suddenly postponed. The Law & Society Committee, which had organised the event, said it had taken the decision because of “logistical and security considerations” and insisted that it was not backing down because of pressure. The documentary, Prisoner No. 626710 is Present, directed by Lalit Vachani, was to be shown to mark Political Prisoners’ Day and six years since Khalid’s arrest.

However, developments around the screening tell a different story. The postponement came after opposition from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), which had demanded that the screening be cancelled and subsequently claimed credit for its postponement. The News Minute reported that the organisation affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had formally complained to the NLSIU administration about the screening. The Quint likewise reported that the organisers maintained that their decision was not a response to external pressure. Significantly, the NLSIU episode was not an isolated incident.

Just weeks earlier, Jawaharlal Nehru University had formally cancelled the booking of an auditorium for a discussion around Khalid’s book, Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power. While the university cited the organisers’ alleged “non-disclosure of the full facts” of the programme, this was contested by the organisers and as reported in The New Indian Express and Sabrangindia, the programme went ahead with retired professors addressing the gathering just outsider the School of Social Sciences-II building. A report on this may be read here.[1]

There is an unmistakable irony to these episodes.

While universities debate whether his work can be discussed, the much larger question remains unresolved: how long can a person remain imprisoned before the criminal justice system is required to put its case to trial?

Umar Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 North-East Delhi riots. Six years later, the trial has still not begun. That fact is no longer a footnote to the case. It is the case. Two thousand, one hundred and ninety days as an under-trial prisoner.

Six years, and still waiting for a trial

Khalid has now spent six years in custody as an under trial. The prosecution case against him is “extensive” yet key allegations have not been buffeted by adequate evidence. The Delhi Police filed a charge sheet running into 11 volumes and more than 17,000 pages in September 2020. The larger conspiracy case involves many accused and, according to an August 2026 open letter signed by more than 100 public figures, the prosecution has listed around 900 witnesses. Yet the trial has not begun.

This creates a constitutional problem that cannot simply be answered by pointing to the seriousness of the allegations. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty and has long been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a speedy trial. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court specifically recognised that prolonged incarceration can, in appropriate circumstances, justify bail even where stringent statutory restrictions apply.

The tension between that constitutional principle and the UAPA’s stringent bail regime now sits at the centre of Khalid’s case. Six years of imprisonment without trial means that the punishment of incarceration is being experienced before guilt has been adjudicated. That distinction matters.

Khalid has not been convicted of the allegations against him. The charges remain allegations. His guilt or innocence is ultimately for a trial court to determine after evidence is tested. But the trial has not begun.

The arrest came after years of being a public dissenter

Khalid’s current incarceration cannot be understood without the political and legal history that preceded it. A former JNU student leader and research scholar, Khalid emerged as a prominent public voice on questions of communalism, citizenship, minority rights and state power.

His name first became nationally prominent during the 2016 JNU controversy. In February that year, he was arrested in connection with an event held at JNU protesting the execution of Parliament attack convicts Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat. He and others were accused under provisions including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The case itself became emblematic of the criminalisation of political expression on university campuses. Then, SabrangIndia had interviewed Umar Khalid, and the two-part conversation can be viewed here and here.

In January 2019, the Delhi Police filed a charge sheet against Khalid and former JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar in the sedition case. Then came the political upheaval surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA 2019) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Khalid was among those who participated in and addressed protests against the CAA-NRC framework in 2019 and 2020.

On February 17, 2020, Umar Khalid spoke about peaceful protest and invoked Gandhian methods. A portion of his remarks was subsequently circulated widely on social media after BJP IT-cell head Amit Malviya posted an edited interpretation of his comments. Worse, just ahead of the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Kapil Mishra of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had stated on Twitter, “Delhi mein chote chote Pakistan bane (Delhi will become mini-Pakistan)” and “Shaheen Bagh mein Pak ki entry (Shaheen Bagh will serve as entry for Pakistan) as reported by The New Indian Express and The Hindu.” Mishra was even subsequently booked under Section 125 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act), for promoting enmity between classes to gain an advantage during the elections and thereafter in June June 2024, Mishra was summoned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. At the time in 2020, the Delhi High Court made the Delhi Police watch four videos in court establishing hate speeches that had been made by politicians but not acted on by the police. Kapil Mishra was one of the four videos. Justice Murlidhar who came down on the police sharply for inaction was summarily transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Despite the fact that the case dwindled to naught later, there have been sharp critiques on how justice has been selectively delivered. Not just Mishra but Anurag Thakur, were recorded delivering provocative and incendiary hate speeches at election rallies in February 2020. The courts, including the Supreme Court of India were eventually lenient with them (2026) as compared to the young Muslim student leadership at the helm of the anti-CAA/NRC protests. At an election rally, Anurag Thakur, an elected official of the BJP, was heard leading a chant of “Desh ke gaddaron ko…”, to which the crowd responded, “Goli maaron saalon ko.” The slogan went viral and drew widespread criticism. Just weeks later, Delhi witnessed large-scale communal violence that claimed 53 lives, with allegations raised that such speeches contributed to the charged atmosphere. Yet it was Umar and 17 others who bore the brunt of the blame for the violence.[2]

Days later, North-East Delhi descended into brute and targeted communal violence. Fifty-three people were killed and hundreds were injured. Ignoring the deliberate provocations by elected officials of the ruling BJP, the Delhi Police chose to target on the previous, vibrant and widespread anti-CAA/NRC protest leadership, developed a theory of a “larger conspiracy”, alleging that the anti-CAA protest movement had been used to plan and orchestrate the violence. Khalid became one of the principal accused in that case. Incidentally, while the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was in power at the time and returned to power after the state elections, the Delhi police are controlled directly by the central/union ministry for home affairs.

September 2020: The beginning of six years behind bars

Khalid was arrested on September 13, 2020, under the UAPA. The prosecution alleged that he played a central role in the conspiracy behind the riots. The case was not merely an ordinary prosecution arising from individual acts of violence. The police’s case was that Khalid, and others were part of a broader conspiracy connected to the anti-CAA protests and that the protests themselves were used as part of a plan culminating in the violence.

The prosecution has repeatedly described Khalid as one of the alleged “masterminds” of the conspiracy. Khalid has consistently denied the allegations. What followed was a prolonged battle over bail and liberty.

2021: The first long bail battle

In April 2021, a Delhi trial court granted Khalid bail in a separate IPC case relating to the Delhi riots, observing that the material against him was sketchy and that he could not be incarcerated indefinitely on such material. That did not result in his release. His UAPA case continued.

By September 2021, his lawyers were back before the court seeking bail in the larger conspiracy case. The arguments went to the heart of the prosecution’s theory. Khalid’s lawyers argued that participation in protests, membership of WhatsApp groups and advocacy of a chakka jam could not, by themselves, constitute a terrorist conspiracy.

The defence also argued that the prosecution was attempting to paint a large number of individuals with the same brush and that the charge sheet presented a narrative rather than evidence establishing Khalid’s criminal role. The prosecution disputed this and argued that the protests had been systematically organised and synchronised. The bail hearings continued for months. In March 2022, the trial court rejected Khalid’s bail application. The court found a prima facie case against him under the UAPA. Khalid remained behind bars.

2023–24: The Supreme Court route and repeated adjournments

Khalid approached the Supreme Court. Notice was issued in May 2023. What followed was another prolonged sequence of hearings and adjournments. The matter was repeatedly listed before different benches. There were adjournments because of the unavailability of counsel, constitutional bench proceedings, changes in bench composition and the recusal of a judge.

On August 9, 2023, the matter came before Justices A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra. Justice Bopanna indicated that the matter would come before another bench after Justice Mishra’s recusal. On September 12, the Supreme Court admitted the bail plea but indicated that the documentary material would have to be examined in detail. The hearings continued into October and November. In January 2024, the matter was again repeatedly adjourned. There were 44 deferrals of the matter before the apex court.

Finally, on February 14, 2024, Khalid withdrew the Supreme Court petition, with his counsel telling the court that he would pursue the matter before the trial court on account of a “change in circumstances”. That change did not result in liberty.

2024: Back to the trial court

In July 2024, Khalid moved the Karkardooma court for bail. The proceedings again became protracted. On May 28, 2024, the Karkardooma court rejected his bail plea. The prosecution argued, among other things, that Khalid had amplified what it described as a “false narrative” through social media. The defence rejected the allegations and continued to challenge the evidentiary basis of the prosecution case. The central problem, however, remained unchanged. Khalid was still in prison. And there was still no trial.

2025: Another rejection, another year in custody

On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected Khalid’s bail plea. The court accepted the prosecution’s contention that the Delhi riots were the result of a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” rather than a spontaneous eruption of violence. The court also held that delay in trial, by itself, could not justify bail given the gravity of the allegations.

Khalid challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the years continued to accumulate. In December 2025, a Delhi court granted him interim bail for 14 days so that he could attend his sister’s wedding. It was a brief departure from a pattern otherwise defined by continued incarceration. He returned to prison.

January 5, 2026: the Supreme Court’s crucial order

The most consequential development came on January 5, 2026. The Supreme Court, in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi), granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case: Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmed. But it denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The distinction drawn by the court became critical (and most contested).

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria said that the prosecution material prima facie disclosed what it described as a “central and formative role” for Khalid and Imam, involving planning, mobilisation and strategic direction beyond “episodic and localised acts”. The court held that the threshold under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA was attracted. It also said that the accused could renew their bail applications after the examination of the protected witnesses or after one year from the judgment, whichever was earlier. At the same time, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

April 2026: Review rejected

Khalid sought review of the January judgment. On April 20, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, finding no sufficient ground to review its January 5 judgment. The door to immediate reconsideration appeared closed.

May 2026: A Supreme Court bench questions the January approach

On May 18, 2026, a separate Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency. The bench emphasised the constitutional significance of liberty and the principle that bail is ordinarily the rule and imprisonment the exception. More significantly, the bench expressed reservations about the January Gulfisha Fatima judgment’s treatment of the Supreme Court’s earlier three-judge decision in K.A. Najeeb.

The judges held that judicial discipline required the two-judge bench deciding Gulfisha to follow the binding precedent laid down by the three-judge bench in Najeeb. The issue was subsequently referred to a larger bench after another Supreme Court bench identified a “perceived conflict” in the approaches taken by different benches. That development was seized upon by Khalid and Imam in their renewed bail proceedings.

And then came the latest bail battle

Khalid and Imam approached the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of their third bail applications. The Delhi Police has now argued that they should not even be heard at this stage. In its response before the High Court, the police described the fresh bail proceedings as “illegal”, “misconceived” and an attempt to “mislead” the court.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 order, the police says, gave Khalid and Imam liberty to renew their bail applications only after one of two events occurred: the examination of protected witnesses or the expiry of one year from the judgment. According to the prosecution, neither event had occurred when the fresh pleas were filed.

Therefore, the police say, the applications are premature. Scroll.in, reporting on August 27, quoted the prosecution’s position that the May judgment in Andrabi, arising from another case, could not override the specific directions issued in Gulfisha. The police have also relied on the Supreme Court’s May 22 order in Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), which acknowledged the divergence between the Gulfisha and Andrabi approaches and referred the issue to a larger bench.

The State’s position is that until the larger bench settles the question, the January judgment continues to bind the High Court.

When does pre-trial detention become punishment?

The prosecution’s argument is this: the allegations are grave, Section 43D(5) applies, the Supreme Court has already assessed the material and Khalid’s alleged role is different from that of the accused who were granted bail. But there is another side to the equation. Khalid has spent six years in prison without trial. The prosecution has reportedly listed around 900 witnesses and there is no sign of the trial beginning any time soon.

The case involves thousands of pages of evidence and many accused. The more complicated the prosecution case becomes, the longer it can take to bring it to trial. But that cannot mean that the complexity of the prosecution’s own case becomes a reason for indefinite pre-trial incarceration. This is precisely why K.A. Najeeb matters. The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench in that case recognised that statutory restrictions on bail cannot be interpreted in a manner that makes constitutional rights meaningless. Where incarceration becomes excessively prolonged and there is no reasonable prospect of the trial being completed within a meaningful timeframe, Article 21 can acquire decisive significance. Detailed pieces may be read here, here and here.

A six-year incarceration has become a public question

On August 15, more than 100 writers, academics, activists, filmmakers, journalists and public figures wrote to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urging intervention in the continued incarceration of Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. As reported by The Wire, the signatories invoked K.A. Najeeb and argued that nearly six years of detention without the commencement of trial demands constitutional scrutiny. Their intervention reflects a broader anxiety about what prolonged pre-trial incarceration does to the meaning of liberty itself.

Six years is a long time to spend behind bars without a verdict. Umar Khalid has not been convicted of the charges against him, yet six years of pre-trial incarceration have already become a defining fact of his case. His bail battles continue, the prosecution and defence remain locked in arguments over the scope of the UAPA, and the larger question of how long a person can remain imprisoned while awaiting trial remains unresolved.

The courts will ultimately decide the charges against Khalid. But six years of incarceration without that determination cannot be reduced to another date in a long procedural timeline. It is a measure of the extraordinary cost of prolonged pre-trial detention. For Khalid, the wait for trial is no longer simply a stage in the criminal process. It has itself become the story.

Detailed pieces may be read here, here, here and here.

A profile on Umar Khalid may be viewed here.

[1] Professor Avinash Kumar, who had submitted the requisition for the auditorium, was particularly categorical. “The stated reason for the cancellation of the booking of the SSS auditorium is false,” he said, according to Hindustan Times report. Kumar maintained that the Dean had been fully informed that the event was going to discuss Khalid’s book and that the requisition had been prepared in the format suggested by the Dean himself.

His question was simple: if the university did not know what the event was about, why was the auditorium booking approved in the first place?

[2] In 2020, prior to the Delhi riots, Parvesh Verma was a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha, representing the West Delhi constituency. He belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

During the February 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, Kapil Mishra was a BJP candidate from the Karawal Nagar constituency (which he lost). He did not hold a formal government or party organizational position during the February 2020 riots. In early 2020, prior to the Delhi riots in February, Anurag Thakur held the designation of Union Minister of State (MoS) for Finance and Corporate Affairs in the Government of India. Simultaneously, he was a serving Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha representing the Hamirpur constituency of Himachal Pradesh.

Related:

The Conspiracy of Silence: HC denies bail to Delhi riots accused

How free are all Indians to exercise their right to peacefully protest under Article 19?

UAPA: Delhi HC denies bail, Umar Khalid’s Incarceration to Continue

4 years onward, activist Gulfisha Fatima remains behind bars

Order denying bail to Dr. Umar Khalid, a mockery of judicial system?

Dastardly attempt to assassinate Umar Khalid

Witch hunt against Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar continues

The post Six Years Behind Bars, Still No Trial: Umar Khalid’s long wait for justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaints concern BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar, Dr. Dhavalsinh Mohite-Patil, MLA Sangram Jagtap, Shri Ram Sangh President Sagar Baig, Sangram Bapu and public speaker & RSS member Pushpendra Kulshreshtha. Each complaint identifies the date and location of the event, sets out CJP’s objections to particular statements and urges police authorities to take action under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the persons propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

1.  Complaint against BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar and Dr. Dhavalsinh Mohite-Patil

The complaint dated July 31, 2026, concerned speeches delivered at a public gathering in Georai, Beed district, Maharashtra, on June 19, 2026.

The complaint named BJP MLA Gopichand Padalkar and Dr. Dhavalsinh Mohite-Patil and stated that the speeches were delivered before a public gathering.

Statements attributed to Gopichand Padalkar

According to the transcript reproduced in the complaint, Padalkar spoke about alleged encroachments and religious structures, stating that “When we visited that village, we found total encroachment. That mosque was built right on the road. Our request and challenge to the police administration is this: if any place of worship has been built on government land, it must first be demolished, and a bulldozer must be run over it!”

He further referred to alleged temple and religious lands and questioned the revenue and police administration over action.

Padalkar also spoke about village names associated with Mughal rulers, stating:

“And that is why I want to request you all. Why am I telling you this? Because in Beed district, there are villages that bear the signs of Mughal rule—Imampur, Aurangpur Kukda… Ah, even after Aurangzeb has passed, why is there still an Aurangpur Kukda here? Shahjahanpur, Umrad Khurd, Dari Shahjahanpur, Sultanpur…

Wipe out these names now! Find out what their original names were.”

The speech then referred to various expressions involving the word “Jihad”. Padalkar stated:

“Land Jihad, Love Jihad, Juice Jihad—you see all of this in the media—Corporate Jihad. Our educated daughters working in big companies are also being targeted. People might think this is just random talk, but it is not. This is a matter that goes beyond politics. Understand this clearly, Hindus!”

He also referred to demographic and religious changes in Jammu and Kashmir, the North-East, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and made allegations concerning Bangladeshis and states governed by political parties.

Statements attributed to Dr. Dhavalsinh Mohite-Patil

The complaint recorded Dr. Mohite-Patil using derogatory language while referring to Muslims and political leaders.

He urged Hindu mobilisation and stated:

“If Hindus stand united, then the Hindu community will stand by you. Because it is written in our religion: ‘Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah’ (He who protects Dharma is protected by Dharma).”

The most significant portion reproduced in the complaint stated that the highest place belongs to our mother and father. After that, if anyone looks at our motherland or our religion with an evil eye in the future, we will gouge their eyes out first, and only then will we look at the Constitution!

He continued while stating that “Because if these people do not respect our Constitution… if these people do not respect our Constitution, then it becomes very difficult to get justice through the medium of the Constitution and that is why staying united is the need of the hour today. Gathering together and building the strength of Hindus is the need of the hour today.”

What CJP alleged in the complaint

CJP stated that Padalkar’s speech repeatedly portrayed Muslims as unlawful encroachers and invoked theories including “Land Jihad”, “Love Jihad”, “Juice Jihad” and “Corporate Jihad”.

The complaint stated that the demand for bulldozer action specifically directed attention towards mosques and Muslim religious sites and that the speech sought the removal of names associated with Muslim rulers.

Regarding Dr. Mohite-Patil, CJP specifically highlighted the use of derogatory language and the statement that people would “gouge their eyes out first, and only then” look at the Constitution. The complaint described this as advocacy of violence and rejection of constitutional processes.

CJP urged authorities to immediately investigate the remarks under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It requested action against speech promoting enmity and incitement to hatred and referred to the need to protect dignity and communal harmony.

The copy of complaint dated July 31, 2026 can be accessed here

2. Complaint concerning speeches by Sangram Jagtap and Sagar Baig at Shevgaon

On August 11, 2026, CJP filed a complaint with Ahilyanagar Police authorities. The complaint concerned speeches delivered during a Hindu Janakrosh Morcha at Shevgaon in Ahilyanagar district, Maharashtra, on June 17, 2026. The speakers named in the complaint included MLA Sangram Jagtap and Shri Ram Sangh President Sagar Baig. The gathering followed a case involving the death of a Hindu woman and allegations concerning a Muslim man.

Statements attributed to Sangram Jagtap

According to the complaint, Jagtap addressed the gathering and spoke about the family of the accused person. He stated that “Tomorrow, after today’s meeting concludes, the responsibility lies with you all to ensure that his family does not continue to live in this area. You must take this responsibility upon yourselves.”

He further stated:

“The names of the family members listed on his ration card… no person associated with that ration card should remain here.”

The speech continued while stating that “A life of one of our children has been lost. Our child’s life is gone. His family must not stay here. Even after his death, they should not be allowed to bury him in this soil.”

Jagtap also stated:

“These people come and detonate bombs among us, and after they are sentenced or hanged, they are buried in our soil.”

He then called for collective action:

“Not a single person listed on that ration card should remain within the surroundings of this Shevgaon.”

The complaint further recorded Jagtap stating that if authorities considered the family’s presence a possible law-and-order issue, “If a law-and-order situation is going to arise because of them, then the Hindu community must create a law-and-order situation here.” He also said that “Only then… only then, in the times ahead, will anyone think twice before acting. No one will dare to cast an evil eye on our daughters. I tell you, they must learn a lesson from our actions.”

Statements attributed to Sagar Baig

The complaint recorded Sagar Baig speaking about possible criminal cases against persons participating in Hindutva-related activities. He stated:

“If anyone thinks that by filing cases against these boys or arresting them, the work will stop, then clear that misunderstanding from your mind. The work can never be stopped.”

He further said:

“Whichever case is filed during the work for Hindutva, do not be afraid; we are with you. If anyone requires assistance with legal expenses or lawyer fees, we are with you as the Rashtriya Shriram Sangh and the entire Hindu community.”

What CJP alleged in the complaint

CJP stated that the speeches called for the collective expulsion of a Muslim family from Shevgaon and went beyond criticism of an accused individual by targeting family members associated with him. The complaint specifically highlighted the statements concerning preventing the family from living in the locality and denying burial in the soil of the area.

CJP also raised objections to the statement suggesting that the Hindu community should create a law-and-order situation and to assurances that criminal cases should not deter participants.

The complaint urged police authorities to examine the speeches and take action under applicable criminal provisions. It also sought action consistent with judicial directions requiring law-enforcement agencies to act against hate speech and incitement.

The copy of complaint dated August 11, 2026 can be read here

3. Complaint concerning Sangram Jagtap and Sangram Bapu at Jalna

On July 31, 2026, CJP filed a complaint with the Jalna Police authorities. The complaint concerned a Hindu Jan Akrosh Morcha held at Partur in Jalna district, Maharashtra, on June 24, 2026. The complaint identified MLA Sangram Jagtap and Sangram Bapu as speakers.

Statements attributed to Sangram Jagtap

Jagtap spoke about Muslim children and alleged that they were taught violence. According to the complaint, he said that “And what are they taught? What is the first thing they are taught? ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’! What kind of ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ is this?”

He contrasted this with scientific achievements and stated that children should be taught about Chandrayaan and the possibility of building a “Suryayaan”. He then stated:

“Their only teaching is that Sharia law must be implemented across the world. And if they want Sharia law, they should immediately leave this land of India and go wherever they want—be it Dubai or Pakistan, they should go to their Arab countries.”

The speech also contained a threat of physical violence:

“Eat eggs, eat chicken, eat mutton—but do not cross the line. If you go beyond that, then just like Afzal Khan’s entrails were ripped out, your entrails will be pulled out! Keep that in mind.”

Statements attributed to Sangram Bapu

According to the complaint, Sangram Bapu addressed the gathering and referred to Hindu strength.

He stated that “If they think that the youths of Ahmednagar will get scared, put their tails between their legs, and sit quietly at home… these Hindus possess the strength to cut down whatever remains of yours!”

He also called upon participants to monitor their respective localities that “Everyone must keep a strict vigil on their respective areas!” The complaint further recorded the slogan that “Uthao dande, bhagao lande.”

What CJP alleged in the complaint

CJP stated that the speeches collectively portrayed Muslims as supporters of violence and Sharia-based governance and called upon them to leave India. The complaint highlighted the threat referring to Afzal Khan’s entrails and the statement attributed to Sangram Bapu concerning the ability of Hindus to “cut down whatever remains”.

CJP also objected to the slogan recorded at the gathering, describing it as a call for collective mobilisation using a derogatory expression directed at Muslims. CJP sought investigation and appropriate criminal action against the speakers and organisers under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and urged authorities to act in accordance with judicial directions concerning hate speech and public order.

The copy of complaint dated July 31, 2026 can be accessed here

4. Complaint against Pushpendra Kulshreshtha over speech at Virat Hindu Sammelan, Mumbai

On July 28, 2026, CJP filed complaint and concerned a speech delivered by Pushpendra Kulshreshtha at the “Virat Hindu Sammelan” in Mumbai, Maharashtra, on June 27, 2026. The complaint stated that the speech included statements concerning Muslims, equal rights, secularism, the Gyanvapi dispute, Sanatan religion and public punishment.

Statements recorded in the complaint

Kulshreshtha questioned the proposition that India belonged equally to Hindus and Muslims, stating that “As much as the land of Bharat belongs to Hindus, it equally belongs to Muslims’—was this remembered in 2026? Before this, was it not remembered?”

He also criticised secularism and the concept of equality among religions, stating that “India is secular’—from morning till evening, those who define secularism, those who do the drama of ‘all religions are equal’—they neither define religion nor anything else; they just create their own rote definition and promote it.”

Referring to the Gyanvapi dispute, he stated “On the very first page… inside Banaras, the place which some people till recently, some supreme fools used to call the ‘Gyanvapi Mosque’… ‘Gyan’ and ‘Vyapi’—neither of these words has any relation to a mosque!”

He subsequently declared that there was only one religion, there is only one religion, and there will only be one religion—its name is Sanatan.

While discussing alleged financial irregularities concerning temple funds, Kulshreshtha stated:

“Stand them at every crossroads and whoever has stolen even ₹1 to ₹200 crore from the Ram Temple should be shot dead publicly!”

What CJP alleged in the complaint

CJP stated that the speech attacked the constitutional principle of equal rights and ridiculed secularism and the concept of all religions being equal. The complaint also objected to the statements concerning the Gyanvapi Mosque, stating that they were made in the context of a sensitive religious dispute. CJP specifically highlighted the declaration that only one religion existed and would exist—Sanatan—as a statement denying equal standing to other religions.

The complaint also identified the call for persons accused of theft to be publicly shot as inflammatory language encouraging violence and lawlessness.

CJP urged Maharashtra police authorities to investigate the speech under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and take action against speech promoting communal hostility and violence.

The complaint also referred to Supreme Court directions concerning suo motu action against hate speech and Maharashtra Police circulars requiring preventive measures and immediate action where speeches create law-and-order concerns.

The copy of complaint dated July 28, 2026 can be accessed here

Common demands made by CJP across the complaints

Across the four complaints, CJP repeatedly urged the police and other authorities to examine the speeches and take action under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complaints referred to Supreme Court decisions and directions concerning hate speech, including the requirement that law-enforcement authorities take appropriate action where speeches attract criminal offences, even where a formal complaint is not forthcoming.

CJP also referred to the need for police authorities to preserve peace and communal harmony, record public gatherings and speeches, identify persons responsible for unlawful statements and take preventive and legal action where required.

The complaints repeatedly stressed that the speeches were delivered before public audiences and had also circulated through videos and social media platforms, extending their reach beyond those physically present at the events.

Related:

Why Justice Still Eludes Dalits | Inside India’s Anti-Atrocities Law

In Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana, India’s anti-atrocities law is failing Dalits

Ritual Bans to Targeted Killings: Rising anti-Dalit hate and crime across states

The post CJP files four complaints over hate speeches at gatherings across Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev quashed the NSA detention order passed against Chaudhary, holding that her continued incarceration under the Act violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that the grounds of detention were unsupported by material, repetitive and speculative, and that the District Magistrate had passed the order without proper application of mind.

The judgment is significant not merely, because it sets aside an NSA detention order. The Court closely reconstructed the chronology relied upon by the State, examined the WhatsApp conversations and videos forming the evidentiary basis of the detention, scrutinised the circumstances of Chaudhary’s arrest, and then questioned the District Magistrate’s failure to independently assess whether the extraordinary power of preventive detention was warranted at all.

Its conclusion was unequivocal: the State had failed to establish the evidentiary foundation necessary to deprive Chaudhary of her liberty under the NSA.

The Court also went considerably further. Holding that the State had exercised its authority in a “casual and cavalier” manner, it awarded Chaudhary ₹5 lakh compensation and directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and other officers found responsible, “right down to the SHO” who had prepared the initial report supporting the detention.

The chronology that undermined the State’s case

The case arose out of labour agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026. Thousands of workers had taken to the streets over low wages, the absence of salary increases for several years and working conditions involving shifts of up to twelve hours. The State alleged that the protests subsequently descended into vandalism and arson, and portrayed Chaudhary as an “agent provocateur” responsible for provoking the violence.

Chaudhary, a history graduate who had completed her M.A. in History and was pursuing her first year of law at Delhi University, had no previous criminal antecedents—a fact expressly admitted by the State. The fundamental difficulty with the State’s case was chronological.

The State’s own position was that Chaudhary was taken into custody on April 12. At the same time, it was undisputed that the violence began only on April 13. The State nevertheless sought to attribute the subsequent violence to Chaudhary by alleging that she and her associates had entered into a conspiracy before her arrest and that the violence was the eventual consequence of that conspiracy. The Court examined that proposition against the actual material placed before it. It did not find the necessary link.

The High Court repeatedly asked the State to identify the specific WhatsApp message or video in which Chaudhary had incited people to engage in rioting, arson or destruction of public or private property. The State was unable to identify even a single such communication. That finding goes to the core of the detention order. The State was not merely required to establish that violence had occurred. It had to demonstrate why Chaudhary’s detention under the NSA was necessary to prevent its recurrence or continuation. The material, according to the Court, did not establish that connection.

“This Court repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State to point out from the WhatsApp chats and the video recordings as to which one of them incited people or disclosed a conspiracy inciting people to indulge in acts of rioting, arson and destruction of public and private property? The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show a single message from the WhatsApp chats between the Petitioner and her associates or any video clip which would reveal any incitement from the Petitioner, either evidently or by necessary implication, which would disclose that it was the involvement of the Petitioner and the conspiracy hatched by her that resulted in the violence which erupted from 13.04.2026, much after the Petitioner was taken into custody by the State on 11.04.2026 (as held by this Court). Even otherwise, the undisputed case of the State is also that the violence erupted after the Petitioner was taken to custody by the police.” (Para 20)

A call for mobilisation was not an incitement to violence

One of the principal pieces of material relied upon by the State was a WhatsApp exchange in which Chaudhary allegedly called upon people to gather in support of workers and to oppose what she described as unlawful police action. The Court’s treatment of this communication is constitutionally significant. Even if the communication were accepted in its entirety, the Bench held that it did not constitute an exhortation to violence. At most, it called upon people to assemble in solidarity with labourers and to oppose excessive or unlawful exercise of police authority.

The Court also examined the videos relied upon by the State. The footage showed a large gathering of men and women, including persons in rural attire, with one individual apparently addressing the gathering. The Court found nothing in the footage indicating that the crowd was armed or engaged in violence. Instead, the material appeared to show people exercising their right to speak and agitate for higher wages and humane working hours.

“The video images relied upon by the State show a large number of people having gathered, which include men and women in traditional rural clothing, all standing near a lamp posts and one video image of a person who seems to be addressing the public. None of these videos disclose that the crowd is agitated or armed with lathi, stones or any such articles, which may be used in an act of violence, but appear to be exercising their constitutional right and freedom of speech and agitating their demands for higher pay and humane working hours.” (Para 21)

The judgment thus refuses an important form of executive overreach: the retrospective attribution of violence to an entire protest movement, or to an individual associated with it, without evidence establishing individual culpability or incitement.

Preventive detention cannot become a substitute for ordinary criminal law

The Court’s clearest legal proposition is that the NSA is an exceptional power. Preventive detention, it held, “is an exception”. It cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law merely to ensure that a person remains incarcerated because she might otherwise obtain bail in a criminal case.

The State had correctly pointed out that preventive detention does not necessarily require a person to have been convicted, or even to have been involved in several criminal cases. The statutory power can operate on the basis of a genuine apprehension concerning public order or national security. But that does not mean that the detaining authority’s satisfaction is beyond evidentiary scrutiny. The High Court expressly rejected the proposition that “subjective satisfaction” permits detention based upon bare allegations. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must emerge from relevant material capable of supporting the inference drawn.

In the present case, the Court found the grounds of detention to be “repetitive, speculative and … only opinion based”, without material capable of sustaining those opinions.

The Court therefore laid down a simple but important constitutional proposition: an extraordinary power that directly results in the deprivation of liberty under Article 21 cannot be exercised on “surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions”. The material must cross the threshold from allegation to evidence; otherwise, the detention becomes arbitrary.

“Any detention under the NSA is an exception. It is not a substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case, is still detained in custody under a concocted reasoning by the State. The elaborate grounds of detention of the District Magistrate are repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based without referring to a shred of evidence / material in support of sustaining those opinions. The grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion. Allegations which raise a subjective opinion in the mind of the District Magistrate must be supported with reference to material for the formation of such opinion, else the same would be arbitrary. It must be understood that the exercise of such a discretion which directly violates a person’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised lightly on the basis of surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions. It is the exercise of an extraordinary authority which results in the summary incarceration of a citizen merely on the opinion of the detaining authority which must be such that where a constitution court examining the grounds of detention is also satisfied that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate, crosses the threshold of mere surmises and conjectures and was justly based upon the material on record and not detaining the detenue under the stringent provisions of the NSA would in all probability than not, result in the public order being disturbed or would result in an act by the detenue which is deleterious to national security. The absence of such material would render the grounds of detention and the order of detention unjustified, deserving to be set aside.” (Para 22)

The arrest record raised a more serious procedural concern

The judgment becomes particularly significant when it turns from the substantive allegations to the legality of the arrest process itself. Chaudhary’s case was that she had been taken into custody at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 11 from Botanical Garden Metro Station. The State maintained that her arrest took place only on April 12. The Court tested these competing versions against the WhatsApp material produced by the State itself.

Messages sent to Chaudhary by an associate beginning at 5:56 p.m. on April 11 went unanswered. Several further messages and a missed call also received no response. The Court contrasted this with an earlier exchange that afternoon in which Chaudhary had been actively communicating with the same associate.

The material, the Court held, rendered Chaudhary’s claim that she was already in State custody from the evening of April 11 probable and undermined the State’s contention that she remained free until her formal arrest on April 12. But it was the Section 130 BNSS notice that caused the Court greater concern.

The State relied upon the notice to establish that Chaudhary had been proceeded against for failing to furnish a bond for good behaviour. Yet the notice contained General Diary Entry No. 37—the very entry on the basis of which the State claimed she had been arrested. The Court noted that the GD entry had been generated at 10:20 a.m. on April 12. The notice, however, did not mention the time at which it was issued.

Justice Achal Sachdev pointed out that if the notice had genuinely preceded the arrest, the GD number could not logically have appeared on it in the manner in which it did. Justice Sreedharan agreed, holding that the notice appeared to have been prepared after the arrest, describing the procedure as “ex post facto” and “nothing more than a sham”. The State was unable to answer what the Court described as “visible fabrication in the record”. This finding is particularly consequential in a preventive-detention case.

“My learned brother on the bench Justice Achal Sachdev, pointed out that the General Diary Entry No. 37 was generated at 10.20 am on 12.04.2026 and the mention of the G.D number in the notice under Section 130 goes to reveal that the notice was prepared after the arrest of the petitioner for, had the same been prepared before the arrest of the Petitioner, the G.D. number would not have been mentioned on the notice u/s. 130 BNSS. Mentioning the G.D. number in the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham. I agree with the view of brother Justice Achal Sachdev that the notice u/s. 130 of the BNSS was prepared after the arrest of the Petitioner and that is the reason why the time of issuance is not mentioned in the notice and its omission is deliberate. Answer was sought from the Ld. Counsel for the state with regard to visible fabrication in the record for which no answer is forthcoming from the Ld. Counsel for the State.” (Para 17)

The Court’s scrutiny therefore went beyond whether the NSA order contained adequate reasons. It questioned the integrity of the very process through which the State sought to justify its exercise of coercive power.

The District Magistrate was required to exercise independent judgment

The Court’s criticism of the District Magistrate, Medha Roopam, is equally significant. The detention grounds ran into several pages. But the Court made clear that the length of a detention order cannot establish that the authority has applied its mind. The District Magistrate was required to examine the police dossier “threadbare”, particularly when the police report consisted largely of allegations unsupported by credible material.

The circumstances demanded greater scrutiny: Chaudhary was a young student activist, had no previous criminal record, was agitating in support of labourers, and the material before the authority did not demonstrate that she had incited violence. Instead, the Court found that the circumstances suggested that the District Magistrate had sought to “set an example” out of Chaudhary and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of labourers.

The finding is devastating for the legality of the detention order because the District Magistrate’s statutory role is not to mechanically endorse the police version. Preventive detention requires an independent satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority. Where the underlying police material is itself weak, contradictory or unsupported, the District Magistrate has an even greater obligation to interrogate it before authorising incarceration under an exceptional statute. The Court concluded that this obligation had not been discharged.

“In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision. In a case where the police report against the Petitioner were only allegations without there being any credible material against her, the District Magistrate was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations and even thereafter, assess whether the oppressive provisions of the NSA were warranted against the Petitioner and how the general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers and where the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence, reveals that the District Magistrate desired to set an example out of the Petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of the labourers. The District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner.” (Para 31)

The Court draws a constitutional line around protest

The judgment also makes an important statement about the constitutional status of public protest. The High Court held that freedom of speech and expression extends beyond speech in the abstract. It includes the right to come onto the streets, gather peacefully and agitate for one’s rights. The State cannot prevent public gatherings merely because it assumes that they may result in a breach of peace.

The Court warned that such an approach would amount to “throwing the baby out of the bath water” and could ultimately result in the cessation of collective expression in public spaces. Importantly, the Court did not ignore the State’s obligation to maintain public order. It expressly recognised that peaceful demonstrations may be infiltrated by persons interested in creating violence and that the violent acts of such persons may subsequently be attributed unjustly to an entire gathering. But its answer was not to suppress the gathering itself.

The State, the Court said, possesses a strong police force and must train it to manage large gatherings while preserving accountability through measures such as videography. The principle is therefore not that every protest is constitutionally immune from regulation. It is that the State must distinguish between peaceful dissent and actual threats to public order rather than treating the possibility of disorder as proof of disorder.

“In this case, this Court has seen from the material on record that at the petitioner has called for citizens in support of the labourers and to agitate for their rights. There is no material to reflect that such agitation will have to be violent or challenging the authority of the State. The freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets and agitating a cause, and gathering peacefully without arms or without threat to the public order. However, the State must also realize that a peaceful agitation where people collect without arms or ammunitions, can still be scuttled by mischievous elements, who may be sent by parties, who are interested in ensuring that such an agitation is broken and also where such elements may indulge in acts of violence, which thereafter gets attributed to the entire group which is patently unjust. Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bath water. If such a view is taken by the State and approved of by the Courts, it would lead to a cessation of the collective expression of opinion in public spaces. The Constitution protects such a right and the same cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the State. The State must also realize that it has a strong and powerful police force, which must be trained in ensuring public order in such large gatherings and also resort to videography of the gathering and the manner in which it is conducted, so that accountability may be affixed, in the event of an outbreak of violence.” (Para 23)

“The loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive”

The Court’s observations on the bureaucracy take the judgment beyond the immediate facts of Chaudhary’s detention. In considering compensation, the Bench turned to the constitutional responsibilities attached to the powers exercised by the IAS and IPS.

It reminded public officials that the immense powers conferred upon them exist alongside an equally serious responsibility to protect the constitutional rights, dignity and welfare of citizens. Most significantly, the Court observed that their loyalty is to the Constitution and not to the political executive, and that they are servants of the people in a democracy. The Court then issued an extraordinary warning.

When bureaucrats and police officers disregard their constitutional oath and exercise power in a manner that violates civil liberties, citizens may begin to regard them as an “oppressive vestige of the British Empire”. Such conduct, the Court warned, can generate distrust, anger and civil unrest. It concluded with the striking observation that unless such conduct is checked, “it shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia.”

“It goes without saying that those in the bureaucracy and the police, when they act in a manner which is harmonious with their oath of allegiance, the thankful citizens of this State shall elevate them, and very rightly so, to a position which would be envied by the Gods themselves. However, every time they ignore that solemn oath and act contrary to it, the people of the State of Uttar Pradesh would view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire arousing angst and hatred towards them creating an environment of civil unrest and this Court, while correcting their excesses and/or illegalities, especially those that impinge upon the civil liberties of the citizens without adequate cause or due process (inhering in the procedure established by law), may pass harsh orders to compensate the citizen so wronged, besides recording their despotic conduct. Else, it shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia.” (Para 30)

Personal financial consequences for the officers

The Court’s response to the State’s conduct was not confined to declaratory relief. Chaudhary had sought ₹50 lakh in compensation. The State argued that quashing the NSA order would not result in any substantial release from custody because Chaudhary remained in judicial custody in the underlying criminal cases, where her bail applications had been rejected. The Court accepted that the period of NSA detention had merged with her judicial custody and therefore declined to award the full amount claimed.

It nevertheless found that the State’s “casual and cavalier exercise of authority” had violated her constitutional rights and awarded ₹5 lakh as compensation. More significantly, the Court did not direct the compensation to be borne merely by the public exchequer. It ordered recovery from the salary of the District Magistrate and all other officers who were responsible, “right down to the SHO” who had prepared the initial report supporting the NSA detention.

The Court further directed that its displeasure against the District Magistrate and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records. This is perhaps the judgment’s strongest institutional message.

“Undoubtedly, even if the order in this particular case is quashed, the petitioner would still remain in jail as an under trial till she secures bail in all the criminal cases registered against her. As the period of detention merges with the period of judicial custody, the amount as prayed for by the petitioner, need not be considered in its entirety. However, on account of the casual and cavalier exercise of authority by the State through the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, which has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner, this Court considers it sufficient to grant ₹5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner. This Court also directs that the said amount must be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, who has passed this order of detention without application of mind and from all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO of the Police Station, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA. The displeasure of this Court against the conduct of the District Magistrate concerned and all such other officers of the police who were involved in preparing the dossier against the petition, be noted in their service records.” (Para 33)

The Court has effectively rejected the proposition that an unconstitutional exercise of State power should have no personal consequences for those who exercise it. Where individual officials are found responsible for an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, accountability may follow the chain of decision-making down to the officer who initiated the process.

The judgment is ultimately about the limits of preventive State power

The Allahabad High Court’s decision is not a declaration that Chaudhary is innocent of the criminal allegations against her. The Court expressly recorded that the chargesheet in the underlying case had been filed, cognizance had been taken and her bail application had been rejected. She would consequently remain in judicial custody even after the NSA detention was quashed, unless released in the other criminal cases.

The High Court was not deciding whether Chaudhary committed the offences alleged against her. It was deciding whether the executive had lawfully established the extraordinary conditions necessary to deprive her of liberty under the NSA. On that question, the Court found the State’s case fundamentally deficient.

Preventive detention may be exceptional by design. But precisely because it authorises incarceration without the safeguards of an ordinary criminal trial, the material supporting its exercise must meet a correspondingly serious standard of scrutiny. The Allahabad High Court’s judgment insists on that standard. And in doing so, it makes a broader point about the rule of law: Article 21 is not merely a protection against unlawful imprisonment after the event. It is a constitutional command that every exercise of coercive State power affecting liberty must remain tethered to law, evidence, reason and institutional responsibility.

The complete judgment may be read below:

Related:

Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case

Satya Niketan Collapse: When students and neighbours had to rescue students from a system that had failed them

Vande Mataram and the 2026 Amendment: From voluntary honour to penal coercion

Declared ‘Foreigner’, denied a hearing, pushed across the border: Gauhati HC pulls up Assam

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

Six Days On, Still No FIR: What happened to Shaheen and Nafisa Khan at Saket Police Station?

The post ‘Subjective Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Built On Conjecture: Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary appeared first on SabrangIndia.