— Rohith Vemula

It has been ten years since Rohith Vemula’s institutional murder.^[1] That emptiness is not his alone. It is the lingering feeling many from marginalised communities carry with them when they enter India’s so-called “elite” institutions –- IITs, IIMs, NITs, and Central Universities.

A 2022 survey in the Quint conducted at IIT Bombay following the Institutional Murder of Darshan Solanki found that one in every three SC/ST students had been asked about their caste identity.

Faculty spaces in these institutions reflect a similar imbalance. Despite constitutionally mandated reservations for SC, ST, and OBC communities, faculty positions continue to be dominated by those from the general category, as reported by The Hindu.

Under representation in these institutions

Under-representation is not incidental; it is structural. In at least two IITs and three IIMs, nearly 90% of faculty positions are held by individuals from the general category. In six IITs and four IIMs, the figure ranges between 80–90%, according to a report by The Wire, based on an RTI filed by Gowd Kiran Kumar, National President of the All India OBC Students Organisation.

The culture of exclusion within India’s elite institutions is not declining. It has been firmly entrenched.

Source: MHRD Data and a report in Quint, November 28, 2019

Faculty recruitment across IIMs has witnessed a significant decline between 2019 and 2026.

OBC, SC, ST – FACULTY IN IIM’s

This was first put out on social media. Verifying this we found that, according to a report in The Print on “The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports titled “2025–26 Demands for Grants of the Department of Higher Education” as of January 31, 2025, 28.56 percent of the total sanctioned teaching faculty positions (18,940) remained vacant across IITs, National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs), Central Universities, and other higher education institutions.

The data further reveals that 17.97 percent of the 11,298 Assistant Professor positions (entry-level posts) are vacant, 38.28 percent of the 5,102 Associate Professor positions (mid-level posts) remain unfilled, and an alarming 56.18 percent of the 2,540 Professor positions are currently unoccupied.

The question then is stark: Why are SC, ST, and OBC positions left unfilled even when institutions have vacancies and eligible candidates are available?

When questioned about their recruitment processes, many institutions claim to follow a “flexi” system. When asked why reservation policies are not implemented, some have anonymously stated that hiring is done purely on “merit”. This raises a troubling question, does “merit” imply that candidates from marginalised communities are deemed intellectually unfit to teach in elite institutions? It is also frequently argued that an “adequate talent pool” is unavailable.

The experience of Subrahmanyam Sadrela illustrates the deeper structural problem. After completing his M.Tech and PhD from IIT Kanpur, Sadrela joined the institute as an Associate Professor in the Aerospace Engineering Department in January 2018. Soon after his appointment, colleagues reportedly remarked that his selection was “wrong”, that he did not deserve to be a faculty member, that his English was inadequate, and that he was mentally unfit. In April 2019 nearly a year after he raised allegations of caste-based discrimination on campus, he was accused of plagiarism in his thesis and threatened with the revocation of his PhD degree, as per a report in ­the Times of India. A detailed investigation by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) and reported by the Mooknayak said that the corroborated allegations of caste based discrimination inside IIM – B made by an associate professor Dr Gopal Das were vaild.

A significant portion of the 2025 data is not available online. Most publicly accessible information is from 2023–24, with limited material from early to mid-2025. This absence itself is telling, particularly as the pace of erosion of transparency –by institutions under the union government–appeared to accelerate in 2025, as per a report in the Wire.

RTI data from 2024 revealed that no SC, ST, or OBC faculty members were recruited in 2023 at IIT Bombay. Further, 16 departments at IIT-B did not admit a single student belonging to the ST community in the 2023–24 academic year. Shockingly, in five departments at IIT-B, no ST student had been admitted in the last nine years. This data was shared by the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC), a student group at IIT Bombay, based on an RTI response received on February 6, 2025. In a post shared on X (formerly Twitter) on 9 April, the group alleged that IIT Bombay “Is violating reservation norms despite the MMR (Mission Mode Recruitment) announcement.”

Notably, no information was put out by the Circle regarding 2025 data on PhD enrolments or faculty recruitment. The Circle, which had consistently been active in raising questions of injustice, appeared to fall silent on these figures. Speculations can be made that the voice of the student group was curbed by the institute. Established in 2017, the Circle had positioned its X account as a strong voice responding to issues affecting students within and beyond IIT-B. 

The death of Darshan Solanki, a Dalit student at IIT-B, further intensified concerns. His father claimed that caste-based harassment led to his son’s suicide. However, the committee constituted by the institute concluded that the suicide was linked to poor academic performance, stating that none of Darshan’s close associates had reported instances of caste-based harassment. It must be noted that the committee did not include a single external member; it comprised only IIT staff. The inquiry was entirely internal. To many, it appeared a complete white wash.

Similar patterns of hostility have surfaced in other premier institutions. Students at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), Delhi, reported that casteist messages such as “SC/ST leave the campus” and “Jai Parshuram” were circulated by fellow students on unofficial WhatsApp groups. Memes targeting Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar were also shared.

When anonymous complaints were submitted, the institute’s director and faculty reportedly responded that since the complaint had been made anonymously, it could not be entertained. This was conveyed by a senior official on the condition of anonymity.

If students are made to feel this unwelcomed within these institutions, why would they not drop out? Why would faculty members not resign? 

The dropout rates of SC, ST, and OBC students in these elite institutions are often attributed to financial difficulties or “excessive academic pressure.” Yet, the lived experiences of students suggest a far more troubling reality.  Following Darshan Solanki’s death, a survey was conducted at IIT Bombay. Students were asked a series of questions about campus climate and discrimination. One such question, along with several responses, is reproduced here. These responses reveal the brutal reality of a systemic failure—one that institutions attempt to downplay or conceal, even when exposed by the deaths of students like Darshan.

1.  What Has The Survey Revealed?

• On being asked if anyone has hurled “caste/tribal slurs or abuses or discriminated against you on campus,” 83.5 percent students said ‘No’.
• While 16.5 percent students said that they had, in fact, witnessed such instances, 70.4 percent students said that they had not witnessed anyone else being discriminated against on campus
• Nearly 25 percent, or one in every four students, said that the fear of disclosing their identity has stopped them from joining an SC/ST forum or collective.
• As many as 15.5 percent of students said that they have faced mental health issues arising from caste-based discrimination.
• Nearly 37 percent of students said that they were asked their Joint Entrance Exam (JEE)/ Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE)/ Joint Admission Test for Masters(JAM) /Undergraduate Common Entrance Examination for Design (U)CEED rank by fellow students on campus in a bid to find out their (caste) identity.
• 26 percent of students were asked their surnames with the intention of knowing their caste.
• 6 percent, or one in every five students, said that they feared backlash from the faculty if they talked back against caste discrimination.
• 2 percent, or one in every three students, said that they feel SC/ST Cell needs to do more to address casteism on campus.
• Nearly 25 percent of the 388 students, that is one in every four students, did not attend an English-medium school in class 10.
• Nearly 22 percent of students are first-generation graduates from their family.
• Nearly 36 percent of students foretell that open category students perceive their academic ability as ‘average’. This is in contrast to 51 percent SC/ST students perceiving the academic ability of open category students as ‘very good’. (Source: the Quint)

There is a powerful story from the Solomon Islands that when people wish to uproot a tree, they gather around it and hurl abuses at it until the tree withers and dies. Whether or not this myth holds true for plants, its metaphor is painfully relevant in the context of India’s elite institutions.

An unwelcoming, hostile environment does not merely push students to drop out; it drives faculty members to resign as well.

Vipin V. Veetil resigned from IIT Madras in July, 2021. He had joined in 2019 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) in August the previous year. In his resignation email to the institute’s authorities, Veetil stated that his sole reason for quitting was caste-based discrimination allegedly faced from senior Brahmin faculty members within the department. However, the committee constituted by IIT Madras concluded that there was “no evidence of decisions being biased due to caste discrimination,” reasoning that most faculty members had “hardly interacted” with Dr. Veetil.

This was not the first instance. In January 2022, Veetil had also resigned after rejoining the institute in August 2020.

In another case, K. Ilanchezhian, a senior assistant director at the institute, filed a complaint alleging that his office space had been shifted to a students’ hostel, while his original office was allotted to an ‘upper’ caste research assistant.

Similarly, the Director of the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Chennai, was booked at the Taramani police station under the SC/ST Act following allegations of caste discrimination against a colleague.

In 2024, an FIR was registered under various provisions of the SC/ST Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by the Bengaluru Police in a case alleging caste-based atrocities and systemic discrimination at IIM Bangalore. Eight individuals were named, including the institute’s Director and seven professors. The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE), in its investigation findings dated December 20, 2024, confirmed systemic caste-based harassment faced by Associate Professor Gopal Das, a globally acclaimed Dalit scholar at IIM Bangalore, as per a report in the Mooknayak.

These cases represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Data on PhD enrolments in these institutions reveals that only a small number of students from SC, ST, and OBC communities have been able to secure admission into these prestigious doctoral programmes

Source: Table showing the 2022 PhD admission data of 13 IIMs obtained by RTI filed by APPSC IIT Bombay, The Wire

Scholarships for SC, ST, and OBC students are delayed and the students often get the amount after the end of their semesters. It has become an annual tradition for students to receive their scholarships after the end of their academic semester as reported in The Hindu. Minister Subhas Sarkar in this winter session of the Lok Sabha presented statistics that reveal the harrowing figures about dropouts by marginalised students studying in central universities, Indian Institutes of Technology, and Indian Institutes of Management.

In response to a question raised by BSP Member of Parliament (MP), Ritesh Pandey in 2023, the government disclosed that over the preceding five years, a staggering 13,626 SC, ST, and OBC students had discontinued their education.

The data further revealed that in Central Universities alone, 4,596 OBC students, 2,424 SC students, and 2,622 ST students had dropped out during this period. In the IITs, 2,066 OBC students, 1,068 SC students, and 408 ST students discontinued their studies. Similarly, in the IIMs, 163 OBC, 188 SC, and 91 ST students dropped out, reported SabrangIndia.

As stated before, no data for 2025 is accessible as of now, online.

Background

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal central government agency on matters relating to reservation, issued an order in 1975 exempting certain scientific and technical posts from the reservation policy.

Siddharth Joshi, an IIM Bangalore doctoral alumnus and researcher who co-authored a paper with IIMB Professor Deepak Malghan on caste bias in IIMs, noted: “In 1975, an exemption was granted to IIM Ahmedabad by the Department of Personnel and Training with respect to reservation in faculty positions. While IIM Ahmedabad had expressly sought this exemption, other IIMs simply assumed that they were also exempt and began not implementing reservations in faculty recruitment.”

Institutions have frequently justified the marginal representation of SC and ST faculty by arguing that there is a lack of a sufficiently qualified applicant pool, as reported by the Quint.

However, marginalised communities remain underrepresented in these institutions both as students and as faculty. They are subjected to grave mental harassment on the basis of caste identity, by peers, by authorities, and by colleagues. At the same time, institutions routinely deny the existence of discrimination and attempt to curb voices that raise these concerns.

The deeper truth is this: people from marginalised communities are seldom truly accommodated within these spaces. They are rarely made to feel that they belong. They are otherised – their culture, language, and food practices subtly or overtly looked down upon. In these elite institutions, they continue to remain “they,” never fully accepted as “us.”

UGC Guidelines: Context, Counter-revolt and protest 

It is in this overall context of entrenched exclusion and othering that recent developments around the much-needed UGC guidelines 2026 need to be understood. Brought in following a rigorous human rights battle in the courts –spearheaded by the mother of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi—they evinced visceral reactions from sections of the privileged caste elite. The union government, without putting up a spirited defence of its own enacted guidelines capitulated in its arguments of caste elite organisations in the Supreme Court. The Court too was prompt to stay implementation of these measures that would go a long way in addressing entrenched exclusion. Dozens of campuses across the country have seen spirited protests against this capitulation. Chandrashekhar Azad of the Bhim Army party even held a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on February 11 demanding that the 2026 Guidelines be implemented without change. Read references to this issue here, here and here.

Conclusion

“One out of three SC/ST students reported being asked about their caste,” revealed an IIT Bombay survey conducted in 2022.

Many students from the general category have reportedly hurled casteist abuses at SC/ST students. These elite institutions increasingly resemble exclusive spaces of savarna dominance. Yet, reports such as Caste-Based Enrolment in Indian Higher Education: Insights from the All-India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) are published, claiming that nearly 60% of seats in higher education institutions are occupied by students from marginalised communities (p. 11 of 26).

While the AISHE data indicates a rise in enrolment from marginalised communities in recent years, it fails to answer a fundamental question: which institutions are being counted? Are these Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges in urban peripheries, or institutions located in remote rural areas? Or are we speaking of IITs, IIMs, NITs, AIIMS, and Central Universities, the institutions that command prestige, resources, networks, and opportunity?

The distinction matters. A BSc degree from IIT Bombay can open doors to high-paying corporations and global opportunities. A BTech degree from an under-resourced college in a remote district often cannot. Access to elite institutions translates into access to power.

Meanwhile, over 13,000 SC, ST, and OBC students have dropped out of higher education in recent years. In Central Universities alone, approximately 4,500 OBC students, over 2,400 SC students, and nearly 2,600 ST students discontinued their studies. In the IITs and IIM’s, India’s premier institutes of learning — renowned not only for academic excellence but increasingly for caste discrimination and student suicides – around 2,000 OBC students, 1,000 SC students, and 408 ST students dropped out. At the IIMs, 163 OBC, 188 SC, and 91 ST students discontinued their education reported SabrangIndia.

The disbursal of fellowships and scholarships is frequently delayed, often reaching students only after the semester has ended. Students are made to feel undeserving and unwelcome—by faculty and by peers alike. They are shunned for their caste identities. They are made to feel like outsiders, as though these institutions belong only to certain classes and castes. Even their food practices are policed and mocked, as has been reported in several IITs. Sabrangindia has frequently reported on this alienation and discrimination.

Faculty positions in these institutions are overwhelmingly occupied, often 80 to 90 percent—by those from the general category. Those who dominate these spaces frequently go on to hire within the same social circles, reproducing exclusion in the name of “merit.” It becomes a vicious cycle. Even when scholars like Gopal Das or Subrahmanyam Sadrela manage to reach the other end of this black hole, the system finds ways to pull them back.

Nearly 79 years after Independence, sections of our people continue to be treated as second-class citizens within spaces that claim to represent the pinnacle of knowledge and progress. India prides itself on constitutional morality, yet its elite institutions often operate within what increasingly resembles an internal apartheid.

How long will this continue? How long will students like Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, and countless others be pushed into a system so steeped in humiliation and mental harassment that death appears to them more bearable than a life stripped of dignity?

That is the question we must confront.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Natasha Darade)

[1] A suicide born of distress, mental and other torture and alienation at the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) on January 17, 2026 inspired the Dalit students movement to coin the term “institutional murder” as this was the last of many and the beginning of several such deaths with institutions of higher learning in India

Related:

Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India | SabrangIndia

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses | SabrangIndia

My birth is my fatal accident, remembering Rohith Vemula’s last letter

Rohith’s death: We are all to blame

To Live & Die as a Dalit: Rohith Vemula

The post Cementing exclusion: What the numbers say about SC, ST, OBC presence in India’s elite institutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2025 Intervention Tracker:

• NCSC: 2 Complaints
• NCM: 6 Complaints
• NHRC: 2 urgent memorandums
• Police/Administration: 6 Complaints
• Preventive Actions: 2 pre-emptive Complaints

1.  National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC): Battling caste-based atrocities

In early January 2025 (January 8), CJP approached the NCSC to highlight a troubling spike in atrocities against Dalit communities across Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. These complaints, detailing incidents from late 2024, emphasised that such violence is rooted in a deeply ingrained discriminatory mind-set. CJP’s intervention sought to move the Commission beyond mere observation toward active enforcement of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots 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!

“Dignity for All”: a national mapping of 30 critical atrocities across 9 states

On June 24, CJP further filed a major formal complaint documenting 30 distinct incidents of violence across nine states, ranging from horrific sexual assaults on minors to the murder of a 10-year-old boy in Etah (Uttar Pradesh). Invoking Article 338 (5) of the Constitution, CJP sought an urgent probe into these crimes, which included social boycotts and the denial of cremation rights.

Widespread crimes against SCs violating the PoA Act and Civil Rights

CJP Stated in its complaint that, these incidents directly contravene the spirit and letter of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and more critically, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST PoA Act), which specifically aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offenses and for relief and rehabilitation of the victims. The recurring nature of these incidents, especially the multiple instances of sexual violence and physical attacks, reveals a severe lapse in the implementation and enforcement of these crucial legislations.

Targeted crimes against SCs, a pattern of abuse

Through this complaint, CJP highlights that systemic, widespread incidents of caste-driven oppression that are prevalent countrywide, across states governed by different political dispensations pointing to a deep-rooted societal malaise that has not only acquired a frightening level of ‘normalised violence and oppression’ but also is ‘allowed because of structured levels of immunity’.

CJP also stated in its complaint that as per the NCRB report, there are a total of 70,818 cases of atrocities against SCs and 12,159 against STs that remained pending for investigation at the end of the year 2021. A total of 2,63,512 cases of SCs and 42,512 cases of STs were placed for trial in the courts. At the end of the year, more than 96 percent of the total cases were still pending for trial. Though the charge-sheeting percentage was more than 80%, but the conviction rate remained below 40%.

Why did CJP intervene?

CJP stepped in because these atrocities were no longer isolated crimes but had become the “new normal” of daily humiliation and violence revealing spiralling trends. When local police failed to register FIRs or provided “structured immunity” to dominant-caste perpetrators, it became clear that only a high-level constitutional push could break the deadlock. CJP’s intervention was necessary to force the NCSC to address the systemic collapse of the PoA Act and protect the basic human dignity of the marginalised communities.

1.  National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): CJP’s Memorandum 

On May 31, 2025, CJP submitted a memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding a major human rights crisis in Assam. In memorandum CJP reported that between May 23 and May 31, the Assam Border Police conducted secretive night raids across 33 districts, detaining at least 300 individuals, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, without warrants or legal paperwork. While some were eventually released, approximately 145 people remained untraceable, leading to fears of illegal “pushbacks” across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The memorandum highlighted that many detainees were already involved in ongoing legal cases or had lived in India for generations. CJP argued that these actions bypassed the rule of law and violated constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22. CJP has asked the NHRC to demand a full report from the government, set up a fact-finding committee, and ensure the immediate safety and return of those unlawfully detained or expelled.

On June 4, 2025, CJP submitted a supplementary memorandum to the NHRC providing harrowing first-person testimonies of illegal night detentions and forced expulsions in Assam. This submission followed the initial May 31 memo and documented a systematic campaign where the Assam Border Police allegedly bypassed all judicial sanctions to deport Bengali-speaking Muslims, including the elderly, the chronically ill, and individuals protected by court stay orders.

The memorandum included testimonies from survivors like Hajera Khatun and Sona Bhanu, who described being blindfolded, fingerprinted without consent, and abandoned in “no-man’s land” swamps under the cover of darkness. Families reported finding their missing loved ones only through viral social media videos filmed in Bangladesh. Notably, CJP revealed that individuals previously released from detention centres through legal efforts—such as Doyjan Bibi and Abdul Sheikh—were re-detained and forcibly removed despite complying with all bail conditions. CJP has urged the NHRC to launch an independent inquiry, summon top officials, and ensure the safe return of all those subjected to these extra-legal deportations.

Rationale of CJP’s Intervention

This crisis demanded CJP’s intervention because the state was operating entirely outside the law, conducting what looked more like abductions than legal detentions. By disappearing people in the dead of night and “pushing” them across borders, the administration bypassed the entire judicial system, including the Supreme Court’s own stay orders. CJP acted to stop this “stealth purge” and ensure that no person is rendered stateless through secretive, extra-legal executive actions.

III. National Commission for Minorities (NCM: Stemming Organised Hate

Throughout 2025, CJP acted as a constitutional vanguard, filing six major complaints with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM).

• “Dharma Sansads” and 2. “Trishul Deekshas”

The beginning of the year 2025 was marred by high-decibel events like “Dharma Sansads” and “Trishul Deekshas” in regions like Delhi, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. These gatherings were marked by explicit calls for economic boycotts and physical violence against Muslims and Christians. CJP’s complaints to the NCM detailed how speakers propagated baseless conspiracies such as “love jihad” and “land jihad” and these events created an atmosphere of deep fear and uncertainty. Consequently, we urged the Commission to hold those responsible accountable by ensuring FIRs are filed under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023

• Complaint over hate speech at Trishul Deeksha events

On January 29, CJP had filed a formal complaint with the NCM, raising alarm over a series of Trishul Deeksha events held in December 2024 across Punjab, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Organised by far-right groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad (AHP), these gatherings featured openly inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and mobilisation against minority communities, particularly Muslims and Christians.

• Complaint against hate speeches at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events

On January 22, CJP filed a complaint with the NCM regarding a series of hate speeches delivered at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events on December 20, 2024, led by Yati Narsinghanand and other right-wing figures. Despite being denied permission to hold the event in Haridwar, the gathering proceeded at another location, where inflammatory and violent rhetoric was once again espoused, targeting Muslims and calling for a Hindu-only nation. The speeches at the event included derogatory language and explicit calls for physical violence against Muslims, promoting a vision of a society devoid of religious diversity.

• The Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra: a ten-day mapping of fear

On December 2, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) submitted an exhaustive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding the Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra, a massive 10-day mobilisation led by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri. Traversing 422 village panchayats across Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, the march was documented by CJP as a systematic campaign of “othering” that weaponised religious identity. CJP’s detailed mapping of speeches Categorised the rhetoric into direct hate speech and high-intensity fearmongering, notably demographic conspiracy theories claiming Hindus were on the “brink of becoming minorities.”

The yatra featured exclusionary slogans such as “Jo Ram ka nahi wo kisi kaam ka nahi” and explicit calls for the economic boycott of Muslims and Christians. CJP highlighted how speakers used their spiritual authority to normalise “bulldozer justice” and incite historical resentment, such as invoking the Babri Masjid demolition to demand the reclamation of other religious sites. Warning that such organised campaigns, involving an estimated 3,00,000 participants, could trigger real-world violence, CJP urged the NCM to launch a fact-finding mission. Crucially, the organisation prayed for the appointment of nodal officers as per the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines to protect vulnerable communities from the volatile atmosphere generated by the padyatra’s rhetoric.

1. Targeting Bengali-origin Muslims

In late September (September 30, 2025), submitted a comprehensive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), highlighting what it described as an “alarming and coordinated escalation of hate speech” across India. The complaint documents how Bengali-origin Muslims, many of whom are lawful Indian citizens, are being systematically vilified as “Bangladeshis” and “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) in election rallies, public protests, and online campaigns. CJP’s submission to the NCM Chairperson requested a full inquiry and preventive directions to curb vigilante activity, emphasising that such rhetoric directly contravenes Supreme Court directions on hate crimes.

• CJP’s key demands to the NCM

The complaint called upon the Commission to:

• Take legal cognisance under the NCM Act and initiate an inquiry.

• Direct registration of FIRs against individuals and organisations spreading hate.

• Curb vigilante activity by outfits like Bir Lachit Sen and All Tai Ahom Students’ Union.

• Ensure police compliance with Supreme Court orders on suo motu action.

• Enforce preventive measures, such as videographing rallies and banning repeat hate offenders.

• Urge social media platforms to remove hateful content.

• Launch a fact-finding mission on the profiling, harassment, and eviction of Bengali-origin Muslims nationwide.

• CJP’s key intervention in systemic targeted harassment and hate-motivated violence against Christians in Rajasthan (September, 2025)

On October 8, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding a surge in targeted harassment and hate-motivated attacks against the Christian community in Rajasthan throughout September 2025. The complaint highlights a series of disturbing incidents following the introduction of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025. Key flashpoints included a police raid on a children’s hostel in Alwar on September 3, the coercive interrogation of believers in Kotputli-Behror on September 9, and the forceful closure of St. Paul’s Hostel School in Dungarpur on September 11. Most notably, on September 21 in Jaipur, a mob of 40–50 activists assaulted a private prayer meeting, injuring eight people.

CJP urged the Commission to take immediate cognizance of these events, which they describe as a “coordinated campaign” involving vigilante violence and administrative bias. CJP requested a time-bound investigation into police misconduct and the registration of FIRs under BNS Sections 196 and 299. They further called for the implementation of Supreme Court guidelines from the Tehseen Poonawalla case to ensure accountability and the protection of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 25.

Action Taken by NCM: Following the formal complaint lodged by CJP, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) initiated official proceedings on October 14, 2025, by issuing a directive to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan. In its formal communication, the Commission stated that “The complainant should be apprised of the action taken in the matter and the Commission should also be informed.”

• The rise of extra-legal vigilantism and “Identity Policing”

On December 18, 2025, CJP formally approached the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) to report a surge in vigilante violence and state-led targeted evictions. The comprehensive complaint documents a disturbing pattern of incidents occurring between September and November 2025, primarily targeting Muslim and Christian communities across multiple states. CJP highlighted five critical areas of concern as physical vigilantism involving cow protection and moral policing; economic intimidation through informal boycotts of minority-owned businesses; disruption of Christian prayer meetings under the guise of preventing conversions; coercive identity policing; and large-scale demolitions that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations without adequate rehabilitation.

The central theme of the CJP’s complaint is the emergence of “self-appointed enforcers” who act with a perceived sense of impunity. CJP argued before the NCM that these are not isolated events but a recurring pattern that erodes constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. The organisation expressed grave concern over selective law enforcement, noting that police often act upon vigilante complaints while ignoring the initial unlawful acts of the perpetrators. CJP has urged the NCM to demand action-taken reports from state governments, ensure the impartial application of criminal law, and safeguard the livelihoods and dignity of minority groups against normalisation of such violence.

Action Taken by NCM: On January 23, 2026, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has officially taken cognizance of the representation submitted by CJP on December 18, and has registered the case. Acting on complaint, the Commission formally forwarded a copy of the complete representation to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, for urgent consideration and appropriate intervention.

III. Police Authorities: Demanding Neutrality & Accountability

In 2025, CJP filed 5 major collective complaints with police and administration, across several states, to demand accountability, immediate preventive action, and a strict adherence to the rule of law.

“In the line of Crossfire”: when CJP demanded authorities to Act

Throughout February and March, CJP filed multiple state-wide complaints against BJP MLA and Minister Nitesh Rane for inflammatory speeches delivered in Pune, Sindhudurg, and Ratnagiri. CJP contended that as an elected representative in a position of significant influence, Rane bore a heightened legal and ethical responsibility to maintain communal harmony. Invoking the Supreme Court’s landmark Amish Devgan judgment, which distinguishes between free speech and harmful incitement, the organisation filed a series of formal complaints to demand that law enforcement act decisively against rhetoric that threatened the state’s social fabric.

1.  Nanijdham, Ratnagiri – On March 28, 2025, CJP approached the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri regarding a speech delivered by Rane during a public felicitation. The complaint documented how Rane propagated baseless conspiracy theories like “love jihad” and “land jihad,” utilising Islamophobic slurs and specifically targeting religious sites such as Mazars and Dargahs. CJP argued that this inflammatory language was a direct attempt to stir fear and mistrust toward the Muslim community, citing the Amish Devgan standard that such speech serves no legitimate purpose other than to sow division and provoke social discord.
2.  Wagholi, Pune – On March 18, 2025, CJP approached the Additional Director General (Law & Order) and the Pune Police regarding a contentious speech delivered at a temple in Wagholi. In this instance, Rane openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging Hindus to rent properties exclusively to fellow Hindus and warning that renting to even one “Aslam” would lead to a demographic takeover. CJP asserted that this rhetoric incited segregation and violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Rane’s fabrication of a coordinated plot to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047 was flagged as a dangerous exploitation of public anxiety designed to dehumanise an entire community.
3.  Sindhudurg District – On March 7, 2025, CJP filed a joint complaint with the SP and Collector of Sindhudurg addressing speeches delivered in Kundal and Sawantwadi. These events, organised by right-wing outfits, featured Rane warning locals about “Islamisation” and issuing explicit threats. In Sawantwadi, Rane reportedly told the audience to contact him directly to “settle” matters if anyone “kept an evil eye” on his religion, pointedly remarking that he would ensure such individuals would not return to their place of worship on Fridays. CJP highlighted this as a clear incitement to communal violence and a violation of Supreme Court mandates that require police to take suo moto action against hate speech regardless of the speaker’s political standing.
4.  Nagpur City –  On April 24, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint with the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Maharashtra, and the Nagpur Police Commissioner regarding a divisive speech delivered by right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani (Kajal Singhala). The speech, delivered during a public “Shivjanmotsav” event in Nagpur on February 19, 2025, targeted the Christian and Muslim communities through inflammatory narratives and baseless conspiracy theories.

CJP’s submitted that Hindustani’s rhetoric—which characterised conversions as being traded for “a sack of rice” and utilised the “Love Jihad” trope—meets the definition of hate speech as established in the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 ruling. The complaint argues that such statements serve no purpose other than to sow mistrust, demean minority religious practices, and dehumanise marginalised sections.

Partisan conduct by Jagaon Police: CJP’s intervention

CJP intervened in October 2025 following a distressing breach of professional conduct by the police in Jalgaon. CJP filed a comprehensive complaint with the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra and the Superintendent of Police in Jalgaon, calling for immediate disciplinary action against officials from the Jamner Police Station. This demand for accountability arose after police personnel were observed publicly participating in a communal procession organised by Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan—the very organisation whose members are accused in the brutal August 2025 lynching of 20-year-old Suleman Pathan.

The complaint, which was also marked to the Maharashtra Home Department and the National Human Rights Commission, contends that such conduct is a blatant violation of the police oath of office and the Maharashtra Police Conduct Rules. CJP argued that the participation of investigating officers in a rally organised by a far right group linked to the accused is not just an ethical failure, but a total collapse of the constitutional principle of neutrality. Such actions severely compromise the integrity of criminal investigations and shatter the public’s—particularly the victim’s family’s—faith in the fairness of the legal process.

In its pursuit of justice for the Pathan family, CJP has demanded the immediate suspension of the concerned officers and the transfer of the Suleman Pathan investigation to an independent agency. Furthermore, the organisation has pressed for a state-wide directive to reaffirm the necessity of police impartiality in all communal and hate-crime cases.

Curbing market vigilantism: the Malabar Hill incident

In late November (November 25, 2025), CJP moved against a former political leader who conducted unauthorised “Aadhaar checks” of Muslim vendors at Mumbai’s Malabar Hill. CJP identified this as an unlawful assumption of policing functions and religious profiling intended to disrupt the livelihoods of minority communities. By demanding identity documents and instructing Hindu vendors to display saffron flags, these actors attempted to enforce a system of visible segregation. CJP’s complaint urged the police to protect the vendors’ right to trade and to register FIRs against the vigilante actors.

Action Taken by NCM: Pursuant to the CJP’s complaint submitted on November 25, 2025 against Raj Saraf, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has taken cognisance of the matter and forwarded the complaint to the concerned authorities for appropriate inquiry and action. The complaint was received from the office of the National Commission for Minorities, Malabar Hill, Thane, and was thereafter transmitted to V. P. Marg Police Station for further investigation. The police authorities have acknowledged receipt of the complaint and have initiated the process of inquiry in accordance with law.

1.  Preventive Action against Hate-filled Gatherings

CJP’s proactive stand against the proposed communal mobilisation in Pune and Goa

In January, CJP proactively filed two complaints with the Pune and Goa Police to halt “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti” events. Highlighting the track record of the organising outfits in promoting Islamophobia and economic boycotts, CJP urged authorities to invoke Sections 130 and 132 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent cognisable offences. CJP emphasised in its complaints that allowing such gatherings would violate fundamental rights and contravene Indian criminal law, particularly by inciting communal tensions in otherwise peaceful regions.

• When CJP asks Pune Police to halt right-wing’s ‘Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan’ event

On January 4, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the Pune Police seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan” scheduled for the following day. Organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), the event raised alarms due to the group’s history of inflammatory rhetoric regarding “Love Jihad,” economic boycotts, and religious conversions. CJP argued that such gatherings stoke communal tensions and violate constitutional rights, citing a Mumbai precedent where a similar rally was denied permission to preserve social harmony.

• CJP seeks preventive action against HJS’s Goa event

On January 22, 2025, CJP further filed a formal complaint with the Goa Police, seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Sabha” event scheduled for January 25 in Sanguem. Forwarded to the Inspector General and Superintendent of Police, the complaint highlighted the potential threat posed by the organiser, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), a group with a documented history of hate speech and divisive rhetoric. CJP raised a sharp alarm, noting that the HJS frequently propagates baseless conspiracies like “Love Jihad” and calls for economic boycotts against minorities, which could ignite communal tensions in a diverse region.

Rebuilding faith in the Rule of Law

CJP’s 2025 interventions were not just about reporting crimes; they were about providing a blueprint for administrative action. Through the distribution of our handbook, “Towards a Hate-Free Nation,” CJP equipped police and district administrations with the latest jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. We maintain that combating hate is a collective responsibility, and our relentless intervention with the NCM, NCSC, NHRC & other constitutional bodies/authorities and state police/administration remains the frontier of this effort to reclaim the secular and democratic fabric of India.

Related

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

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

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

The post Turning the Constitution into Action: CJP’s year against a rising tide of hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner and copied to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, the memorandum documents a disturbing pattern of unauthorised deletions, fabricated objections, false declarations of death, and misuse of statutory forms, allegedly targeting legitimate voters across multiple districts of the State. Along with CJP, Assam Majuri Sramik Union, Banchana Birdodhi Mancha and Forum for Social Harmony are also the signatories to this memorandum.

Dead voters filing objections, living voters declared dead

Among the most alarming allegations are instances where “dead persons” are shown as having filed objections against living voters, as well as complaints branding living electors as deceased. The memorandum flags this as a grave subversion of electoral procedures, calling for immediate scrutiny of how such objections were accepted during the SR process.

In several cases, voters who never changed residence were issued objections falsely claiming that they had shifted addresses. A separate annexure, the groups state, lists such affected voters.

A single woman, 64 objections — all denied

The memorandum details a striking case from Goalpara town, where a woman named Naba Bala Ray from Jyotinagar, Krishnai, was shown to have filed 64 objections against voters. When the affected voters approached her, she categorically denied filing any objections. While she later withdrew some complaints in Assamese, the memorandum notes a glaring inconsistency: her signatures also appeared on Form 7 complaints in English, which she claimed she could not write or understand.

CJP annexed these complaints as evidence of forgery and fabrication within the objection process.

Man objects to himself — and 133 others

In another extraordinary instance from Shribhumi district (formerly Karimganj), a man named Salim Ahmed was shown as having filed objections against himself and 133 other voters, alleging they were not genuine electors. According to the memorandum, Ahmed told the Booth Level Officer that he never filed any such objection, pointing to what the groups describe as a “fully fabricated” complaint attributed to him without consent or knowledge.

BJP leaders accused of unauthorised access to election data

Beyond individual cases, the memorandum raises grave institutional concerns. It alleges that office-bearers of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including district-level leaders and ST Morcha functionaries, unauthorisedly entered the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Boko-Chhaygaon, and accessed official documents and the Election Commission’s electronic database.

Such actions, if proven, would amount to a serious breach of electoral neutrality and administrative safeguards, the groups warn.

Migrant workers disproportionately affected

The memorandum also flags how migrant labourers from Assam were particularly vulnerable during the SR process. Voters who had temporarily left the State for work during verification reportedly returned to find fresh objections raised against their names, effectively penalising economic migration and seasonal labour mobility.

Allegations of partisan signalling from political executive

Calling for institutional impartiality, CJP and other groups cite alleged interference in the Boko-Chhaygaon constituency and refer to statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which they characterise as “blatantly partisan” and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a neutral electoral process.

Demands to the Election Commission

The memorandum places eight specific demands before the ECI, including:

• Withdrawal of objections where the original complainant is absent during hearings
• Investigation and penal action for false Form 7 complaints
• Action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against false declarants
• Compensation for victims subjected to mental, physical, or financial harassment
• Extension of timelines for claims and publication of the final electoral roll

At its core, the memorandum urges the Election Commission to restore procedural integrity and ensure that Assam’s electoral rolls are prepared “free and fair, in the interests of democracy”.

Why was this memorandum submitted?

Coming amid heightened national scrutiny of electoral processes, the allegations — if substantiated — point not merely to clerical lapses but to a structural vulnerability in voter list revision mechanisms, particularly in politically sensitive regions. The memorandum underscores that electoral rolls are not administrative lists but constitutional instruments, foundational to the exercise of universal adult franchise.

The Election Commission has not yet responded to the memorandum.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Detailed report may be read here.

Related:

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025

CJP flags Zee News broadcast ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’ for communal framing before NBDSA

A voter list exercise under scrutiny: Assam’s Special Revision of electoral rolls, allegations of targeted harassment and misuse of Form-7

The case of “pushback” of Doyjan Bibi and the quiet normalisation of undocumented deportations

The post Assam’s Electoral Rolls in Crisis: CJP flags structural manipulation in Summary Revision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We have been observing the systemic normalisation of public shaming—a practice where police, not the judiciary, effectively deliver a public verdict. This is not due process; it is a coercive performance of degradation, rendering the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ a fiction in practice. The evidence compiled herein is clear, suspects, who should still be shielded by the presumption of innocence, are paraded before cameras and crowds. They are forced into women’s clothes in a calculated act of gendered humiliation. Their heads are forcibly shaved. They are marched down roads with visible and severe injuries; limping on fractured legs or, in some cases, even made to crawl on the road!

This conduct is not the sporadic egregious misconduct of a few officers. It is a defiant, systemic practice that stands in direct contravention of established law. It squarely violates the unambiguous prohibitions set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526.  It is a profound violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person—accused or not—the right to life and human dignity.

Significantly, this recurring illegality continues in open defiance of advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Rajasthan DGP’s own circulars forbidding these very acts. The state’s top police leadership, by failing to enforce its own directives, has transitioned from silent spectator to complicit enabler. This resource is a legal examination of this practice. It details how the instruments of law are being perverted to enact a form of public justice, replacing the sanctity of the courtroom with the irreversible, prejudicial judgment of the crowd.

A map of humiliation: the state-wide trend of extra-legal parades

The colonial practice to parade accused before public and media as some hunted animal trophy is worst form of abuse of human rights of an individual. The British adopted this practice to ensure that the people of India remain fearful and subservient to handful of foreign rulers (who’s police forces were trained to turn against their own). In large part, they were successful in ensuring brute control, but that such tendencies should spiral in free ‘democratic India?

Shockingly, these extra-legal “arrest rituals” are not isolated incidents but part of a systemic practice across Rajasthan this past year that our team has documented. We present a detailed legal analysis.

1. Gendered humiliation as punishment

Few practices reveal the collapse of constitutional restraint more starkly than the police’s resort to gendered humiliation as a tool of punishment. Across Rajasthan, police officers have repeatedly turned to misogynistic tropes—forcing accused men into women’s clothing, half-shaving their heads, and parading them before jeering crowds—as instruments of moral retribution rather than lawful procedure. These acts, staged in full public view were documented through 2025. Often, they were visually documented for social media dissemination. These unlawful acts are not by any means, spontaneous lapses of discipline. They represent a conscious performance of power—where masculinity, shame, and violence are choreographed into public spectacle.

Even when the police claim that the accused were found disguised in women’s clothes at the time of arrest, such an explanation cannot justify their public parading in the same attire. The act of displaying them before crowds in those clothes—long after custody has been secured—serves no investigative purpose. It is an act of deliberate humiliation, stripped of any legal rationale, and therefore per se illegal. It transforms supposed evidence of arrest into a spectacle of degradation, meant to mock rather than prosecute.

The incidents that follow demonstrate how the police have systematically weaponised gender stereotypes to degrade the accused. In Sikar, Udaipur, Nagaur, Jhunjhunu, and Dausa, law enforcement transformed arrests into orchestrated parades of humiliation, targeting not only the individual’s liberty but their dignity itself. Each case exposes how gendered humiliation has evolved into an informal yet recurring mode of punishment—public, performative, and patently unlawful.

• Sikar: After arresting two men for allegedly killing a bull by running it over with an SUV on October 1, 2025, Nechwa police subjected them to such degradation. Claiming the men were found hiding in women’s clothes, officers half-shaved their heads and then paraded them through the public market, forcing them to wear women’s nightgowns. This spectacle was designed to incite public anger, with crowds reportedly shouting for the men to be hanged. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar 

Departmental endorsement of Sikar Police’s illegal parade

This defiance of law is not merely a station-level anomaly, it is amplified by a glaring departmental contradiction, perfectly captured by the Sikar parade incident.

This illegal parade, designed to incite public anger, was then officially endorsed by the force’s public relations arm. Despite internal directives from the DGP (such as the detailed SOP dated September 21, 2023) explicitly forbidding such acts of humiliation, the official @PoliceRajasthan social media handle broadcast a video of this very parade. It was framed as a righteous act, captioned, “Rajasthan Police: A befitting reply to human cruelty”, thereby publicly celebrating a blatant violation of law as a policy success.

• Udaipur: Five men arrested by Hathipole police for rioting and assault with a sword were paraded on November 1 in a manner clearly intended to humiliate. Justifying the act with the claim that the accused were planning to flee in female attire, police forced all five to dress in women’s clothes. To amplify the shame, they were made to wear placards around their necks with slogans like “I am a burden on society” and “I am a criminal” as they were marched through the city. (Report in The Mooknayak).

Image Credit: The Mooknayak

• Nagaur: On August 1, in Merta town, three men accused of a lottery scam—a crime they allegedly committed while disguised in female attire—were subjected to a multi-layered shaming ritual. Police shaved their heads and then marched them from the bus stand to the court while forcing them to wear the women’s salwar suits. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

Throughout the parade, officers forced the men to keep their hands folded and repeatedly chant, “We made a mistake.”

• Jhunjhunu & Dausa: This tactic of weaponising an accused’s disguise was repeated across districts. In Surajgarh (Jhunjhunu), on July 20, the SHO paraded a man accused of attacking a sarpanch in the salwar suit he was allegedly wearing while in hiding. (Reports in Dainik Bhaskar and Patrika).

Image Credit: Rajasthan Patrika

Similarly, in Dausa, police arrested two men for attacking officers. After finding them hiding in women’s clothes, police paraded them through the village in that same attire, forcing them to walk with folded hands and issue a public warning that “No one should do this, or they will face the same consequences.” (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

2. Parading the injured accused/suspects: spectacles of cruelty

In several cases, police have paraded accused. Several of these accused were visibly and severely injured, turning a “spot verification” or “Medical Examination” procedure into a public display of suffering.

• Kota: On May 22, in a shocking parade from Kanwas, police paraded two murder accused who were severely injured, allegedly from fleeing arrest. Both men had their legs in plaster casts. Media reports explicitly described one accused, Atiq, whose both legs were broken, crawling or ‘dragging himself’ on the road. The second accused, Deepak, limped painfully alongside on a crutch. The Kota Rural SP justified this as “spot verification.” He said that “action was taken to have the accused verify the scene and to prepare a site map of the incident. Since both had sustained injuries, they were taken to the spot on foot” as ETV Bharat Rajasthan reported. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: ETV Bharat Kota

• Jaipur: On January 23, Vidhyadharnagar police paraded five men accused in a high-profile robbery and murder case. Two of the men had sustained fractured legs from falling in a ditch and were in plaster casts. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

Police forced these injured men to walk, limping and supported by officers, from the police vehicle to the crime scene and even to the victim’s house.

• Tonk: On September 30, The Times of India reported that the Tonk Police arrested three men for allegedly molesting a 13-year-old girl and threatening her with an acid attack. During the public “spot verification,” one of the accused, unable to walk, was filmed dragging himself on the road, while the other two limped beside him as locals cheered. During the parade, a large crowd gathered and chanted slogans of “Tonk Police Zindabad.” (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Kotputli: On July 1, four men accused of murdering a liquor contractor were arrested after a police “encounter” in which all four were shot in the legs. Immediately following their medical treatment, police paraded the injured accused, limping from their fresh gunshot wounds, in a “procession” through the town.

• Karoli: On February 25, two men accused of firing over a payment dispute at a salon were arrested after being injured, allegedly by falling on stones while fleeing. Police then paraded the two men, who were visibly limping, and forced them to walk through the city with folded hands, apologising to the public. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

3. Rituals of degradation: shaving, placards, and drums

Beyond gendered humiliation, police employ other theatrical methods of degradation designed to shatter an accused’s self-respect.

• Baran: On June 3, demonstrating that even an alleged intent to commit a crime warrants public degradation, police arrested 12 men for planning a robbery at a petrol pump. Before any trial, police shaved the heads of the accused and paraded them through the city market, forcing them to join their hands and publicly apologise. (Report in NDTV Rajasthan).

Image Credit: NDTV Rajasthan

• Pali: On October 28, the Pali Police orchestrated a highly theatrical shaming procession for three murder accused. Officers hired dhols (drums) to beat as they marched the men from Ambedkar Circle to the court. The accused, who were visibly limping, were forced to wear clothes with the label ‘Hardcore History-sheeter’ printed on them and beg for forgiveness.

During the parade, a woman tried to reach the accused to slap them, but the police stopped her

• Hanumangarh: On October 30, the Gogamedi police arrested six men, alleged to be members of a criminal gang. As a form of summary punishment, police forcibly cut their hair and then paraded them through village. (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

The men were seen limping and attempting to hide their faces in shame during the procession.

Footage Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Udaipur: On October 5, combining multiple forms of humiliation, Bhupalpura police paraded two men accused of a stabbing. The men were forced to walk while visibly limping from injuries sustained during their arrest, and police had half-shaved their heads to maximise their public disgrace.

The accused men were marched in this state for approximately two kilometers to “recreate the scene.”

4. General parades: “sport verification” as public spectacle

Even in cases without overt torture, the routine practice of parading suspects for “spot verification” is used as a pretext for public shaming.

• Jodhpur: On August 20, after arresting suspects in a firing case, Jodhpur police paraded the accused on foot from the police station to the nearby crime scene in the middle of the market, justifying it as the “last day of remand” and a “spot inspection.” (Report in Amar Ujala.

Image Credit: Amar Ujala

• Bikaner: On July 28, Lunkaransar police paraded six men, accused of attacking a shopkeeper, through the same market where the incident occurred, forcing them to walk to the hospital. The parade drew a large crowd, which turned the procession into a “julus” (spectacle). (Report in Dainik Bhaskar).

Image Credit: Dainik Bhaskar

• Jaipur: In a separate Vidhyadharnagar case, on June 3, two men arrested for allegedly trying to free a suspect from police custody and tearing a constable’s uniform were paraded at the scene of the incident, where they were forced to fold their hands and apologise. (Report in Patrika).

Image Credit: Patrika

• Churu: On September 21, Taranagar Police paraded a young man accused of allegedly stabbing a female student. He was marched from the police station through the main market and bus stand to “send a message.” According to Dainik Bhaskar, the SHO was quoted as saying, “This is the fate of those who commit crimes.”

Link: https://dai.ly/x9qx8kw

The statutory framework: due process vs. public spectacle

The statutory framework governing arrest, detention, and investigation in India is exhaustive and focuses entirely on procedural correctness, investigative necessity, and the rights of the accused. This framework is designed to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of state power.

Conspicuously absent from the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and its predecessor, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is any provision, power, or procedure that legitimises the public parading, shaming, or forced humiliation of an accused or suspect. The police actions documented in Rajasthan are not a mere over-extension of authority but they are in direct contravention of black-letter law.

The limited and defined powers of arrest

The police’s power to arrest is not absolute. It is narrowly defined, primarily under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 (which corresponds to Section 41 of the CrPC, 1973). This section outlines the specific circumstances under which a police officer may arrest without a warrant. The entire purpose of this power is to prevent the commission of further offenses, ensure a proper investigation, or secure the accused’s presence at trial. It does not grant any power to inflict summary punishment or public humiliation.

The manner of arrest is detailed in Section 43 of the BNSS, 2023:

(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:

Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.

(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) The police officer may, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while making the arrest of a person or while producing such person before the court who is— (i) a habitual or repeat offender; or (ii) a person who escaped from custody; or (iii) a person who has committed offence of organised crime, terrorist act, drug related crime, illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency-notes, human trafficking, sexual offence against children, or offence against the State.

While Sub-section (3) introduces specific grounds for handcuffing, its legal basis remains tied to preventing escape and ensuring safety—not for public display. The parading of an accused in handcuffs, often when they are already subdued or injured, serves no legitimate custodial purpose.

The absolute prohibition on unnecessary restraint

The most blatant statutory violation in these public parades is the breach of Section 46 of the BNSS, 2023 (mirroring Section 49 of the CrPC). This provision is not ambiguous and leaves no room for discretion. It mandates:

“The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.”

Forcing an accused to wear women’s clothing, shaving their head, hanging a placard around their neck, or forcing them to limp through a market while injured is, by any definition, “more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.” These acts are illegal, punitive, and fall entirely outside the police’s lawful authority.

Provisions pertaining to the use of handcuffing

The legal framework governing handcuffs in India was historically undefined, with no explicit provision in the previous CrPC, 1973. Their use was permissively shaped only by Supreme Court directives, notably in Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526 and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines (2010), which strictly limited it to a measure of last resort for securing restraint—not as a routine tool.

The new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in Section 43(3), for the first time codifies this power, but only for exceptionally narrow and grave circumstances, such as for a habitual or repeat offender, a person who escaped custody, or one who has committed specified serious offences like organised crime, terrorism, murder, or rape.

While police may justifiably argue that handcuffs are necessary to secure an accused during spot verifications, medical examinations, or production before the court, the incidents documented across Rajasthan tell a different story. The visual evidence shows handcuffs being weaponised not for legitimate restraint, but as a prop for public shaming—an integral part of the illegal parade. This unnecessary, performative demonstration of power is a per se unconstitutional and illegal act, designed to inflict humiliation rather than uphold the law.

Zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21: SC’s definitive mandate in Prem Shankar Shukla

The foundational and most authoritatively-violated law on this matter remains the Supreme Court’s 1980 judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526. This ruling did not just restrict handcuffing; it condemned the entire mindset behind public degradation as an affront to the Constitution. The Court declared that handcuffing is “prima facie inhuman” and “arbitrary,” calling it a “zoological strategy” that is “repugnant to Article 21.”

Addressing the exact ritual of parading, the Court observed:

“But to bind a man hand-and-foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture.” (Para 22)

The Court established that the “convenience of the custodian” (Para 24) is irrelevant. Handcuffing is not a routine procedure but an “extreme measure” (Para 25) that can only be justified as the “last refuge, not the routine regimen” (Para 25). The bench explicitly rejected the idea that the “nature of the accusation” (Para 31) is a valid criterion. Instead, the only determinant is a “clear and present danger of escape” (Para 31), which must be based on “clear material, not glib assumption” (Para 31).

Crucially, the judgment set a non-negotiable procedural safeguard: police cannot act unilaterally. Even in those rare, extreme cases, the officer must:

“…record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so… The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval. Otherwise… the procedure will be unfair and bad in law.” (Para 30)

The Court concluded by condemning the practice as a “barbarous bigotry” and “an imperial heritage, well preserved” (Para 33), making it clear that such “animalising” (Para 23) displays are summary punishments “vicariously imposed at police level” (Para 31) and have no place under the Constitution.

The judgement of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) can be read here

Police duty is arrest, not punishment: the Omprakash judgment

In Omprakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72, the Supreme Court stressed the fundamental limits of police duty. The Court observed that the police designated role is not to deliver summary punishment, stating “It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police have to arrest the accused and put them up for trial.” (Para 42).

This observation highlights the principle that the police’s sole, lawful function is to bring an accused before the judiciary, not to usurp the judicial role by inflicting punishment—be it through extra-judicial killings or, by extension, through acts of public degradation.

The judgement of Omprakash and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72 can be read here

A Parallel Trial: Supreme Court on the illegality of media parades of accused

The Hindu reported that on August 28, 2014, the Supreme Court directly condemned the practice of police parading suspects before the media, viewing it as a serious threat to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. During the 2014 hearings for the Public Union for Civil Liberties & another v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (CDJ 2014 SC 831), a three-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice R.M. Lodha expressed strong disapproval of this practice. The Chief Justice was unequivocal, stating:

“Media briefings by investigating officer during on-going investigations should not happen. It is a very serious matter. This issue touches upon Article 21 [right to life and liberty including fair trial].”

The bench, which also included Justice Kurian Joseph, noted that this conduct prejudices the accused before they are even charged. Justice Joseph observed that by releasing unproven statements, “a parallel trial is run in the media,” which affects the fundamental rights of the accused and creates an indelible stigma.

Home Ministry’s advisory on media policy and ban on public parading of accused persons

The systemic defiance of legal norms is further evidenced by the police’s flagrant disregard for binding directives from the Union Government itself. As far back as April 1, 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a comprehensive “Advisory on Media Policy of Police” (F. NO.15011/48/2009-SC/ST-W) to all states. This advisory explicitly mandates precautions to protect the dignity of those in custody. Guideline VI(a) of the memorandum is unequivocal that “arrested persons should not be paraded before the media.”

Para (VI) reads as follow;

“Due care should be taken to ensure that there is no violation of the legal, privacy and human rights of the accused/victims.

1.  Arrested persons should not be paraded before the media.
2.  Faces of arrested persons whose Test Identification Parade is required to be conducted should not be exposed to the media.”

It further instructs that “due care should be taken to ensure that there is no violation of the legal, privacy and human rights of the accused/victims.” The MHA advisory, which forms the basis for subsequent state-level circulars, also directs that any deviation “should be viewed seriously and action should be taken against such police officer/official.”

The recurring spectacles in Rajasthan are therefore a direct violation of these long-standing, explicit instructions from the very ministry overseeing internal security.

The MHA advisory dated April 1, 2010 can be read here

Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

The very statute governing the state’s police, the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, establishes a clear, affirmative obligation for officers to follow the law. Section 29 of the Act details the duties and responsibilities of every police officer. Crucially, Section 29(i) mandates that an officer shall “perform such duties and discharge such responsibilities as may be enjoined upon him by law or by an authority empowered to issue such directions under any law.” This provision makes adherence to all legal mandates—including constitutional protections, Supreme Court judgments, and internal departmental circulars—a fundamental and non-negotiable component of an officer’s statutory duty.

Circulars/advisory issued by the DGP, Rajasthan

This reported illegality is not just a violation of MHA advisories but also a direct contravention of the Rajasthan Police’s own internal guidelines. On October 18, 2013, the Director General of Police (DGP), Rajasthan, issued a specific advisory to all District Police Superintendents and G.R.P. Ajmer/Jodhpur regarding police-media relations. This directive explicitly aimed to prevent the very practices now seen across the state. Para (vi) of the advisory clearly mandates:

“It should always be kept in mind that; (a) the arrested person should not be paraded before the media. (b) The face of the accused whose identity is to be paraded should not be shown to the media.”

The DGP, Rajasthan’s instructions dated October 18, 2013 can be read here

Rajasthan Police’s SOP strictly prohibits using handcuffs for “public ridicule, harassment, or humiliation”

On September 21, 2023, the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Rajasthan, issued a detailed Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) acknowledging that handcuffing and displaying accused was being done “routinely,” a practice that “humiliates a person,” “hurts their self-respect,” and “tarnishes the image of the police.”

Citing the Rajasthan High Court’s 2023 order (supra) and the Supreme Court’s mandate in Prem Shankar Shukla (supra), the SOP strictly prohibits using handcuffs for “public ridicule, harassment, or humiliation” or merely for the “convenience of the escort team.”

The SOP mandates that handcuffs are a last resort, to be used only in “exceptional circumstances” (e.g., the prisoner is violent, dangerous, or a high escape risk) and requires prior court approval. The reasons for their use must be meticulously recorded in the police station’s daily diary (Roznamcha Aam) before application.

The SOP also explicitly forbids the routine handcuffing of “Satyagrahis, persons holding dignified positions in public life, journalists, [and] political prisoners,” and states that even if justifiably handcuffed, they must not be paraded. It directs senior officers (IGPs and SPs) to ensure “verbatim” compliance with these instructions.

The ADGP, Rajasthan’s directive dated September 21, 2023 can be read here

“Will not conduct a public parade”: DGP’s January 2025 SOP directly bans shaming rituals

The legal prohibitions against these practices were reinforced with the issuance of a new “Standard Operating Procedure for the use of handcuffs” by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, on January 15, 2025. This SOP was issued to align with Section 43(3) of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which codifies the power to use handcuffs for specific, grave offenses (e.g., habitual offenders, terrorism, murder, rape, organised crime).

However, the directive unequivocally states that even for these accused, handcuffs are only permissible in “exceptional circumstances” where there is a “clear and present danger” of escape or violence, and the reasons must be “clearly recorded.” Most significantly, the 2025 SOP directly confronts and bans the very rituals this resource documents. It explicitly commands:

“The police officer, after handcuffing, will not conduct a public parade of the prisoner.”

Furthermore, it directly targets the police practice of broadcasting these events, instructing officers to: “…take special care that after handcuffing, photos or videos of the prisoner are not uploaded to social media.”

This latest directive from the state’s top police office leaves no ambiguity, explicitly forbidding the exact conduct of parading suspects and disseminating the footage.

The directions of DGP, Rajasthan dated January 15, 2025 can be read here

Rajasthan High Court’s condemnation on illegal handcuffing

On May 26, 2023, the Rajasthan High Court’s order (Jodhpur Bench) in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 156/2023, the Court, while disposing of the petition, issued several key directives. The operative part of the order mandates the respondents to conduct an expeditious inquiry into the incident and against the delinquent officers, including those already suspended. The Court directed that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) must personally monitor the progress of this inquiry.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly ordered the IGP to ensure that the directions issued by the Supreme Court [notably in Prem Shanker Shukala v. Delhi Administration (1980) SCC (3) 526, which prohibit routine handcuffing, are followed “in letter and spirit” throughout his jurisdiction.

The High Court’s take on the handcuffing was one of strong condemnation. It found the action of handcuffing the petitioner’s son—who was not formally arrested and was hospitalised with a fractured leg, rendering him unable to walk—to be “inhuman” and “absolutely illegal and unconstitutional.” The Court noted that the very presence of handcuffs at the general ward bed of an unarrested accused, who alleged he was fettered at night, “firmly established” the illegality and was a clear violation of constitutional mandates, dismissing the suspension of officers as an “eye-wash.”

The order dated May 26, 2023 of the Rajasthan High Court can be read here

The judicial condemnation of public parades extends beyond a single state

Apart from the Rajasthan High Court, this concern is also shocking courts across the country as well, as the Gujarat High Court, in R/WPPIL/153/2018, Bhautik Vijaybhai Bhatt v. Director General of Police, addressed this issue directly. The Public Interest Litigation sought a writ of mandamus to stop police from “taking out procession of accused persons by handcuffing them… and beat such accused persons in public place.” In response, the Additional Director General of Police filed an affidavit assuring the Court of “proposed draft instructions” to be issued to all officers.

The High Court’s order dated May 7, 2019, specifically recorded that these new instructions would ensure that accused persons are “not parading them in public at large” or given any “maltreatment.” The affidavit, accepted by the Court, affirmed that accused must be “protected from mob violence” and taken to the police station or Magistrate “in a dignified manner by protecting their individual status.” The Court disposed of the PIL by directing the state to issue this circular, reinforcing that legal guidelines must be “strictly complied with.”

The order of Gujrat High Court dated May 7, 2019 can be read here

No parading of accused/suspects: Hyderabad High Court (Telangana HC)

The New Indian Express reported that on June 21, 2018, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar recently expressed their “extreme displeasure” over parading of accused in front of media and television channels. The observation has evoked a positive response and won accolades from different walks of life. The judges asserted that the bench would pass orders prohibiting the practice.

Subsequently, the High Court refused a request to grant the DGP, Andhra Pradesh, two weeks to file an affidavit in the case. The bench, demonstrating its urgency on the matter, strongly remarked that “You are treating the accused-suspects as animals that is why you are allowing them before the media without any respect to their Right to Privacy which is a fundamental right. We will grant only a week’s time to you to file the affidavit as per our earlier direction” as the Deccan Chronicle reported

Rights of the accused: protection and fair trail, not degradation

The law, far from sanctioning humiliation, builds a wall of protection around the accused. Section 38 of the BNSS, 2023 (mirroring Section 50 of the CrPC), mandates that when any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.

Furthermore, Section 51 of the BNSS, 2023 (regarding the medical examination of the accused), shows the law’s intent:

…it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of any police officer… to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence…

The purpose of a medical examination is evidentiary—to find trace evidence on the accused or document injuries relevant to the crime. This provision is perverted when police parade suspects with injuries (like fractured legs), turning a procedure meant for legal and medical documentation into a spectacle of cruelty.

The core jurisprudential breach

These police conduct tears at the very fabric of Indian criminal jurisprudence.

1. Violation of Article 21 (Dignity): The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity. Public shaming, forced haircuts, and gendered humiliation are a profound assault on that dignity.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the “right to live with human dignity.” This is the “most precious right” afforded to “every person,” a guarantee that is not suspended upon accusation or arrest. As the Supreme Court has affirmed in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999] that, “even the State has no authority to violate that right.” (Para 7)

The judgement of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999] can be read here

The only exception under Article 21 is that liberty can be curtailed, but only subject to the “procedure established by law”—which means through a fair trial, investigation, and conviction by a competent court. However, the police’s summary “punishments” in the name of spot verification and medical examination are per se illegal and a gross violation of the Constitution, as police have no authority to adjudicate guilt or inflict penalties.

This practice also fundamentally subverts Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy. When police inflict this public degradation, they are administering a “punishment” before any trial. Should the accused later be convicted by a court, they would have been subjected to two punishments—first, the illegal, irreversible public shaming by the police, and second, the judicial sentence. This police action is a brazen usurpation of judicial power, rendering the presumption of innocence a nullity.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488, the Supreme Court even condemned the inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, particularly the use of solitary confinement and held that fundamental rights do not end at the prison gates. It was emphasised that prison authorities must respect the dignity and rights of inmates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘human dignity’, which is apparently not a fundamental right was read as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgement of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) can be read here

In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 this Court affirmed right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, which was read as a right and a part of ‘life and liberty’ under Article 21. It was held that privacy encompasses autonomy, dignity, and the freedom to control their own personality.

The judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) can be read here

2. Violation of Article 20(3) (Self-Incrimination): Forcing an accused to walk with folded hands and publicly chant “I made a mistake” is a form of compelled confession, obtained through duress and humiliation. It is a flagrant violation of the right against self-incrimination.

“I Made a Mistake”: forced confessions and the death of Article 20(3)

A core constitutional safeguard, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution, dictates that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This right against self-incrimination is so foundational that the law of evidence, both in Section 25 of the former Indian Evidence Act and its successor Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, explicitly states that “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” These laws exist precisely because of the inherent risk of coercion in police custody.

The police rituals documented across Rajasthan—forcing accused men to chant “We made a mistake” or publicly apologise to crowds—are a flagrant and theatrical violation of these very safeguards. Such a “confession,” whether genuinely given in the privacy of a station or compelled by police pressure, is legally worthless and inadmissible as evidence.

Therefore, the only purpose of this public performance is extra-legal, to inflict humiliation, satisfy public anger, and enact a summary punishment. This practice is a performative and compelled act of self-incrimination. It does not matter if an accused has confessed; the police have no authority to broadcast this, let alone force its re-enactment as a public spectacle. By forcing an accused to apologise on camera, the police are not conducting an investigation; they are staging a verdict and illegally compelling a person to be a witness against himself, not before a court of law, but before a roadside mob.

3. Destruction of the Presumption of Innocence: The accusation has to be proven in a court of law. When investigating authorities “play to the gallery,” they usurp the role of the judiciary. They declare the person guilty before a trial, inflicting an irreversible public sentence that no subsequent acquittal can ever undo. This damages the credibility and integrity of the entire justice system.

The D.K. Basu mandate: a judicial blueprint against custodial abuse

The most foundational legal standards for arrest and detention were established by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416]. The Court, deeply concerned with custodial violence and the abuse of police power, formulated a set of 11 mandatory requirements. These guidelines are not suggestions but “preventive measures” designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and the protection of an arrestee’s fundamental rights under Article 21. They create a non-negotiable procedural blueprint that stands in stark contrast to the arbitrary rituals of public shaming. The Court directed in Para 35 of the judgement that requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures.

These directives establish procedures to protect the rights of individuals during arrest and detention. Police officers must wear clear identification, and their details must be registered. An “Arrest Memo” must be prepared at the time of arrest, detailing the time and date, witnessed by a family member or local respectable person, and countersigned by the arrestee.

The arrestee must be informed of their right to have one friend or relative notified of their arrest and custody location. If this person lives out-of-district, police must notify them via the Legal Aid Organisation within 8-12 hours. The arrestee has the right to an injury inspection at arrest, recorded in a signed “Inspection Memo,” and must receive a medical examination by an approved doctor every 48 hours. They may also meet their lawyer during interrogation.

All arrest details must be recorded in a station diary, with copies of documents sent to the Magistrate. Furthermore, the district/state police control room must be informed of the arrest and custody location within 12 hours and display this information publicly.

The judgement of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) can be read here

No action from SHRC and DGP Rajasthan’s office

Despite an unambiguous legal framework, the compiled evidence reveals a systemic collapse of every accountability mechanism. The Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission (RSHRC), armed with suo moto powers to protect fundamental rights from illegal police practices, has remained a silent spectator. This inaction persists even as these “arrest rituals” have escalated since 2025, transforming from sporadic abuses into a monthly, viral spectacle of state-endorsed degradation.

This open defiance is amplified, not punished, with official police social media handles celebrating the violations. The institutional failure is absolute as the Rajasthan High Court has not taken suo motu cognizance, and the Director General of Police, despite his own clear directives (Jan 2025) forbidding these parades, has proven unable or unwilling to enforce them. The result is a state of perfect impunity, where the Constitution is openly defied, and the law, judiciary, and human rights commissions have, by their collective silence, become complicit enablers.

Related

What are the Rights against being handcuffed in India?

A prison without bars or walls

Indian courts and Medical Bail

The post Parade of Public Shaming: How Rajasthan police’s illegal “arrest rituals” replace due process with public defilement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This was the thirteenth occasion on which the petitions have been listed before the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise from a group of writ petitions pending since 2020, raising substantial constitutional questions concerning the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality, and the extent of State power to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and Advocate Sanjana Thomas are representing CJP, the first and lead petitioner in the case.

Origin and expansion of the challenge

The challenge was first initiated in January 2020, when the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of laws enacted by certain States to regulate religious conversion. These early petitions focused on statutes in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

Over time, similar laws were enacted in additional States. In 2023, the Supreme Court permitted Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)—the lead petitioner in the batch—to amend its writ petition to bring within the scope of the proceedings comparable statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. As a result, the present batch now concerns nine State enactments, each styled as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” law.

The petitions contend that although framed as measures to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, the impugned statutes impose criminal, procedural, and administrative burdens on the exercise of individual choice in matters of faith and marriage.

Hearing of April 16, 2025: Applications for early hearing and interim relief

A significant procedural development occurred on April 16, 2025, when the Supreme Court heard applications filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace seeking (i) an early hearing of the long-pending petitions and (ii) interim relief in light of continued enforcement of the impugned laws.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The applications were filed against the backdrop of the ongoing operation of the anti-conversion statutes across several States and subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments enhancing penalties and expanding the scope of offences.

Appearing for CJP, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the interim applications were necessitated by the manner in which the laws were being implemented on the ground. It was urged that certain provisions—particularly those relating to prior declarations before conversion, criminalisation of conversion associated with marriage, third-party complaints, and reversal of burden of proof—were resulting in repeated invocation of penal provisions against consenting adults. Singh requested the Court to issue notice on the interim relief application and to stay the operation of the most consequential provisions pending final adjudication.

On behalf of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested the submission that there were instances of misuse warranting interim relief. In response, the Bench directed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to examine the applications and indicate the Union’s position on the various prayers raised therein, including identifying aspects that may not be opposed.

The Court further directed that States and non-applicants file responses to the interim applications, even in the absence of a formal notice, with a view to ensuring that pleadings are completed expeditiously. The matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, signalling the Court’s intent to take up the applications in a substantive manner.

Details of the proceedings may be read here.

Proceedings of September 16, 2025: Directions on pleadings and de-tagging

The batch of petitions, along with the pending interlocutory applications, came up for consideration on September 16, 2025, before a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

At this stage, the Court directed nine respondent States—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—to file detailed responses to the applications seeking interim stay of their respective statutes.

The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to file affidavits in reply and indicated that the matter would be taken up for consideration of interim relief after completion of pleadings. To facilitate the preparation of common compilations and streamline submissions, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the respondents.

During the same hearing, the Court considered a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. The Bench clarified that the subject matter of that petition was distinct from the constitutional challenge to existing State enactments and accordingly de-tagged the Upadhyay petition from the present batch.

Detailed proceedings may be read here.

Nature of the impugned statutes

Across the nine States, the impugned laws generally contain provisions that regulate religious conversion through a combination of prior declarations, criminal penalties, and procedural presumptions. The petitioners have argued that these provisions, taken together, create a legal regime in which conversion is treated as inherently suspect, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

A central feature of many of the statutes is the requirement that a person intending to convert must give prior notice to a District Magistrate or other designated authority. In several States, this declaration is followed by a police inquiry or verification process, and in some cases, the declaration is required to be publicly displayed. The petitions argue that such requirements subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to prior executive approval, thereby altering the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State.

Another significant feature is the manner in which conversion associated with marriage is addressed. Several statutes presume that conversion undertaken for the purpose of marriage is suspect and may amount to conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. According to the petitioners, this effectively places consensual interfaith marriages under criminal scrutiny, even in the absence of any allegation by the individuals concerned.

The statutes also commonly permit persons other than the allegedly aggrieved individual to lodge complaints, thereby enabling third-party intervention in private relationships. In addition, many of the laws reverse the burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary, and impose stringent bail conditions that can result in prolonged incarceration.

During the course of the hearings, CJP (petitioners) drew the Court’s attention to legislative amendments and judicial developments relating to individual State statutes.

Particular reference was made to amendments introduced by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2024 to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It was submitted that these amendments enhanced the penal consequences under the statute, including the introduction of minimum sentences extending to long terms of imprisonment and the imposition of bail conditions similar to those found in special statutes. It was also pointed out that the amendments expanded the category of persons who may lodge complaints under the Act.

The petitioners (CJP) also relied on interim orders passed by High Courts in challenges to similar laws. The Gujarat High Court has stayed the operation of certain provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act on the ground that they impinge upon the right of consenting adults to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed provisions requiring prior declaration to the District Magistrate. Appeals against these interim orders are presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Related proceedings and de-tagging of a connected petition

During the September 16, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court also addressed the status of a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for the enactment of a central law regulating religious conversions. The Court directed that this petition be de-tagged from the present batch, observing that its subject matter was distinct from the challenge to the constitutional validity of existing State enactments.

Submissions on personal liberty and gender concerns

In addition to CJP, several interveners have placed submissions on record. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) has raised concerns regarding the impact of these laws on women’s autonomy, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships. It has been contended that the statutory framework tends to treat adult women as lacking agency in matters of choice, thereby inviting State and familial intervention.

Position as of the latest listing

As of the listing on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet heard arguments on the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief, nor has it commenced final hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned statutes. The matter now stands listed for February 3, 2026.

The outcome of the forthcoming proceedings will determine whether interim directions are issued pending final adjudication of questions that bear on the interpretation of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and on the extent to which the State may regulate religious conversion without infringing upon personal liberty and freedom of conscience.

Below is a table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, which provides the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

Unpacking ‘Love Jihad’ and Caste Purity

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Join the fight against the love jihad laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

The post Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which the program used as a pretext to incite communal tension within India. It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title “Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana.”

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots 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!

The show may be viewed here:

The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.

From cross-border violence to domestic polarisation

According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as “Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana” formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.

Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulana,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.

Six-question format framed as leading accusations

Throughout the program, the anchor posed six structured questions with the duration of the program revolving not strictly around them. The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature;

• Why are Maulanas selective regarding the lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh

• Is there a conspiracy to defame India by labelling it ‘Lynchistan’?

• What is the need for a ‘new Babri’ in India?

• Why the deception of Hindu daughters by hiding one’s identity?

• What is the cure for the extremist mindset of ‘Spit Jihad’?

• Is this an attempt to incite Muslims using threats of Jihad?

The debate concluded with a final question from the host that was intentionally biased and communally charged:

• Will the country be governed by the Constitution or by Sharia?

Rather than clarifying the issue, CJP contends that these questions acted as “leading indictments” that presumed collective Muslim culpability. Queries such as “Why are Maulanas selective regarding lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh?” presupposed silence or complicity, while the final question — “Will the country be governed by the Constitution or Sharia?” — framed Indian national identity in existential religious terms.

The complaint argues that such formulations not only lacked neutrality but also “prime viewers toward moral panic,” presenting Muslims as inherently disloyal or hostile to constitutional order.

Unchecked hate speech and historical tropes

CJP identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Quranic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”

The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.

Ticker graphics as messaging devices

Beyond the spoken exchanges, CJP drew the NBDSA’s attention to ticker text such as “थूक जिहाद वाली कट्टर सोच का इलाज क्या?”, which the complaint argues acted as subliminal messaging designed to reinforce conspiracy theories regarding Indian Muslims.

According to CJP, such graphics, appearing independently of verbal debates, functioned as “parallel instruments of communal persuasion,” circumventing potential rebuttal from panellists.

Rebuttals marginalised, counter-narratives interrupted

The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Quranic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.

This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.

Constitutional vs. civilisational framing

The complaint pays particular attention to Zee News’ repeated invocation of a “civilisational clash” premise, perpetuated through references to “New Babri,” “Land Jihad,” and demographic fear-mongering. This framing intentionally juxtaposed constitutional citizenship against religious identity, portraying Indian Muslims as aligned with transnational Islamist forces rather than as domestic citizens.

According to the complaint, this framing not only essentialised Indian Muslims into a singular political category but also presumed collective disloyalty, a hallmark feature in scholarly definitions of hate speech.

Journalistic responsibilities and democratic stakes

The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.

The broadcast “an act of manufactured communal crisis,” warning that such content corrodes democratic deliberation by replacing informed public reasoning with fear-driven binaries, the complaint reads

Relief sought

In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.

The copy of complaint dated January 20, 2026 may be accessed from here

A complaint had earlier addressed to Zee News on January 7, 2026, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA on January 20, 2026.

Related

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

NBDSA ने ‘मिया बिहू’ पर सांप्रदायिक, एजेंडा–आधारित ब्रॉडकास्ट के लिए टाइम्स नाउ नवभारत को फटकारा; भड़काऊ कंटेंट हटाने का आदेश दिया

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

The post CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dr Patil was questioned on January 21, 2026 for six hours and this was the third time that he was being interrogated by the authorities after being suddenly and summarily detained on his arrival from the United Kingdom (UK) on January 10, 2026 while on a visit to his family in Erandol, Maharashtra.

He had first been summoned for interrogation on January 16. He participated in the questioning and while, on the same day, he formally requested and appealed for the withdrawal of the LOC, as he was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom on 19 January there was no clear response from the authorities. Thereafter when he arrived at the airport on the scheduled date of departure, he was informed that the LOC had not been quashed. Notably, no prior intimation regarding the continuation of the LOC was provided to him. Dr Patil was accompanied by his wife on his trip to India.

Besides Dr Patil has stated that he has incurred financial loss as he missed his flight and the opportunity cost of working at his destination workplace. The continuation of LOC is a continuation of harassment by way of using the procedure as punishment. In any case, the FIR that has sought to be quashed, the Petition states, “an instance of misuse of criminal law to achieve a political vendetta and suppress any kind of different political view or opinion.[Read more about this on our page]

Single Judge Bench Justice Ashwin Bhobe is hearing Patil’s petition which sought to quash the FIR and cancel the LOC. The next hearing is posted on February 4. Senior Adv Sudeep Pasbola is appearing for the petitioner while Adv general Milind Sathe is appearing for the state.

Details of his detention and the FIR against him including his petition in the High Court challenging both the LOC and FIR may be read here.

Legal Analysis of the case

Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita under which the FIR has been registered provides that:

“Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

For the offence under Section 353(2) to be made out, the following elements must be established:

A] Publication or circulation of false or alarming information

B] Intent or likelihood to promote enmity or hatred;

C] Such enmity must be between identifiable groups based on religion, caste, language, race, or community

Since the original social media post is presently inaccessible, it is not possible to make definitive contentions regarding its contents. The actions taken appear arbitrary and unjust.

This raises a crucial legal question: whether criticism of the existing government, in and of itself, can amount to the circulation of false information within the meaning of the applicable penal provision.

The FIR lodged against Dr. Sangram Patil alleges that his social media post had the potential to generate hatred and friction between individuals who support the BJP and those who do not. It is contended that the post was intended to promote enmity between persons holding differing political ideologies.

Such an allegation, however, raises a serious constitutional concern. Mere expression of political opinion, even if sharply critical, does not by itself amount to the promotion of enmity between legally recognisable groups as contemplated under the penal law. The expression of one’s opinion is protected as an essential facet of personal liberty and freedom of expression under Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The FIR alleges that Dr Patil made statements against current BJP leaders and attempted to create political friction through his Facebook post. It also vaguely alleges derogatory remarks against an unknown woman, though the content of such statements remains unavailable.

In the words of justice K Subba Rao himself in the judgement in the Satwant Singh case [Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India 1967 SCR (2)] case, “ personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law.” [excerpt from Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on March 12, 2015]

The Constitution of India extends the protection of Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, to foreign nationals as well.

As affirmed in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 SCR [2]621, the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to citizens alone but applies to all persons, subject only to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. “Freedom to go abroad incorporates the important function of an ultimum refunium liberatis when other basic freedoms are refused. Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents a basic human right of great significance. It is in fact incorporated as inalienable human right in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spirit of Man is at the root of Art. 21 Absent liberty, other freedoms are frozen. Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre.’ (Para D, Page 336). What is fundamental is life and liberty. What is procedural is the manner of its exercise Fairness.

Dr. Sangram Patil’s prevention from returning to his home country amounts not only to a violation of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also to a breach of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which India is a signatory. India has supported the UDHR since its drafting and played a significant role in shaping its framework. The principles embodied in the UDHR are also reflected in, and have informed the interpretation of, the Constitution of India.

LOC stands for Lookout circular, it’s a document issued by the government as directive to immigration authorities to restrict and regulate physical movement of a person. This oft-used restrictive step in present times is not governed by any statutes but certain office memorandums which are released from time to time to lay down the rules concerning the same. The latest LOC Consolidated Guidelines were released in the 2021 Office Memorandum by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Division.

According to the Guidelines the recourse of LOC’s can be taken by investigating agencies in any cognizable offence under BNS or any other Penal Laws when the accused was deliberately evading arrest or may not be appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warant(NWB) and other coercive measures and there was a likelihood that the accused leaving the country to evade arrest. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued it or can be rescinded by the trial court. The request for issuing an LOC must be invariably issued with the approval of Originating Agency of an officer not below the rank of –

1. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or
2. Joint Secretary in the State Government;or
3. District Magistrate of the Concerned District;or
4. Superitendent of Police of the District concerned;or
5. SP in CBI; or
6. Zonal Director of NCB;or
7. Deputy Commissioner;or
8. Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau;or
9. Deputy Secretary of Research;or
10. SP of NIA;or
11. Chairman/ Managing Director / Chief Executive of PSU’s;or
12. Designated Officer of Interpol;or
13. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate;or

Several judgements, for instance(Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and vs The State Of Madras And Others 1960 AIR 1080) have laid down that any provisions which restraint upon on the liberty of locomotion must take into account processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness,’ bill.

The evaluation of fairness of the restrictions applied upon locomotion of a person are extremely important. The curbing of the right to travel which comes under right to life should not be arbitrary in the words of Justice PN Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi vs UOI 1978 SCR [2]621

                 “Hearing is obligatory-meaningful hearing, flexible and realistic, according to circumstances’ but not ritualistic and wooden. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an. escape before the hearing begins. “Bolt the stables after the horse has been stolen” is not a command of natural justice. But soon after the provisional seizure, a reasonable hearing must follow, to minimise procedural prejudice. And when a prompt final order is made against the applicant or passport holder the reasons must be disclosed to him almost invariably save in those dangerous cases, where irreparable injury will ensue to the State. A government which revels in secrecy in the field of people’s liberty not only acts against democratic decency but busies itself with its own burial. That is the writing on the wall if history were a teacher, memory our mentor and decline of liberty not our unwitting endeavour. Public power must rarely hide its heart in an open society and system. – maneka gandhi Like stated in miss pillai judgement ‘Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti-national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.” (Para- B, Page 637).

Similarly, the Court, in Priya Parameshwaran Pillai vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 March, 2015 states that,

“Espousing a cause of a particular section of people could not be considered as anti

national or creating disaffection amongst people at large.”

Likewise, speaking against a particular ideology or leaders of a particular party cannot be the sole cause to detain anyone let alone detaining a foreign national, it can in no way be considered to be inciting hatred amongst people of different ideologies.”

The court in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621 case has observed that it was only exceptional cases that required the issuance of an LOC.

“Spies, traitors, smugglers, saboteurs of the health, wealth and survival or sovereignty of the nation shall not be passported into hostile soil to work their vicious plan fruitfully. But when applying the Passports Act, Over-breadth, hyper-anxiety, regimentation complex, and political mistrust shall not sub-consciously exaggerate, into morbid or neurotic refusal or unlimited imponding or final revocation of passport, facts which, objectively assessed, may prove tremendous trifles. That is why the provisions have to be read down into constitutionality, tailored to fit the reasonableness test and humanised by natural justice. Whether the holder of the passport was heard ? A passport may be impounded without notice but before any final order is passed, the rule of audi alteram partem, would apply and the holder of the passport will have to be heard.

Maneka Gandhi vs UOI, 1978 SCR [2]621, Purtabpur v. Cane Commissioner, Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 807 and Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to in that case.

Recently Justice N Seshasayee of Madras High Court observed that Look Out Circulars should not end up violating a person’s fundamental right to grow and prosper.

Conclusion

The detention of Dr. Sangram Patil raises grave and interlinked legal concerns, including the questionable invocation of Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, the curtailment of his right to travel abroad/or back to his home country, serious procedural irregularities, violations of the principles of natural justice, and non-compliance with India’s international consular obligations toward a foreign national. Taken together, these actions point to a disturbing departure from constitutionally mandated standards of fairness, proportionality, and due process.

At its core, this case exemplifies a troubling trend of criminal law and executive mechanisms being deployed in response to political expression, rather than to address any demonstrable threat to public order or national security. The continued restraint on Dr. Patil’s liberty, despite cooperation with the authorities and the absence of transparent justification,underscores the urgent need for strict judicial scrutiny. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, the exercise of state power, particularly where personal liberty is at stake, must remain accountable, reasoned, and firmly tethered to constitutional principles.

As stated by judges in the Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621

“In Many countries the passport and visa system has been used as a potent paper curtain to inhibit illustrious writers, outstanding statesmen, humanist churchmen and renowned scientists, if they are dissenters, from leaving their national frontiers. Things have changed, global awareness has dawned. The European Convention on Human Rights and bilateral understandings have made headway to widen freedom of travel abroad as integral to liberty of the person. And the universal Declaration of Human Rights has proclaimed in Article 13,”that every one has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.” (Para D, Page 717)

Lord Denning, on the theme of liberty, observed in [Schmidt v. Secretary of State, Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 referred to]”

“Where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it is not to be done without hearing.

It is a mark of interpretative respect for the higher norms our founding fathers held dear in affecting the dearest rights of life and liberty so to read Art. 21 as to result in a human order lined with human justice. And running right through Arts. 19 and 14 present this principle of reasonable procedure in different shades. A certain normative harmony among the articles is thus attained, and holds Art. 21 bears in its bosom the construction of fair procedure legislatively sanctioned. No Passport Officer shall be mini-Caesar nor Minister incarnate Caesar in a system where the rule of law reigns supreme.”

“Establishment and passport legislation must take processual provisions which accord with fair norms, free from extraneous pressure and, by and large, complying with natural justice. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind-the-back materials, oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the ‘fairness’ bill-subject, of course, to just exceptions an

to just exceptions and critical contexts. This minimum once abandoned, the Police State slowly builds up which saps the finer substance of our constitutional jurisprudence. Not party but principle and policy are the key-stone of our Republic.”

(Maneka Gandhi vs UOI-, 1978 SCR [2]621) (Para B, Page 726)

Freedom to air one’s views is the lifeline of any democracy and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to its fundamentals. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication media advance public interest by informing the public of events and developments that take place. Free and critical expression educates citizens, a crucial component of a functional democracy. A citizen who enjoys the fundamentals of free expression also enjoys the right for the free and open propagation of his or her ideas, a right to publicise these in periodicals, magazines and journals or through the electronic media. Any such attempt to thwart or deny the same gravely offends Article 19 (1) (a).

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Natasha Darade)

Related:

Bombay HC: Notice to Maharashtra state, police on UK doctor, Sangram Patil’s petition seeking quashing of LOC & FIR | SabrangIndia

Dr Sangram Patil detained by Mumbai Crime Branch, move sharply condemned | SabrangIndia

Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India and Others | CJP

CJP & PUCL, M’tra release a Citizens Human Rights Manifesto for India 2024, demand a free and just India for all | CJP

Kalicharan delivered speech espousing a hard, right-wing, exclusionist ideology in Maharashtra, CJP urges Maha Police to take action | CJP

UP: 14-Year-Old Dalit Content Creator Ashwamit Gautam faces arrest, FIR over strong dissenting social media videos | SabrangIndia

The post British Citizen of Indian Origin detained in India: A Legal Analysis of Dr Sangram Patil’s Detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Still, no case was registered.

An FIR was finally registered on Tuesday, January 27, but by the time the police acted, the damage had already been done—not just in words spoken, but in what the delay itself revealed.

Incidentally, “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” is expressly prohibited by Article III(c) of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention and is punishable even if the genocide does not actually occur. Besides, incidentally, it is concerning that Indian authorities are so lax on such utterances when Genocide Watch has already adjudged India as an ‘enabler’ and in a report published in 2024 outlined how, in India all the early warning signs of a potential genocide of/against Muslims is present and that this threat must be addressed quickly and proactively. This report of Genocide Watch may be read here.

Five days earlier, according to the report of Siasat, at a public religious-political gathering in Shivgarh, Raebareli, speakers stood on a stage, before a cheering crowd, and openly called for mass violence against Muslims, invoking the logic, language, and memory of one of India’s most brutal communal massacres. They did not whisper. They did not speak in riddles. They asked for bloodshed, mocked past killings, and framed genocide as retaliation and “peace.”

Yet for days, the state remained silent.

It was only after a sustained social media campaign and repeated formal complaints by former student leader and journalist Prashant Kanojia—who meticulously documented the speeches, flagged their legal implications, and publicly questioned police inaction—that the Uttar Pradesh Police moved to register an FIR. The registration came three days after his initial complaint, and five days after the event itself.

A week after hate speeches targeting the Muslim community, UP police have finally registered an FIR against Daksh Chaudhary, Riddhima Sharma, Prakash Singh, Akku Pandit, Abhishek Thakur, Khushboo Pandey and others for inflammatory hate speech at Virat Hindu Sammelan in… pic.twitter.com/CrYCWPeU3j

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) January 27, 2026

The FIR, therefore, marks not swift law enforcement, but reluctant compliance—an action taken only after public scrutiny made continued inaction untenable.

This episode is not merely about one conference or a handful of speakers. It is about how calls for genocide are increasingly delivered from public stages, how historical massacres are resurrected as rallying cries, and how the constitutional promise of equal protection under law fractures when hate speech enjoys informal impunity.

What follows is a detailed account of what was said at the Raebareli conference, who said it, how the state responded, and why the delay itself demands as much scrutiny as the speeches that triggered it.

The Trigger: A call for a “15-minute bloodbath”

Videos from the event that later went viral show a woman speaker urging the crowd to allow “15 minutes” of unchecked violence, explicitly referencing the 1989 Bhagalpur riots, one of the deadliest communal massacres in post-Independence India. The implication was chillingly clear: that brief withdrawal of state restraint could once again result in mass killings without consequences.

These clips circulated widely online, drawing sharp condemnation—but initially, no police action followed.

What was said at the Virat Hindu Conference

Open calls for mass killing: As per the report of Siasat, at the centre of the controversy are speeches by Riddhima Sharma, a Hindutva social media influencer known as SanataniRiddhi, and Khushbu Pandey, also known as Hindu Sherni.

Riddhima Sharma referred to the December 2025 lynching of Bangladeshi Hindu Dipu Chandra Das and told the audience: “If they kill two of yours, you kill 100 people in retaliation for peace.”

She went further, invoking the conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, and urged: If they make one Hindu girl run away, then you should make 100 of their girls run away.”

She added that the Muslim population was already large, implying that reducing their numbers would not matter—a remark cited in complaints as an explicit endorsement of mass violence.

Glorification of Bhagalpur 1989: Khushbu Pandey revived the phrase “gobi farming,” a widely recognised dog whistle for the Bhagalpur riots of 1989, particularly the Logain massacre, where at least 116 Muslim men were killed and buried in fields where cauliflower saplings were planted to conceal the bodies.

Addressing the crowd, Pandey reportedly said that during Bhagalpur:

“The police stepped away for 15 minutes—and not a single body floating in the Ganga was of a Hindu.”

She laughed as the crowd cheered, later joking about planting “organic gobi” on Muslim graves—remarks widely seen as celebrating mass murder.

Location: Shivgarh, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh

(We kill them, bury them, and then grow cauliflower on top)

During a Virat Hindu Conference meeting, Khushboo Pandey, referencing the 1989 Bhagalpur massacre, requested 15 minutes to speak and called for the massacre of Muslims. pic.twitter.com/yOWXl9Vm1j

— The Muslim (@TheMuslim786) January 22, 2026

Targeting Christians and vigilante warnings: The hate speech was not limited to Muslims. Another speaker, Thakur Ram Singh, accused Christians of engaging in illegal forced conversions, portraying them as a community systematically taking over Hindu groups across India.

An unidentified speaker urged residents to remain vigilant in their neighbourhoods, warning them not to allow Hindu women or girls to be taken away by people labelled as “jihadis.”

Multiple speakers repeatedly emphasised the need to “protect” Hindu women, issuing thinly veiled threats of violence against Muslim men.

No immediate action—until the pressure built

Despite the gravity of the speeches and the circulation of video evidence, no immediate FIR was filed.

On January 23, former journalist Prashant Kanojia submitted a formal written complaint to the Raebareli Superintendent of Police, explicitly stating that Riddhima Sharma had openly called for the massacre of Muslims.

The complaint argued that:

• The speeches amounted to incitement to violence
• They disturbed communal harmony
• They posed a direct threat to public order
• Such rhetoric violated constitutional principles

Kanojia followed up multiple times over the next three days, while simultaneously running a public-facing social media campaign, documenting the delay, tagging authorities, and sharing video excerpts from the event.

FIR registered against Terrorist for calling open genocide of the Muslims. pic.twitter.com/A7gSLANzPp

— Prashant Kanojia (@KanojiaPJ) January 27, 2026

FIR registered—five days after the event

Only after three days of sustained follow-ups and five days after the conference itself, did the UP Police finally register an FIR at Shivgarh police station, on January 27.

As of now:

• No arrests have been made
• The FIR comes only after extensive public scrutiny
• The delay itself has raised serious questions about institutional reluctance to act against communal incitement

A pattern, not an isolated incident

Both Sharma and Pandey have a documented history of inflammatory conduct.

• Sharma recently uploaded a video harassing a Muslim temple employee, questioning why a Muslim had been hired.

Riddhima Sharma tries to threaten people accusing them of allowing Muslim near temple

A Hindu guy intervened & taught her a lesson saying “you people want Riot and Communal tension only,get out from here”

These sanghis are the real threat to Hinduismpic.twitter.com/WccjtbXlCC

— Nehr_who? (@Nher_who) January 27, 2026

• Pandey has previously led rallies calling for violence against Muslims, publicly asserting the “right to bear arms,” often under police escort, without any case being registered.

Hello @DelhiPolice why this lady Khusboo Pandey is roaming around free after such a hateful statements, which is directly incitement of violence.

Even Police is around her but she is perfectly fine spewing venom against Muslims?

pic.twitter.com/S0jyQQlFbn

— Prashant Kanojia (@KanojiaPJ) January 23, 2026

Hate monger Khushbu Pandey has been arrested by Bihar police for reciting Hanuman Chalisa in front of a mosque, disturbing communal harmony.

The search for other accused is ongoing; several people have been arrested so far.#ArrestKhusbuPandey pic.twitter.com/5zOV5EkRGO

— هارون خان (@iamharunkhan) February 18, 2025

• Both figures frequently appear alongside prominent political personalities and boast large online followings, amplifying the reach of their rhetoric.

Why this FIR matters

The FIR is not merely procedural—it is the result of pressure, not proactive policing.

The Raebareli incident underscores:

• How genocidal language is increasingly normalised in public forums
• How dog whistles referencing historical massacres are openly used
• How state response often follows outrage, not law
• How social media scrutiny has become a last resort for accountability

Whether this FIR leads to meaningful legal consequences remains to be seen. For now, it stands as a stark reminder that without public pressure, even the most explicit calls for mass violence can go unanswered.

Related:

From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand

Publicly Tortured, Forced to Eat Cow Dung: No arrests in Odisha Pastor assault case

Days After Muslim Properties Torched in Tripura, Opposition Parties Say Atmosphere of Fear Persists

Bihar under BJP: Hate attacks against Muslims spiral, one dies

The post When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Unlike 12 other states and Union Territories where the Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises, Assam is undergoing a Special Revision, as directed by the ECI on November 17, 2025, to the State’s Chief Electoral Officer.

As part of this exercise, door-to-door verification was conducted across Assam between November 22 and December 20, 2025. Crucially, unlike SIR, this process did not involve document verification.

According to ECI Letter No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II), the timeline for the revision is as follows:

• December 27, 2025: Publication of the integrated draft electoral rolls
• December 27, 2025 – January 22, 2026: Period for filing claims and objections
• By February 2, 2026: Disposal of claims and objections
• February 10, 2026: Final publication of electoral rolls

While officially framed as a routine electoral exercise, the SR has become deeply controversial due to the scale and nature of objections filed under Form-7, particularly against Bengali-speaking Muslims.

Allegations of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims

Civil society groups including Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Banchana Birodhi Mancha, Forum for Social Harmony, Asom Mojuri Sramik Union, and the All Assam Minority Students Union, along with several opposition parties, have alleged that the SR is being misused to harass genuine Indian citizens, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, through mass and often false objections filed under Form-7.

Although the Assam Election Department issued a public advisory clarifying that filing a Form-7 objection does not automatically result in deletion of a voter’s name, and that every objection must go through field verification, notice to the voter, and an opportunity of hearing, organisations working on the ground insist that the process itself has become a tool of intimidation.

Despite procedural safeguards on paper, citizens report being summoned, questioned, and threatened with exclusion, leading to widespread fear and uncertainty.

Chief Minister’s remarks deepen the controversy

The situation escalated further after Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made remarks that were widely criticised as communal and inflammatory.

Referring to the SR process, the Chief Minister stated:

“There is no debate over SR. Which Hindu family has received a notice? Which Assamese Muslim household has seen a notice? We have to issue notices to ‘Miyas’ living here. There is nothing to hide. I am troubling them.”

He further remarked:

“We will do some disturbance, but within the ambit of law. We are with the poor and downtrodden, but not those who want to destroy our community.”

Adding to this, he said:

“They have to understand that at some level, people of Assam are resisting them. Otherwise, they will get a walkover. That’s why some will get notices during SR, some for eviction, some from border police.”

These statements were seen by opposition leaders and rights groups as a direct admission that the SR process is being used to target Bengali-speaking Muslims under the guise of legality.

(Translation of headline: “If SR comes to Assam, I will cut off the names of 4.5 lakh Mia. My job is to hurt the Mia. ‘The Chief Minister’s public announcement’

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Assam Talks (@assamtalksofficial)

(Translation: We want to steal a little Mia vote. ‘According to the rules, Mia should not vote in Assam, they should vote in Bangladesh. ‘My job is to hurt the Mia’: CM.)

Misuse of Form-7 and questions over impartiality

At the heart of the controversy is the large-scale filing of allegedly false objections using Form-7, raising serious questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission during the revision process.

Concerns intensified following allegations of interference by BJP workers in the Boko-Chhaygaon area, purported instructions issued by BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, and the Chief Minister’s public endorsement of “disturbance” through administrative means.

While instances of false objections have been reported from several districts, the issue has drawn particular attention in Sribhumi district (formerly Karimganj) in the Barak Valley.

Sribhumi district: Objections against 133 voters

On January 19, 2026, fifteen Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from Sribhumi district were called for a training session as part of the SR process. Among them was Sumana Choudhury, a young schoolteacher from Karimganj serving as a BLO.

During the session, district officials handed her several objection forms challenging the inclusion of 133 voters from her booth in Srimanta Kanishail village, under the Karimganj North Assembly segment.

According to Sumana Choudhury, the objection forms were partly printed and partly handwritten, and all objections had been filed by a single individual, alleging that the voters had either permanently shifted or were enrolled twice. All 133 voters, she stated, were Bengali-speaking Muslims.

She said:

“During the house-to-house enumeration, I found them at their residences and collected their signatures. They have not shifted. They are genuine voters. The Election Commission documents they signed are proof.”

She further noted that the list included people personally known to her:

“Among the names was the headmaster of my school. Some are parents of my students. How could I ask them to come to a hearing to prove they are genuine voters? Who filed the objections?”

In a startling revelation, the list of objected names included the complainant Salim Ahmed himself and his relatives, effectively meaning the complainant had objected to his own name. When contacted by Sumana Choudhury, Salim Ahmed reportedly denied filing any such objections.

Following the circulation of her statements on social media, Sumana Choudhury was served a show-cause notice by departmental authorities, drawing sharp criticism from opposition leaders and rights groups.

Legal opinion: False objections are punishable

Prominent Sribhumi-based lawyer Shishir Dey stated that filing Form-7 objections on false grounds is illegal and punishable.

He explained that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and associated electoral rules, deletion of a voter’s name requires specific, evidence-based reasons.

“If a voter’s name is removed based on false allegations, that voter has the full right to seek legal redress,” Dey said.

He further warned that liability does not stop with the complainant:

“Election officials, including BLOs and EROs, can also face legal action if they accept false complaints without proper verification and exclude names from the voter list.”

Legal notices by affected voters

Another instance of alleged misuse of Form-7 was reported from polling stations 24 and 26 of the Achimganj area under the Patharkandi Assembly constituency in Sribhumi district, where objections were filed against thirty genuine voters.

These voters issued legal notices through senior Karimganj lawyer Subrata Kumar Pal to the District Administrator of Sribhumi, the Sub-Divisional Administrator of Patharkandi, the Election Officer, the concerned BLOs, and eight complainants, alleging a conspiracy to remove their names from the electoral rolls.

Ration dealers, verbal verification, and CJP’s intervention

Separately, reports emerged from districts including Chirang, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Darrang, and Goalpara, where ration dealers allegedly began verbally summoning voters for verification.

In response, CJP teams visited local election offices, intervening to ensure that citizens are not compelled to show documents unless served with formal written notices.

CJP teams continue to assist affected voters through hearings, documentation, and coordination with BLOs on the ground.

CJP Assam legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury stated: “We will provide legal support to voters who wish to take action against those filing false complaints.”

“A repeat of NRC-style harassment”

CJP team has warned that the SR process mirrors the harassment experienced during the NRC exercise.

The organisation noted that:

• Most Form-7 complaints are false
• Many targeted voters are migrant labourers working outside Assam
• BLOs had already verified households before inclusion

CJP asserted that objections filed by outsiders without evidence should be rejected outright.

Opposition parties react

Opposition parties urged the Election Commission to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised during the revision.

• The Indian National Congress (INC) lodged a police complaint in Boko-Chhaygaon against local BJP leaders and officials.
• Left parties—CPI(M), CPI(ML), CPI, SUCI, and Forward Bloc—issued a joint statement alleging that Form-7 is being used to target minorities.
• Raijor Dal leader and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi filed an FIR, citing video footage allegedly showing four individuals unlawfully operating inside the Boko co-district election office.

Earlier, opposition parties also lodged an FIR against BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, alleging instructions to delete anti-BJP votes.

Sushmita Dev’s intervention

On January 25, 2026, TMC MP Sushmita Dev announced at a press conference: “We will file FIRs against those harassing people by misusing Form-7 and send them to jail.”

Condemning the Chief Minister’s remarks, she said: “Such comments from someone holding a constitutional position are very unfortunate.”

She further alleged that Bengali-speaking Hindus were also being misled, stating: “Like NRC, SR and later SIR will exclude more of their names.”

Claiming that 60 per cent of names in the deletion list in the Kathigara constituency are Bengali-speaking Hindus, she also criticised the show-cause notice issued to Sumana Choudhury, stating that it demonstrated the Election Commission’s political subservience.

Joint opposition press conference

On the same day, opposition leaders—including Debabrata Saikia (INC), Manoranjan Talukder (CPI-M), Akhil Gogoi (Raijor Dal), and Lurinjyoti Gogoi (Axom Jatiya Parishad)—held a joint press conference condemning communal polarisation and the conduct of the SR.

They demanded an extension of the February 2 deadline for disposal of claims and objections and accused the BJP government and the Election Commission of undermining democratic processes.

Related:

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Form-7 and the Politics of Exclusion: How Assam’s voter revision has become a battleground appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioners did not dispute that Doyjan Bibi had once been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal. What they questioned was the legality of the State’s subsequent conduct. When a person who had been living on bail pursuant to judicial orders suddenly disappears from custody, and the State claims that she has been “sent back” to another country, the most basic requirement of constitutional governance is that the State demonstrate, through documents and procedure, that this removal was lawful. The petition asked the Court to insist on that minimum. Besides, the petition pointed out that it was only economic marginalisation that had precluded Doyjan from appealing the verdict of the Foreigner Tribunal. She had been granted bail post Covid-19 and as per conditions appeared regularly before the police station to record her presence for years.

Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam.  Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level.  Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!

From Tribunal declaration to sudden disappearance

Doyjan Bibi’s legal trajectory was typical of thousands of cases in Assam. She was declared a foreigner through an ex-parte opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri, in August 2017. That opinion was later interfered with by the Gauhati High Court, which granted her a final opportunity to contest the proceedings. When she failed to appear within the stipulated time, the ex-parte declaration revived. Yet, this declaration did not result in immediate deportation. Like many others, she was released on bail pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court during the COVID-19 period, when constitutional courts ordered the release of long-term detainees to decongest detention centres.

For years thereafter, she remained at liberty. There was no allegation on record that she violated bail conditions or absconded. Her sudden re-arrest on May 24, 2025 therefore marked a decisive rupture. When her husband approached the Court, the State initially stated that she had been lodged in a holding centre in Kokrajhar. Acting on that representation, the Court even permitted the petitioner to meet her and obtain her signature for the purposes of legal proceedings. However, when the petitioner went to the holding centre on June 25, 2025, he was informed that she was no longer there.

The explanation offered by the State was that she had been handed over to the Border Security Force and “sent back to Bangladesh” on May 27, 2025 from an area under the control of an ad hoc BSF battalion. No contemporaneous record of this process was placed before the Court.

What the Petition sought—and what the state did not produce

The petition did not proceed on conjecture. It identified a glaring evidentiary vacuum and asked the Court to address it. If Doyjan Bibi had indeed been deported, the petitioners argued, there ought to exist some documentary trail—proof of nationality verification, a deportation order, a record of handover, or at the very least, an acknowledgment of acceptance by Bangladeshi authorities. In the absence of such records, the only plausible inference was that she may have been illegally pushed across the border.

The State’s response did not deny the absence of documentation. Instead, it relied on affidavits asserting that she had been deported. The judgment records these assertions and accepts them as sufficient. At no stage does the Court direct the State to produce any material to substantiate its claim. The legal question—whether a court can be satisfied about the legality of deportation without seeing a single document—remains unanswered.

The Judgment’s Core Move: Executive assertion as conclusive proof

The fulcrum of the judgment is its treatment of executive power as effectively unreviewable once a person has been declared a foreigner. Drawing extensively on Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail (1955), the Court reiterates that the power of the State to expel foreigners is “absolute and unfettered.” From this premise, it proceeds to hold that the Court need not inquire into the manner in which that power is exercised.

What the judgment does not confront is that Hans Muller itself imposed limits. The Supreme Court made it clear that an expelled person must leave the country as a free person and cannot be handed over in custody to another State. Nor did Hans Muller suggest that deportation could take place without procedure, documentation, or accountability. By extracting the language of plenary power while discarding the safeguards that accompany it, the judgment converts executive authority into something approaching discretion without record.

Deportation without documents, “pushback” without consequence

One of the most troubling aspects of the judgment is its refusal to meaningfully distinguish between formal deportation and informal pushback. Deportation, in law, is a structured process involving identification, verification, communication with the receiving State, and a documented handover. Pushback, by contrast, is an informal and often violent practice in which individuals are forced across borders without acknowledgment or acceptance.

The petition explicitly raised the spectre of pushback. The judgment, however, treats the State’s use of the word “deportation” as dispositive. Once that label is accepted, the absence of documents is treated as immaterial. This approach effectively collapses the distinction between deportation and pushback, granting judicial cover to practices that would otherwise be legally indefensible.

Bail, judicial protection, and executive override

Another unresolved tension in the judgment concerns the status of judicial bail. Doyjan Bibi had been released pursuant to directions of constitutional courts. Her liberty, fragile though it was, was judicially sanctioned. Yet she was re-arrested and removed without any application for cancellation of bail or judicial oversight.

The Court acknowledges that COVID-era bail orders were temporary in nature, but this observation sidesteps the real issue. The question was not whether deportation was permissible in principle, but whether the executive could override subsisting judicial protection without returning to court. On this, the judgment is silent.

Neither does the Guwahati High Court, a constitutional court, question what it means for an individual not to be able to access all four tiers of justice, available for all. True that the Foreigner Tribunal order of 2017 had not been adequately agitated by Doyjanbi in the High Court, but can this lapse –given the Indian judiciary’s overall approach on delays and condonation thereof—be enough to seize from a woman her very right to agitate citizenship?

From legal adjudication to ideological framing

The judgment goes far beyond what was required to decide the petition. It contains extended references to demographic change, migration narratives, national security concerns, and alleged misinformation about persecution. These observations, while politically charged, do little legal work. Their presence, however, is not neutral. They shift the frame of the case from one about individual liberty and State accountability to one about perceived civilisational threat.

Once that shift occurs, procedural safeguards appear expendable. The petitioner’s wife is no longer a person whose liberty demands justification, but an abstract figure within a larger narrative of migration and security. In such a frame, asking the State for documents begins to look unnecessary, even indulgent.

The Consequence: Petition emptied of content

By dismissing the petition without demanding proof of deportation, the Gauhati High Court sets a troubling precedent. It signals that in cases involving declared foreigners, executive assertion will suffice; records are optional; judicial scrutiny is limited; and families may never know how or where a person was removed.

Habeas corpus petitions have historically existed to prevent precisely this situation—to ensure that the State cannot answer the question “where is this person?” with little more than an affidavit. When courts stop asking for proof, the writ loses its meaning.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the judgment is the degree of deference it accords to the executive.

The Court accepts:

• Executive affidavits as conclusive proof
• Absence of documentation as immaterial
• Non-production of records as inconsequential

This transforms habeas corpus from a searching judicial inquiry into a ritualistic exercise. Once the State says “we have deported her,” the Court treats the matter as closed.

Is there an established procedure for deportation?

Deportation in India, though grounded in statutory powers, was largely operationalised through internal administrative mechanisms and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by state authorities. (See here, here and here) following directions from the Centre.

Typical deportation process is as follows:

1.  Identification/Completion of Sentence: A foreign national is declared a foreigner or completes a prison term for violating applicable laws.
2.  Notification: Jail authorities notify relevant police officials (e.g., Superintendent of Police) about the impending release.
3.  Custody and order:

• If the government decides on deportation, a formal order is issued.
• Upon release, the individual is taken into police custody and served with the deportation order.

4.  Physical Removal: Arrangements are made for their removal from the country, often under police escort. The serving officer reports the execution of the order back to the government.
5.  Consular notification (Vienna Convention):

• As per Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Indian authorities must inform the consular representatives of the foreign national’s country about their arrest or detention.
• Indian practice (MEA Office Memorandum No. T.4415/1/91 (CPO/CIR/9)) requires:
  • Asking the arrested foreign national if they wish their consulate to be informed.
  • Immediately notifying the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
  • Providing detailed particulars (name, nationality, passport details, offence, arrest details, location) to Joint Secretaries at MEA and MHA, and state authorities.

6.  Deportation for minor violations: In cases of brief overstays or delayed registration, prosecution might be withdrawn with court approval, and the individual directly deported under delegated powers of Section 3(2)(c) of the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act. A record is submitted to the MEA.

Detailed report may be read here.

Conclusion: A quiet but profound Constitutional retreat

This judgment will reverberate far beyond one case. It lowers the threshold of accountability in deportation proceedings and normalises undocumented removals. In border regimes, where power is most concentrated and individuals most vulnerable, such a retreat from scrutiny is especially dangerous.

If this reasoning is followed, it means:

• Deportations can occur without paperwork
• Families need never be informed
• Courts need not verify State claims
• Pushbacks acquire judicial cover
• Habeas corpus becomes ineffective precisely where it is most needed

This is not a minor doctrinal shift. It is a structural weakening of constitutional oversight. The Constitution does not cease to operate at the border, nor does it become optional when the person involved is labelled a foreigner. By refusing to insist on legality through proof, the Court has allowed executive power to move beyond effective constitutional control.

That is the enduring, and deeply unsettling, legacy of this decision.

Details of the proceedings of the said case in Gauhati High Court may be read here, here, here and here.

The order of the High Court may be read here:

Related:

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

No Warrants, No Answers: The Disappeared of Assam

The post Removed Without Process: The Doyjan Bibi case and the Gauhati High Court’s Retreat from demanding deportation records appeared first on SabrangIndia.