In a complaint before the District Administration of Ahmednagar, CJP stated that the event’s agenda remains unclear, but based on the track record of the organizers and possible that it could escalate into inflammatory speeches and provocative statements that may jeopardize the peace and harmony of the region. In its complaint, CJP urges the authorities to take pre-emptive measures, in line with the directions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, to avoid any escalation of communal tensions.

A dangerous precedent: the risk of provocative rhetoric and hate speech

The primary concern of CJP lies in the potential for hate-filled speeches and provocative rhetoric at the event, which could easily stoke communal discord. The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, known for its history of making incendiary statements against religious minorities, has previously been involved in organizing events that led to communal disharmony. CJP anticipates that the upcoming event could follow a similar pattern, as there is no transparency regarding the speakers or their content. Given the organization’s controversial stance, it is highly likely that speeches at the event will include inflammatory statements that could provoke violence.

CJP draws parallels to recent incidents in other parts of India, where events centered around religious issues, particularly places of worship, have spiraled into violence and unrest. For instance, in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, clashes erupted over a mosque survey, resulting in loss of lives and severe communal tensions. Such incidents have shown how sensitive issues involving religious spaces can be exploited by extremist groups, with catastrophic consequences. The CJP complaint warns that the event in Shirdi could follow this trajectory, affecting the communal harmony not just the region but the entire state of Maharashtra.

CJP’s urgent appeal to the authorities

In its complaint, CJP stresses that the authorities must act promptly to prevent any incitement of violence or hate speech. The complaints highlight the importance of not just monitoring the event but ensuring the accountability of the organizers for the content of the event. The local law enforcement agencies must take the necessary steps to prevent any inflammatory statements, ensuring that no one uses religious spaces or gatherings as platforms to sow division and hostility between communities.

Supreme Court appeals to authorities to uphold peace and harmony

The petition also references recent Supreme Court directives that emphasize maintaining peace and harmony, particularly in situations involving religious sensitivities. CJP invokes the Court’s appeal in the case of the Sambhal Jama Masjid incident, where the Supreme Court stressed the need for authorities to take preventive action to avoid violence stemming from disputes over religious matters.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s recent appeal for peace and harmony in the case concerning the Sambhal Jama Masjid, CJP submit this preventive complaint regarding the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” scheduled for December 24-25, 2024, in Shirdi. The Supreme Court, during its hearing on November 29, 2024, urged that “peace and harmony must be maintained” and expressed the desire for no further escalation, following the violence that erupted in Sambhal over a mosque survey. The survey, which was ordered based on claims that the mosque was built on a demolished temple, triggered violent clashes, resulting in the loss of four lives. This tragic event highlights the serious risks of escalating tensions when sensitive issues related to religious sites are addressed in provocative ways. The upcoming event in Shirdi, organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, raises similar concerns. Given the known history of inflammatory rhetoric associated with the organization, there is a real danger that the event could inflame communal tensions and lead to violence, particularly around religious spaces” according to CJP’s complaint.

Shirdi: a city of coexistence, at risk of unraveling due to extremist agendas

Shirdi, known for being the home of the revered saint Sai Baba, is a symbol of religious unity, where both Hindus and Muslims coexist in harmony. The city has long been a beacon of peace, where Sai Baba’s teachings of tolerance and respect for all religions have been embraced by millions of devotees. However, with the “Third Maharashtra Mandir Nyas Parishad” event scheduled to take place in the heart of Shirdi, there is an alarming risk of disturbing this delicate balance.

CJP further mentioned in its complaint that, the potential for divisive rhetoric to erupt at the event and provoke tensions between communities cannot be underestimated. If left unchecked, the event could cause irreparable damage to the social fabric of Shirdi, turning a city once known for religious unity into a flashpoint for communal conflict. CJP urges the authorities to prevent this by ensuring that the event remains peaceful and free from hate speech, in line with the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom.

Inflammatory speech threatens religious Harmony & Safety

The CJP complaint outlines the risks posed by inflammatory statements that target religious minorities, calling attention to the broader implications such rhetoric can have on society. The recent spate of violence related to religious issues underscores the dangers of allowing hate speech to flourish unchecked. It is not only a threat to public safety but a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. CJP cites several previous Supreme Court rulings, which have emphasized the importance of preventing the spread of hate speech and ensuring the peaceful conduct of public events.

By urging immediate preventive measures, CJP asks the authorities to take their responsibility seriously and act swiftly to avoid any potential escalation. As the complaint notes, the events organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti have a history of causing communal polarization, and it is imperative that the authorities intervene to prevent any harm to the social and religious harmony of Maharashtra.

CJP’s complaint dated December 23, 2024 can be read here

Related:

CJP seeks preventive action against Hindu Janjagruti Samiti’s Hyderabad event

Mahim Police refuse permission to HJS August rally, reassure CJP delegation

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

The post CJP files preventive complaint to safeguard Shirdi’s religious harmony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of complaints:

• Jalgaon [November 15, 2024]

Speaker – Suresh Chavhanke

On November 15, 2024, CJP filed a complaint before the CEO Maharashtra regarding the gross violation of MCC in Jalgaon, Maharashtra, due to the hate-filled rhetoric of Suresh Chavhanke. Chavhanke’s speech at the Janata-NRC event blatantly violated the MCC and undermined the principles of free and fair elections as pleaded by the CJP in its complaint. The said speech was delivered by Suresh Chavhanke at the Janta-NRC event on November 8, 2024, in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

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!

In his address, Chavhanke explicitly targeted Muslim citizens by misrepresenting Islamic symbols, falsely claiming that the crescent and star, often associated with Islam, belonged not to Islam but to the Muslim League, and linking it to the creation of Pakistan. He further propagated misinformation by associating the true Islamic flag with extremist ideologies. Referring to Muslims as “infiltrators” and calling for their removal to “save Maharashtra,” he sought to fuel communal tensions. Additionally, he promoted the baseless “Vote Jihad” conspiracy, accusing Muslims of using elections to wage a religious war, inciting division and hostility.

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “This statement is highly provocative and anti-Muslim because it labels Muslims as “infiltrators” and associates them with a threat to India’s integrity. The call to “drive out the infiltrators” implies that Muslims are unwelcome outsiders, fostering fear and hatred. The comparison of the saffron flag to the Tricolor and the assertion that without saffron, the Tricolor will “turn green” insinuates that Muslims, symbolized by green, pose a threat to national unity. Furthermore, the term “vote Jihad” equates Muslim political participation to religious warfare, encouraging communal hostility and framing elections as a religious battle, thus deepening divisions.

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/802

Full Complaint can be read here:

2. Akola [November 13, 2024] & 3. Pathanpura (Mangrulpir) [November 11, 2024]

Speaker – Suresh Chavhanke

On November 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint regarding the hate-filled speeches delivered by Suresh Chavhanke, editor-in-chief of Sudarshan News, in Akola and Pathanpura (Mangrulpir), Maharashtra. Chavhanke’s speeches, delivered on November 13, 2024, in Akola and November 11, 2024, in Pathanpura, contained clear examples of hate speech, particularly targeting the Muslim community. Throughout his speeches, Chavhanke used derogatory terms like “love jihad,” “intruders,” and “jihadists,” portraying Muslims as a threat to national security and fueling fear by labeling them as “infiltrators” from neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar.

Furthermore, Chavhanke invoked historical figures such as “Aurangzeb” and “Tipu Sultan” to vilify Muslims, manipulating religious sentiments to create division. He also urged voters to support laws targeting Muslims, including “cow protection” and the baseless “love jihad” conspiracy. This inflammatory rhetoric was designed to incite hatred and polarize communities. CJP’s complaint highlighted that Chavhanke’s speeches violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951, which prohibit hate speech and the incitement of religious division during election periods, as per CJP’s complaint.

CJP said in its complaint that, “By linking political choices to religious identity and inciting voters to act against Muslim communities, the speaker attempts to polarize the election along religious lines. The call to vote based on laws like “love jihad” or “cow protection” further encourages discrimination, suggesting that the Muslim community is responsible for crimes against Hindu women or society. This creates a hostile, divisive atmosphere, undermining the principles of free and fair elections.”

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/835 & https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/829

The Complaint can be read here:

• Delgur, Nanded [November 21, 2024]

Speaker – Harsha Thakur

On November 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint regarding the anti-Muslim and communal hate speech delivered by right-wing leader Harsha Thakur at a public event in Delgur, Nanded, Maharashtra. Thakur, campaigning for independent Hindu nationalist candidate Dr. Virupaksha Maharaj, made inflammatory remarks that blatantly violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and undermined free and fair elections. On October 29, 2024, Thakur’s speech contained divisive rhetoric, calling for Hindus to avoid supporting those who allegedly sided with other religious communities.

She warned that if Sharia law were implemented, valuable land would be transferred to the Waqf Board, inciting fear and communal tension. Thakur further urged voters to prioritize religious unity over caste-based voting. Her comments, intended to stoke division, violated MCC provisions by inciting religious hatred and manipulating religious sentiments for electoral gain. CJP emphasized that these statements contravened Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951.

According to CJP’s complaint in her speech, Thakur urged voters that, “Don’t vote for a candidate who gives employment to Muslims!” and further stated, “India will never work on Sharia law,” while also spreading unfounded fears about the Waqf Board. This rhetoric is not only inflammatory but also divisive, promoting religious intolerance and fear-mongering. By appealing to voters on religious lines and stoking fear about Muslims and their institutions, Thakur’s speech creates a dangerous environment of communal polarization.”

The video can be accessed through this link: https: https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/825

The Complaint can be read here:

• Kolhapur [November 15, 2024]

Speaker – BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik

On November 15, 2024, CJP approached the CEO Maharashtra with a complaint against BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik, following his controversial remarks at a rally in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. In a video that surfaced, Mahadik was seen instructing party workers to target women beneficiaries of the Ladki Bahini Yojana attending Congress rallies. He directed his supporters to photograph or film these women and report back to him. His statement, “I will teach those women a lesson,” was a clear attempt to intimidate and surveil women based on their political affiliations. These actions were seen as an explicit violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.

CJP argued that Mahadik’s directive not only threatened women’s rights to political participation but also used a government welfare scheme intended for empowerment as a tool for political control. The complaint called for immediate action under electoral laws to address this form of intimidation.

The video can be accessed through this link: https://x.com/HateDetectors/status/1856274208646672512

The Complaint can be read here:

Notably, CJP played a pivotal role in monitoring the assembly elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, vigilantly flagging complaints of hate speech and violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Their persistent efforts resulted in the registration of FIRs against Suresh Chavhanke and Kajal Hindustani in Maharashtra for delivering inflammatory speeches that breached MCC guidelines.

Related:

CJP files 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for hate speech

CJP’s fight against Hate: FIR filed against Suresh Chavhanke for Hate Speech at Karad event

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

The post CJP files five complaints to Maharashtra State Election Commission, demands FIRs for MCC violation against hate offenders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Event and the Complaint

The Janata-NRC event, organized on October 22, 2024 by the right-wing outfit Sakal Hindu Samaj in Karad, was the venue for Chavhanke’s controversial address. The CJP complaint highlighted that Chavhanke’s speech, laden with Islamophobic and divisive content, not only violated ethical standards of political discourse but also breached the MCC, which governs the conduct of political leaders during the election period.

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!

In the speech, Chavhanke allegedly claimed that Europe would soon cease to exist due to a Muslim takeover, making inflammatory statements about the growing Muslim population in India. He further propagated the debunked “love jihad” conspiracy theory and stated that India was at risk from “10 crore infiltrators,” referring to Muslims as a threat to Hindu culture and suggesting that they should be expelled from the country. These remarks, according to the CJP, were designed to create fear, manipulate public sentiment, and divide communities along religious lines.

CJP’s complaint, while condemning the hate speech, also referenced a recent FIR filed in Thane against another individual, Kajal Hindustani, for delivering a similar hate speech.

Key Allegations in the Speech

The complaint provides an in-depth analysis of Chavhanke’s speech, citing several excerpts that they argued violated the legal framework meant to ensure a fair and peaceful election process. The speech, according to the complaint, sought to create a sense of insecurity among Hindus by presenting Muslims as a demographic threat, manipulating fears about rising Muslim populations, and linking this to supposed threats like “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad.”

One of the most controversial claims made by Chavhanke was the assertion that India faced a crisis of “infiltrators,” with an estimated 10 crore illegal Muslim immigrants in the country. He further suggested that the growing Muslim population would soon make Hindus a minority in several states by 2048. His remarks regarding Muslims being an “economic burden” on the nation and his demand for their expulsion were, according to the CJP, an incitement to religious hatred.

Chavhnake said in his speech that, “There are 10 crore intruders sitting in India. 1 crore in Maharashtra. 40 lakhs in Mumbai. 3.5 lakhs in your district. Infiltrators, those who came into the country without permission. Illegal citizens. Get this illegal citizen out now. Is it legal to say so or not? Is it morally right or not? Practical or not? Because all this money is a burden on this country from an economic point of view. It is also from a cultural point of view. From a social point of view, India is also burdened by this. Crime is also on very High Scale. And the biggest magic is that they are not a citizen of our country. So, can they stay here? But whoever says to take out those citizens is a patriot. I ask the Muslims of India like this, let’s start from Karad, how many Muslims in Karad, I appeal from here to Shahar Kazi, and the Shahar Maulana today, will you support us to evict the Indian infiltrators the city of Karad?” as per CJP’s complaint.

The video can be accessed through this link: https:
https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/669

Violation of Electoral Laws and the MCC

The MCC is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India to ensure that elections are conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner. It prohibits candidates, political parties, and other participants from using communal language or promoting division among the public. Chavhanke’s speech, as per the CJP’s complaint, clearly violated several provisions of the MCC by inciting communal hatred and promoting a divisive narrative.

In addition, the complaint also pointed out that Chavhanke’s actions violated the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) of 1951, specifically Section 123(3A), which prohibits any attempts to create or promote enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, caste, or language to influence electoral outcomes. The CJP’s complaint argued that Chavhanke’s speech was an attempt to manipulate voters by appealing to religious sentiments, thereby undermining the democratic process.

The CJP also raised concerns regarding the safety of the Muslim community in Maharashtra, pointing out that such hate speech contributes to a growing atmosphere of intolerance and hostility, which can lead to real-world violence. The complaint urged the Election Commission and law enforcement authorities to take swift action against Chavhanke and other individuals who engage in similar hate speech, particularly during the election period.

CJP’s complaint dated November 8, 2024 can be read here:

Related:

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

CJP Highlights MCC Violation: urges Maharashtra Election Commission to act on Hate Speech

CJP files complaint before Maharashtra Police against serial hate offender Kajal Hindustani

The post Suresh Chavhanke booked under s 123(3A) of RPA for violating MCC following CJP’s complaint appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sahid’s story is emblematic of the struggles faced by many in Assam, where allegations of being a foreigner often arise from cursory investigations and inadequate verification of records. For Sahid, the intervention of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), a human rights organisation, proved to be a lifeline. Their relentless advocacy and legal support not only secured his release but also brought hope to others fighting similar battles. This case sheds light on the human cost of flawed systems and the power of collective efforts in ensuring justice and restoring dignity.

Sahid Ali’s ordeal: a citizen branded a foreigner  

Sahid Ali, also known as Shwahid Ali, has lived his entire life in Assam, a state his family has called home for generations. Born and raised in Tupar village under Nagarbera Mouza, Boko police station in Kamrup district, Sahid’s citizenship seemed unquestionable. His grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed land records from 1957-64, and his name was also listed in the 1966 voter list. Furthermore, Sahid’s father, Basir Ali (also known as Bashiruddin Ali), appeared on the 1971 voter list for Tupamari village under Nagarbera Mouza.  

Despite this strong documentary evidence, Sahid found himself ensnared in a legal battle when he was accused of being a foreigner by the Assam government. The case against Sahid Ali was initiated by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Darrang, based on allegations of foreign nationality, without conducting proper verification. This led the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) to register a case against him and issue a notice, further intensifying his ordeal. Notably, Sahid’s family had been actively participating in the electoral process, casting their votes in the village of Fuhuratali under the No. 66 Sipajhar Legislative Assembly Constituency, a fact that should have supported his claim of Indian citizenship.

Sahid’s grandfather, Jasim Mundal, possessed certified land records from village Tupamari in Pachim Samariya Mouza, dating back to 1957-64 (Dag No. 580 New, Dag No. 480 Old). These documents, coupled with Sahid’s other evidence, clearly demonstrated his citizenship. However, on September 29, 2023, the Darrang Tribunal declared him a foreigner. This decision turned Sahid’s life upside down, leaving him in constant fear and severely impacting his health. With the looming threat of detention in a camp, Sahid faced an unimaginable future filled with uncertainty and despair.

The struggles following the Tribunal’s decision  

The tribunal’s ruling shattered Sahid Ali and his family, plunging them into a nightmare of uncertainty and despair. Despite possessing substantial documentary evidence that firmly established his Indian citizenship—documents spanning generations that tied his family to Assam—Sahid was declared a foreigner. The tribunal’s decision not only stripped him of his identity but also left him facing the grim prospect of being sent to a detention camp, a fate that loomed like a dark shadow over his life. The thought of losing his freedom and being confined to such a camp deeply affected his mental well-being, causing his health to deteriorate as he struggled with relentless fear and anxiety. For Sahid, every passing day was marked by anguish and a sense of helplessness.  

Just as Sahid’s hopes seemed to be slipping away, a ray of hope emerged in the form of the CJP Assam legal team. Senior legal member Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, recognising the glaring injustice, took up Sahid’s case with determination and compassion. Filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court, Dutta contested the tribunal’s ruling and sought to overturn the judgment that had upended Sahid’s life. This intervention not only brought hope to Sahid but also shed light on the broader systemic failures that plague many similar cases in Assam. Allegations of being a foreigner often arise from flawed investigations and cursory scrutiny of documents, leaving countless individuals like Sahid to bear the brunt of administrative oversight. His case is a stark reminder of the immense human suffering caused by these failings and the urgent need for fairness and due diligence in such matters.  

CJP steps in- a fight for justice  

Recognising the glaring injustice in Sahid Ali’s case, the legal team from CJP, under the leadership of Senior Advocate Mrinmay Dutta, stepped in to provide crucial support. With unwavering dedication, they challenged the Foreigners’ Tribunal’s decision by filing a petition in the Gauhati High Court. Building a strong case grounded in documentary evidence—records spanning decades and proving Sahid’s Indian citizenship—they sought to overturn the ruling that had upended his life. Their efforts bore fruit when, on November 6, 2024, the High Court granted Sahid bail. This decision brought a wave of relief to Sahid and his family, marking a turning point in their ordeal and reaffirming their faith in the judicial system.  

However, the battle was far from over. Securing bail was just the beginning of yet another formidable challenge—finding a bailor and completing the procedural formalities within a rigid timeline of ten days. Despite the urgency and limited time, the team at CJP demonstrated remarkable resolve. When their search for a bailor initially yielded no results, the organisation’s Darrang District Volunteer Motivator (DVM), Joinal Abedin, took it upon himself to ensure justice prevailed. Stepping forward as the bailor, Joinal’s selfless act underscored the essence of solidarity and commitment within the CJP team. His gesture not only expedited the process but also highlighted the collective effort required to combat systemic injustices. This critical milestone ensured that Sahid’s bail bond was submitted on time, symbolising hope and resilience in the face of adversity.  

Formalities completed; freedom restored  

On 13 November 2024, CJP’s Assam state in-charge, Nanda Ghosh, accompanied by Darrang DVM Joinal Abedin and Sahid Ali, submitted the bail bond at the Border Branch of Darrang. This crucial step marked significant progress in Sahid’s case. The following day, the formalities were completed at the local Border Branch under the Sipajhar police station, bringing a sense of closure to a process fraught with hurdles and urgency. The dedication and efficiency demonstrated by CJP’s team ensured that Sahid’s release was not delayed further, a testament to their commitment to justice and humanity.  

When Sahid learned that his bail had been granted, his emotions overflowed with gratitude. “Now at least I can go out freely and work to feed my family. It’s because of you (CJP) that this became possible. Thank you, thank you so much,” he said, his voice trembling with relief and hope. These heartfelt words revealed the profound weight of the ordeal he had endured. Stripped of his identity, living under the constant threat of detention, and fearing for his family’s future, Sahid had been pushed to the brink. For him, the High Court’s decision was not merely legal relief—it was a lifeline, restoring a sense of dignity and freedom he thought he had lost forever.  

However, the grant of bail is only a temporary reprieve. The fight to secure Sahid’s citizenship remains a daunting challenge. CJP has pledged to continue supporting him, determined to ensure that his identity as a legitimate Indian citizen is restored. This commitment extends beyond Sahid’s case, reflecting CJP’s unwavering resolve to stand by all those who face similar injustices. Their efforts underscore the critical need for systemic reforms to address the deeply flawed processes that brand individuals as foreigners, often without fair scrutiny or due process.  

Sahid’s story is a microcosm of the broader crisis in Assam, where countless individuals are trapped in a web of suspicion and procedural failures. Despite having lived in India for generations, many are unjustly accused of being foreigners, with devastating consequences for their lives and livelihoods. His ordeal highlights the human cost of these systemic flaws, exposing the urgent need for a fair, transparent, and humane approach to resolving citizenship disputes. Sahid’s resilience, combined with the steadfast efforts of CJP, serves as a powerful reminder that justice is not a privilege—it is a right, and it must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable.

A testament to perseverance and advocacy  

Sahid’s journey, from being unjustly branded a foreigner to finally securing bail, is a profound testament to the strength and resilience of individuals fighting for justice in a system that often fails to protect the most vulnerable. For Sahid, the process was not just a legal battle; it was a deeply personal fight for his dignity, his identity, and his right to live as a citizen in the land of his ancestors. The terror of being labelled an outsider, despite generations of living in Assam, compounded by the looming threat of detention, created a reality where every moment was filled with uncertainty and fear. Yet, throughout this tumultuous ordeal, Sahid’s perseverance and determination to prove his rightful place in India never wavered. 

Behind Sahid’s victory stands the unwavering support of organisations like CJP, whose commitment to social justice and human rights played a pivotal role in challenging the flawed system that nearly robbed him of his citizenship. The collective advocacy, led by CJP’s legal team, helped bring the necessary legal pressure to secure his temporary relief. This victory, however, is not just about one man’s case—it represents a broader fight for fairness, dignity, and the recognition of rights for all individuals, particularly those marginalised by systemic failures. CJP’s work underscores the critical role that organisations committed to social justice play in challenging injustice and empowering individuals to reclaim their lives and rights.  

As Sahid begins to breathe easier with his newfound freedom, his story is a powerful reminder of the importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights of every individual, especially those whose voices are most often silenced. His case illustrates the vulnerability of individuals caught in a web of bureaucratic oversight and legal ambiguities, and how vital it is for society to rise to their defence. For Sahid, the road ahead is still fraught with challenges, but the grant of bail represents a significant first step in a long and arduous journey towards reclaiming his full rights as an Indian citizen. His story is a call to action—to ensure that no one, regardless of their background or status, is denied justice or the fundamental right to live free from fear. It is a powerful reminder that, no matter how insurmountable the odds may seem, justice must always prevail, and the fight for it is worth every step.

Related:

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

The post Victory for Sahid Ali: CJP’s legal battle brings relief in Ali’s citizenship crisis, bail granted by High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The second complaint is directed at BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari, who, during a campaign rally in Garhwa, made derogatory and exclusionary comments targeting the Muslim community. Tiwari’s remarks, which explicitly stated that votes from Muslims should be disregarded, violate key provisions of the RPA and MCC. CJP contends that Tiwari’s rhetoric undermines the principles of universal suffrage, religious inclusivity, and fair elections, posing a serious threat to Jharkhand’s social fabric. The complaint demands immediate action from the Jharkhand Election Commission to address these violations, ensure the fair conduct of elections, and prevent further communal rhetoric from influencing the electorate.

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!

Complaint 1: Madhya Pradesh CM Mohan Yadav for promoting communal divisiveness and electoral misconduct

The complaint filed by CJP highlights inflammatory and communal statements made by Madhya Pradesh’s Chief Minister Mohan Yadav during an election rally in Panki, Ranchi, Jharkhand, on November 8, 2024. CJP states that Yadav’s speech violates both the MCC and the RPA. His comments, which target the Muslim community by labelling them as “Bangladeshi infiltrators” and linking their population growth to threats against Hindu festivals, are seen as divisive and inflammatory. CJP contends that these remarks promote religious polarisation and undermine social harmony, potentially inciting communal violence and fear.

In his speech, CM Yadav claimed that the decline in the Hindu population and the rise of the Muslim population in Jharkhand were the result of the influx of “Bangladeshi infiltrators.” This narrative, according to CJP, wrongly portrays Muslims as outsiders and illegitimate citizens, which creates a divide between religious communities. Additionally, Yadav used the rhetoric of “saving culture” to frame the election as a religious battle, suggesting that Hindu traditions and festivals, such as Diwali and Holi, were under threat. Such language, CJP argues, directly appeals to voters based on their religious identity, violating the MCC’s prohibition on communal appeals during elections.

CJP further asserts that Yadav’s remarks, particularly his invocation of religious symbols and rhetoric like “Jai Shri Ram” and references to Hindu gods, deepen the communal divide and manipulate voters through fear. By associating the Muslim community with threats to Hindu cultural identity, Yadav’s speech is accused of creating an environment of fear and distrust. This, CJP states, shifts the focus away from critical governance issues such as economic development and social welfare, undermining the democratic integrity of the electoral process.

To address these violations, CJP calls for immediate action from the Jharkhand State Election Commission. The complaint urges the Commission to issue a public censure against CM Yadav, prohibit his further participation in Jharkhand’s election campaign, and direct the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to refrain from using communal rhetoric in their campaigns. CJP also requests the deployment of monitoring teams to ensure compliance with the MCC and prevent further divisive statements that could jeopardise the fairness and peace of the electoral process.

The complaint may be read below.

Complaint 2: BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari promoting divisive rhetoric and undermining electoral integrity

The complaint filed by CJP against BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari highlights his communal and inflammatory remarks made during a recent election campaign in Garhwa, which were widely circulated on social media. In the video, Tiwari is heard saying, “If your name is Taslim, I will not take your vote. I am asking for votes from people who worship devi-devta. Even if Taslims and Ahmeds vote, I will get them taken out from the EVM.” These remarks blatantly target the Muslim community, seeking to exclude them from the democratic process based on their religious identity. Such rhetoric directly violates the RPA and the MCC, which are designed to ensure fair and inclusive elections free from religious or communal influence.

CJP’s complaint argues that Tiwari’s remarks violate several provisions of the RPA, including Section 123(2), (3), and (3A). Specifically, Section 123(2) prohibits undue influence over the free exercise of voting rights, which Tiwari’s statement about excluding Muslim votes directly contravenes. Section 123(3) forbids appeals based on religion, and Tiwari’s appeal to only accept votes from those who worship “devi-devta” is a clear religious appeal to voters, undermining the democratic principle that elections should be based on policy, governance, and development, not religious identity. Additionally, Section 123(3A) prohibits corrupt practices, including promoting enmity or hatred between different communities to influence the outcome of elections. Tiwari’s divisive rhetoric, which directly targets a religious group, is a clear violation of this provision as well.

The complaint further elaborates on the harmful impact of Tiwari’s words on Jharkhand’s social fabric, which is home to a diverse population with multiple religious and ethnic communities. Jharkhand has faced communal tensions in the past, and Tiwari’s remarks threaten to exacerbate these divisions at a time when the state should be focusing on inclusive growth and peaceful elections. His statements encourage voters to make decisions based on religious identity, rather than on the merit of candidates or the policies they represent. Such divisive rhetoric undermines the unity of the state, and risks increasing religious tensions, voter exclusion, and disillusionment, particularly among the Muslim community.

Additionally, CJP highlights the risk of voter apathy and the potential for widespread mistrust in the electoral process. Tiwari’s comments create an atmosphere of fear, where specific communities feel alienated and discouraged from participating in the democratic process. By suggesting that Muslim votes would be disregarded, Tiwari undermines the very foundation of universal suffrage and fairness in elections. His remarks also threaten to disrupt the integrity of the Election Commission’s voting process, as they cast doubt on the neutrality of the EVMs and suggest manipulation of the vote count based on religious lines.

Lastly, the complaint urges the Jharkhand Election Commission to take immediate action against Tiwari. It calls for a thorough investigation into his comments, the imposition of penalties including potential disqualification from the election, and the strict monitoring of election campaigns to prevent further violations of the Model Code of Conduct and the Representation of the People Act. The complaint stresses the importance of maintaining a peaceful, inclusive electoral process that prioritises development, governance, and unity over divisive and discriminatory tactics that threaten the democratic fabric of the nation.

The complaint may be read below.

Related:

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

CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations

Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

The post Communal rhetoric in Jharkhand elections: CJP files complaint against MP CM Mohan Yadav and BJP candidate Satyendra Tiwari appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its complaints, CJP highlights specific instances where Sarma has allegedly called for support based on communal fears, suggesting that a BJP-led government would protect voters from a perceived demographic threat. Furthermore, Sarma’s rhetoric reportedly included calls for renaming places of Muslim origin, a symbolic action that, as per CJP, stigmatises an entire community and reinforces an “us versus them” mentality. CJP argues that these statements contravene Section 123(3) of the RPA, which prohibits communal appeals during elections. The organisation has urged the ECI to take action, including publicly censuring Sarma, restricting his campaign activities in Jharkhand, and deploying teams to monitor campaign speeches to maintain peace and electoral fairness throughout the state.

Complaint 1: Stoking Divisions through demands of place-name changes, communal remarks

CJP filed a detailed complaint with the State Election Commission against CM Sarma, citing inflammatory speeches he delivered during election campaigns in Jharkhand. CJP argues that Sarma’s speeches promote communal fear and divisiveness, with particular targeting of the Muslim community, which violates the MCC and key provisions in the RPA, specifically Section 123 that prohibits electioneering based on communal or religious sentiments. Delivered between October 24 and November 2, 2024, these speeches allegedly contribute to a charged and hostile environment in Jharkhand, a state with a diverse population that includes Hindu, Muslim, and Adivasi communities which is soon seeing elections.

CJP outlined specific instances of Sarma’s speeches in Palamu, Deoghar, and Jamshedpur, where he spoke of the Muslim population growth as a result of alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Sarma’s rhetoric portrayed Muslims as “infiltrators” who threaten the cultural and demographic balance of Jharkhand, and he linked the BJP’s political victory with a pledge to deport these individuals. In Panki, Palamu, for example, he referred to rising Muslim demographics as a deliberate effort to destabilise local Hindu and Adivasi communities, framing the election as a fight to “drive out infiltrators” to protect “Sanatan Dharma.” CJP argues that these statements lack empirical backing and serve primarily to stoke fears, exacerbating communal divides.

In addition, CJP highlighted that Sarma’s rhetoric included provocative language regarding place names with Muslim origins, such as “Hussainabad.” Sarma implied that such names are incongruous with Jharkhand’s heritage and promised to change them if BJP wins, ostensibly to honor Adivasi leaders instead. This emphasis on renaming as a symbolic act against Muslim influence, CJP contends, promotes a divisive narrative that frames religious communities as incompatible with each other, fostering alienation and distrust. According to the complaint, such rhetoric pits communities against one another, manipulating cultural insecurities to influence voters.

CJP’s complaint emphasises that Sarma’s speeches go beyond electioneering by using fear-based messaging, promoting damaging stereotypes, and casting suspicion on the Muslim community. This tactic, CJP argues, shifts the focus of the electoral discourse from governance and development to communal identity, drawing attention away from vital issues such as infrastructure, economic growth, and social welfare. By invoking communal insecurities and fears, Sarma’s statements discourage voters from making informed decisions on policy matters, steering them instead toward identity-based voting, which undermines democratic integrity and civic cohesion.

In response to these serious concerns, CJP has requested immediate action from the Election Commission to safeguard Jharkhand’s communal harmony and electoral integrity. They urge the Commission to issue a public censure against Sarma, prohibiting him from further campaigning in Jharkhand, and to impose penalties on the BJP for allowing these divisive practices. CJP also suggests that the Commission deploy monitors to review campaign speeches throughout the election period to prevent further hate speech and polarising rhetoric. Through these actions, CJP aims to promote a fair, lawful, and inclusive electoral process that prioritises development over divisive identity politics.

The complaint may be read here.

Complaint 2: Incitement through Anti-Muslim Campaign Rhetoric

This complaint raises serious concerns over alleged inflammatory and communal statements made by CM Sarma during a Jharkhand election campaign rally on November 8, 2024. CJP contends that Sarma’s speech, in which he targeted the Muslim community by labelling them as “infiltrators” and suggesting they pose a threat to local demographics and safety, violates the MCC and sections of the RPA. CJP argues that these statements incite fear, spread religious polarisation, and disrupt communal harmony, undermining democratic principles that elections are meant to uphold.

The complaint specifies several instances in which Sarma used divisive language, describing Muslims as a demographic threat to Jharkhand’s Hindu and Adivasi populations and urging voters to support the BJP as a safeguard against “infiltrators.” These statements, CJP claims, amount to an appeal to religion for electoral gain, which contravenes Section 123(3) of the RPA prohibiting communal appeals in elections. CJP further argues that Sarma’s rhetoric portrays Muslims as illegitimate outsiders, creating a divisive mentality that encourages hate and distrust among communities.

CJP also outlines the potential impact of Sarma’s remarks on Jharkhand’s social fabric and electoral environment, arguing that his language manipulates voters through fear rather than engaging with real issues of governance. The complaint suggests that Sarma’s statements divert political discourse from constructive debate on policies and public welfare, shifting it toward identity politics that divides communities. This approach, CJP warns, undermines the democratic integrity of the electoral process by prioritising religious polarisation over unity and dialogue.

In light of these violations, CJP urges the Jharkhand State Election Commission to take immediate action, including issuing a public censure of Sarma, prohibiting his participation in further campaigning in Jharkhand, and directing the BJP to refrain from communal appeals. Additionally, CJP requests the deployment of monitoring teams to review campaign speeches across Jharkhand to ensure compliance with the MCC and maintain an environment of peace and fairness throughout the electoral process.

The complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations

Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

The post Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Each of the four instances reflects a serious violation of ethical journalism, highlighting the critical role of the media in shaping informed, unbiased discourse. The NBDSA’s decision to remove the broadcasts and issue stern warnings against the broadcaster is a reminder that media must operate within the framework of fairness, accuracy, and respect for all communities. This victory marks a step forward in holding broadcasters accountable for their content and ensuring that the principles of religious harmony, objectivity, and truth are upheld in every broadcast.

The NBDSA’s firm stance reinforces the importance of responsible journalism and serves as a clear message to all media outlets: ethical standards cannot be compromised in the pursuit of sensationalism or polarising narratives. The action taken in these four cases sets a significant precedent for maintaining the integrity of broadcasting and protecting the public from misleading and harmful content.

1. Order on complaint against ‘Operation Mazaar’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 27, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint to with the NBDSA regarding a debate show that aired on Times Now Navbharat on May 22, 2023, titled ‘धामी सरकार का ‘ऑपरेशन मजार’, ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ की साजिश के किससे जुड़े तार?’. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, which claimed to provide an analysis of alleged illegal mazaars (Islamic shrines) in Uttarakhand, repeatedly used inflammatory terms like ‘Mazaar jihad’ and ‘land jihad’. The host suggested that these Mazaars were part of a larger conspiracy to change the demographic landscape of Uttarakhand, particularly in Haridwar, by linking them to a Muslim agenda. It was claimed that these Mazaars were built on government land, with the goal of attracting Muslims to encroach upon and settle in those areas.

The show had claimed that Haridwar’s demographic had changed by 39-43% without citing any credible sources. It focused on demolitions of Mazaars on government land by the Uttarakhand government, framing it as part of a broader effort to counter an alleged “Islamic takeover” of the region. However, the hosts and panellists presented these claims without any evidence or reliable sources to back them up, especially when talking about Mazaars in areas like Jim Corbett National Park, which were depicted as having been built in remote places with the intention of attracting large crowds.

The program repeatedly aired provocative phrases such as ‘illegal mazaars’, ‘mazaar jihad’, and ‘land jihad’, despite the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) having previously warned media outlets against using such terms for their communal connotations. The complaint highlighted the potential danger of fuelling religious intolerance and persecution by framing Muslim places of worship as part of a sinister plot to alter India’s religious and demographic fabric. (Details may be read here.)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Factual reporting: NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had the legitimate right to report on the encroachment of government land, which is an issue of public concern. However, the broadcast strayed from factual reporting by using terms like “Mazar jihad” and accusing the Muslim community of changing the demographic makeup.
2. Communal narrative: The terms used in the broadcast, such as “Mazar jihad,” and tickers like “Mazar jihad ka mastermind kaun?“, reinforced a communal narrative, giving an otherwise factual issue a religious and divisive tone. This was seen as an attempt to stir communal sentiments unnecessarily.
3. Violation of Reporting Standards: The broadcast failed to include the version of the other side of the parties, in order to ensure that the reporting remains unbiased, which was a clear violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, specifically regarding impartial and balanced reportage.
4. Previous Offense: NBDSA also noted that this was the second instance of similar communal colouring of a story by the broadcaster, particularly in the context of a conspiracy of government land encroachment.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning issued: NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster, stating that such practices would not be tolerated in the future, especially in case of sensitive issues. They emphasised that any similar violations would be dealt with more seriously.
2. Video Removal: NBDSA directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and to delete all associated links. The broadcaster must confirm to NBDSA within seven days that the video has been removed.

The complete order may be read below:

2. Order on complaint against debate show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint against Times Now Navbharat over a problematic news segment titled “बाबा की सनातन शपथ…भड़काऊ पथ पर जमीयत! | Hindu Rashtra | Bageshwar Sarkar Vs Hasan Madni” which aired on May 22, 2023. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, hosted by Himanshu Dixit, centred around a speech by Hasan Madni and turned into a communal debate, where the host and participants propagated a divisive, Hindu-nationalist narrative. The show, as per the complaint, focused on a one-sided promotion of Hindu nationalism instead of presenting a balanced discussion, justifying the idea of a Hindu Rashtra and labelling India as always having been a Hindu nation.

The debate featured four participants: Vijay Shankar Tiwari (VHP representative), Mahant Raju Das (self-identified Hindu saint), Atiq-ur-Rehman (Muslim scholar), and Maajid Haidari (Muslim writer). The two Hindu representatives, especially Mahant Raju Das, engaged in extreme Hindutva rhetoric. They used the platform to attack the Muslim participants and stigmatise the Islamic faith. Notably, Mahant Das pressured Maajid Haidari to say “Jai Shree Ram” and “Vande Mataram” to prove his secularism, suggesting that Haidari’s refusal would mean he did not respect all religions.

The complaint provided that the host, instead of intervening, allowed the communal diatribe to continue without challenging the inflammatory statements. He even prompted a controversial discussion about whether anyone who does not accept Islam is considered an infidel. The segment was further marred by anti-Muslim text being displayed repeatedly, accusing Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind of supporting terrorism, protesting against CAA-NRC, and promoting Islamic education.

CJP highlighted that the show sought to pit the two communities against each other, promoting an anti-Muslim narrative that stigmatised Muslims as engaging in sinister activities. This, they argued, was harmful to India’s social fabric and violated journalistic standards. (Details may be read here)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Freedom of speech to be exercised responsibly: NBDSA recognised that although the broadcaster has the right to debate controversial subjects like the one under discussion, this should not violate ethical broadcasting standards. It was underscored by the NBDSA that the debate on such issues must be conducted responsibly, ensuring that it does not disrupt societal harmony or public peace.
2. Failure to adhere to guidelines: As per the order, the broadcaster violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes, which require anchors to maintain objectivity and prevent panellists from propagating extreme, divisive views. NBDSA observed that the anchor failed to curb the communal diatribe, allowing Mahant Raju Das to ask a panellist to prove their secularism by chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, further intensifying the communal undertone.
3. Threat to social harmony: NBDSA highlighted that the broadcast risked disturbing peace and social harmony by providing a platform for communal rhetoric, which could polarise communities.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning and advisory: NBDSA issued a stern warning to the broadcaster, advising them to be cautious when selecting panellists for debates to ensure that discussions do not threaten social peace and harmony. The broadcaster was reminded to strictly adhere to the guidelines for conducting debates and prevent panellists from promoting divisive views.
2. Video Removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from its website and YouTube, ensuring that all hyperlinks and access to the video were also removed. The broadcaster was required to confirm this action to NBDSA within seven days.

The complete order may be read below:

3. Order on complaint against ‘illegal madrassas’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace had filed a complaint against the debate show “Rashtravad: मदरसों पर नकेल, नहीं चलेगा विदेशी फंडिंग का खेल?” aired on May 22, 2024, on Times Now Navbharat. The show was based on a survey by the Uttar Pradesh Government, claiming that 8,841 madrassas in the state were illegal and that action would be taken against 4,000 of them.

The complaint highlights the polarised and communal nature of the debate, where speakers not directly related to the issue were invited to discuss it. The host, Pandey, focused on twisting the findings of the government report, making unsubstantiated claims such as madrassas are receiving foreign funding. Furthermore, the host’s questions, such as “Will madrassas with foreign funding be locked down?” and “Why are Maulanas worried about action against madrassas?” were framed in a provocative manner.

As per the complaint, the debate was also marked by the host frequently interrupting speakers supporting the Muslim community, while allowing ideologically aligned participants, like Vinod Bansal (VHP), to make unsubstantiated claims linking madrassas to jihad and terrorism without scrutiny. Clearly, the channel was trying to push this narrative of the madrassa or all madrassas being a/the centre of illegalities. The presentation of the debate, by repeatedly showing the students reading Namaaz at a madrassa. The complaint pointed to one point wherein the host shows data of some people from Muslim community linked with terror outfits, who once studied in these madrassas (presumably).

The show’s tickers, such as “If Yogi is acting on madrassas, why are Maulanas worried?” and “If terrorism is being taught, will madrassas be shut down?” reinforced the inflammatory narrative. The complaint emphasised that the host showed clear bias, failed to remain neutral, and allowed baseless claims to go unchecked, leading to a divisive, polarising debate.

In conclusion, the complaint had argued that the debate lacked focus, with irrelevant participants, and was designed to stir communal tensions rather than provide constructive discussion. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Right to legitimate raise concerns sans misinformation: The broadcaster was within its rights to raise concerns about madrassas based on the Uttar Pradesh Government’s survey of illegal madrassas, however the same should have been done without slanting the findings of the government survey.
2. Distortion of facts: The NBDSA found that the broadcaster distorted the survey’s findings, suggesting madrassas were linked to terrorism without credible evidence.
3. Problematic statements: Statements from the anchor and panellists insinuating madrassas were breeding grounds for terrorism violated principles of impartiality and neutrality.
4. Violation of standards and guidelines: The broadcaster breached broadcasting standards on impartiality, objectivity, and racial/religious harmony.

Decision by the NBDSA

1. Censure: The broadcaster was censured for distorting facts and making unsupported allegations.
2. Advisory: The broadcaster was advised to adhere to principles of impartiality and neutrality in future broadcasts.
3. Content removal: The broadcaster was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and confirm this to NBDSA.

The complete order may be read below:

4. Order on complaint against ‘stay on ASI survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On August 16, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a complaint against the Times Now Navbharat show “Rashtravad | Gyanvapi Survey के बाद ‘ज्ञानवापी आंदोलन”, which aired on July 24, 2023, the same day the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at the Gyanvapi Mosque. The complaint raised concerns about the divisive and communal nature of the debate presented during the show.

The complaint emphasised that the host, Rakesh Pandey, presented a one-sided narrative that painted the Muslim community in a suspicious light. Before the debate even began, the host propagated his biased views, suggesting that Muslims were trying to delay the survey because they were “scared of the truth coming out.” The host framed the issue as a battle between the Muslim community and the truth, without any effort to present multiple perspectives. The questions posed by the host to the debate participants were instigating and communal, such as questioning why Muslim parties were afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque, and whether the ASI survey had found evidence of a temple. These questions were criticised for their provocative nature and for creating a polarised environment.

The complaint also pointed out that during the debate, the host allowed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, a representative of the Hindu parties in the Gyanvapi case, to dominate the conversation. The show gave the impression of promoting a religious or sectarian agenda rather than presenting a balanced news discussion. CJP highlighted how the host repeatedly implied that the Muslim community was obstructing the truth and suggested that the issue was part of a religious confrontation. The host also compared the Gyanvapi case to the Ayodhya case, accusing Muslims of provoking the community by drawing parallels with the Babri Masjid.

Furthermore, the complaint criticised the lack of neutral questioning, pointing out that the host never questioned whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or expressed any doubt about the existence of a temple beneath the mosque. Instead, the host consistently implied that the truth would eventually be revealed in favour of the Hindu community.

CJP concluded that the show violated journalistic ethics by promoting a communal agenda and failing to uphold impartiality on a sub-judice matter, as required by the NBDSA. They demanded that the impugned content be removed from all social media platforms of the channel and that a public apology be issued for the communal nature of the reporting. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Editorial freedom and sensitivity: NBDSA acknowledged that while the broadcaster has editorial freedom to conduct debates on any topic, such discussions must be handled with care, especially when they relate to sensitive issues currently under judicial consideration.
2. Failure to adhere to reporting guidelines: The NBDSA observed that the anchor violated specific guidelines related to reporting on court proceedings. The anchor raised conjectural and speculative questions about the motives of Muslims regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque survey, which is sub judice. This violated Guideline 3, which prohibits conjecture and speculation in reports related to ongoing court proceedings.
3. Communal bias: Instead of maintaining an objective and neutral tone, the anchor repeatedly referred to the parties involved as “Hindu Paksh” and “Muslim Paksh,” which contributed to giving the debate a communal slant. This was seen as a misrepresentation of the facts and a violation of broadcasting standards related to racial and religious harmony.
4. Violation of broadcasting ethics: By framing the debate in a communal context, the broadcaster violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, especially the guidelines on impartiality and neutrality when reporting on sensitive matters such as court proceedings.

Decision by the NBDSA:

1. Admonition and censure: The NBDSA decided to admonish and censure the broadcaster for violating broadcasting standards. The broadcaster was advised by the NBDSA to avoid giving a communal slant to sensitive issues, especially when the matter is pending in court.
2. Content removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and delete all hyperlinks to the content. The broadcaster must confirm this action in writing to NBDSA within 7 days of the order.

The complete order may be read below:

In summary, through all these four orders, the NBDSA emphasised the importance of adhering to court reporting guidelines and maintaining neutrality and impartiality in broadcasts, especially on sensitive and ongoing legal matters. The broadcaster was censured for not doing so, along with being asked to remove the impugned video, and corrective actions were mandated.

By ordering the removal of the contentious shows and issuing warnings to the broadcaster, the NBDSA has set a firm precedent for maintaining integrity, impartiality, and responsibility in public discourse. This series of orders highlights a clear message: responsible journalism is essential for fostering an informed society, and breaches that compromise fairness, objectivity, and communal harmony will not go unchecked. The decisive steps taken here reinforce the role of media as a pillar of democracy, entrusted with delivering accurate and unbiased information. As the media landscape continues to evolve, these actions serve as a reminder that accountability and ethical standards are the foundation upon which trustworthy journalism is built.

It is essential to note that the NBDSA also clarified that any statements made by the parties involved in the NBDSA proceedings, whether in response to the complaint or while presenting their viewpoints, as well as any findings or observations made by the NBDSA in these proceedings or in this Order, are solely for the purpose of assessing potential violations of broadcasting standards and guidelines. Hence, these statements are not to be interpreted as admissions by the broadcaster, nor are the findings to be considered as determinations of any civil or criminal liability.

Related:

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for communal bias in their news segment on the arrest of singer Altaf Hussain in Assam

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for broadcasting misleading news on Madrassas

CJP Impact! Two contentious Times Now Navbharat shows directed to be removed by NBDSA

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint to authorities against Times Now Navbharat debate show

CJP Victory! NBDSA orders removal of contested debate show aired by Times Now Navbharat

CJP complains against 3 shows of Times Now Navbharat

The post Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint highlights how the two leaders’ speeches deviated from issues of development, such as healthcare, employment, and infrastructure, in favour of stoking fear and communal divisions. CJP argues that this rhetoric violates both the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and provisions under the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951, particularly Section 123, which prohibits corrupt practices in elections, including attempts to sway voters through communal or religious division.

In his speech, BJP MLA Naveen Jaiswal framed the election as a defence against an alleged “takeover” of Jharkhand by “Bangladeshi infiltrators and Rohingya Muslims,” accusing the ruling JMM-Congress coalition of enabling these communities to settle illegally. By portraying Muslims as an existential threat to Jharkhand’s indigenous culture, Jaiswal’s statements urged Adivasi and indigenous communities to vote based on fear, rather than on traditional governance issues.

Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Minister of Agriculture, echoed and intensified these sentiments, alleging that Bangladeshi immigrants were “stealing” resources, jobs, and even deceiving local women into marriage as a means to gain a foothold in Jharkhand. Chouhan further suggested that these individuals were compromising Jharkhand’s safety and warned that allowing the JMM-Congress government to continue would lead to the state’s “destruction.” His portrayal of an “invasion” of local resources and values by Muslims, CJP contends, is a dangerous exaggeration that fuels xenophobic fears and undermines community trust.

The complaint submitted by CJP includes videos of the speeches, which were shared on Hindutva Watch’s Telegram channel and annexed in the submission, to substantiate their claims of communal and inflammatory content.

Various violations highlighted by the complaint

• Model Code of Conduct 

The MCC, enforced by the Election Commission of India, aims to maintain fair and peaceful elections by prohibiting divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. It explicitly bans appeals to voters based on caste, religion, or community and calls for restraint from inciting tension between groups. The complaint emphasised that by framing Muslims as a monolithic threat and casting them as “infiltrators,” Jaiswal and Chouhan’s speeches undermine the MCC’s commitment to communal harmony, focusing instead on identity-based fear-mongering rather than development issues.

•  Representation of People Act, 1951 

The complaint also highlights specific violations under the Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 123, which prohibits corrupt electoral practices, including the use of religious or communal appeals to influence voters. Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the RPA bar candidates from promoting enmity or hatred between communities on the grounds of religion or caste. By using rhetoric that positions Muslims as “outsiders” and “threats” to the indigenous population, these speeches not only appeal to communal sentiment but also cultivate distrust and hostility, which the RPA categorically prohibits.

The call for immediate action 

CJP’s complaint details the harm of such divisive speech, explaining how this rhetoric disrupts Jharkhand’s historically diverse and pluralistic social landscape. The complainant argues that framing Muslims as a monolithic threat erodes communal harmony, creates fear and mistrust, and fosters stereotypes that can lead to acts of discrimination and violence. By shifting focus away from issues of public welfare and development, this approach leaves marginalised communities with fewer avenues for genuine solutions to pressing needs, such as employment and healthcare.

The complaint concludes with a plea for the Election Commission to take immediate action, emphasising the need to preserve Jharkhand’s social harmony and ensure that elections remain focused on development and democratic values rather than divisive agendas.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Related:

BJP Jharkhand manifesto splashes 23 pictures of Modi, neglects party’s Adivasi faces

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

CJP Highlights MCC Violation: urges Maharashtra Election Commission to act on Hate Speech

CJP files complaint before Maharashtra Police against serial hate offender Kajal Hindustani

CJP complaints to the Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath

The post CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, condemning the Uttar Pradesh government’s actions as “high-handed”, according to Live Law.

During the hearing, the court found that no notice was served to the victim and due process was not followed.

Ref. article: Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition can be read here

Regarding the failure to serve notice to the victims, CJI Chandrachud further remarked, “This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process? The affidavit shows no notice was issued; instead, you merely informed people at the site through loudspeakers,” as reported by Live Law.

However, in response to the state’s claim that the petitioner had encroached on public land, CJI Chandrachud stressed that, “You say he encroached on 3.7 square meters. We accept that, though we’re not granting him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness—walking into someone’s home and demolishing it without notice.”

Public announcement used, not formal notice or due process

Justice Pardiwala also strongly criticized the authorities for relying solely on a public announcement and a drumbeat to notify residents, rather than following proper legal procedures. He remarked that, “You can’t just with the beat of a drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice.”

NHRC report taken into consideration by court

The bench relied on a report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which found that the highest encroachment in the case was just 3.70 square meters. The NHRC concluded that such a minimal encroachment did not justify demolishing the entire house. Based on its findings, the NHRC recommended granting interim compensation to the petitioner for the wrongful demolition. Additionally, the NHRC called for the registration of an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint and for the initiation of departmental and punitive action against the responsible officers.

Additionally, the Court observed that the authorities failed to conduct any inquiry to properly demarcate the encroachments. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that the land had been legally acquired prior to the demolitions.

SC directed UP Govt to pay 25 lakhs as a punitive compensation to the petitioner

The Court directed the State to pay an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner, emphasizing that this amount would not hinder the petitioner from pursuing additional legal action for further compensation.

Additionally, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an investigation into all officers and contractors involved in the illegal demolitions, and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The Court also clarified that the State could pursue criminal action against those responsible. These directions must be implemented within one month.

Furthermore, the judgment outlined the procedural steps that state authorities must follow before carrying out any demolition for road-widening projects. According to Bar and Bench, the Court also ordered all States to adhere to the following while carrying out widening of roads:

While carrying road widening, States must ascertain:

– Existing width of road;

– If encroachment is found, notice has to be issued to remove the encroachment;

– If objection is raised, then a decision on objection should be rendered by way of a speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles;

If rejected, then reasonable time should be given to (the encroacher) to remove encroachment.

A copy of the ruling was ordered to be circulated to all States and Union Territories to ensure compliance.

Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P.(C) No. 1294/2020]

Related:

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court warns against ‘bulldozing the rule of law,’ affirms that legal process, not allegations, must govern punitive actions

The post Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The MHA order follows the Supreme Court of India’s ruling on August 23, 2024, regarding “Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.” The Apex court noted that the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS would apply to all under trials in pending cases, regardless of whether their cases were registered before July 1, 2024, the date the new law took effect. The Supreme Court also directed that, “Compliance of the aforesaid provisions shall be made by the concerned District & Session Judges in all States/UTs who are in-Charge of the Under Trial Review Committees so that there is no laxity in implementation of the aforesaid beneficial provision.”

‘SC asks States to improve prison conditions’ can be read here

The Ministry of Home Affairs states in its order that overcrowding in prisons, especially the issue of large number of under trial prisoners, has been a matter of concern for the Government of India. For addressing the issue of long detention of under trial prisoners and the hardship faced by them, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been taking various progressive steps from time to time, including grant of financial aid to the States and Union Territories (UTs) for providing relief to such prisoners in seeking release from prisons

Further, ‘In context of the above, it is stated that Section 479 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which has come into force with effect from 1st July 2024, provides that ‘Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail’ MHA stated in its order.

Notably, a new rule has been added to Section 479 (1) of the BNSS. It states that if a person is a first-time offender—meaning he/she has never been convicted of a crime before—he/she will be released on bond by the Court after serving up to one-third of the maximum period of punishment for their offense.

Legal mandate for superintendents of prisons

MHA directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to recognise the specific legal responsibilities assigned to the Superintendents of Prisons. This includes disseminating pertinent information to relevant personnel and ensuring the effective implementation of the new provisions of the BNSS. Monitoring these initiatives is crucial for safeguarding the rights and conditions of undertrial prisoners.

MHA stated that section 479 (3) of the BNSS casts a specific responsibility upon the Superintendent of Prisons, where the accused person is detained, to make an application to the concerned court for release of such prisoners on bail. The text of Section 479 (3) is cited below for the information and attention of all prison authorities:

The Superintendent of Jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.’

MHA direction to States and UTs;

E-Prisons portal for quick identification

To assist State and UT prison authorities in identifying eligible prisoners swiftly, the Ministry of Home Affairs has enhanced the national E-Prisons portal. This platform provides essential data, such as the types of offenses, maximum sentences, and timelines for completing a significant portion of the imprisonment term. The E-Prisons portal facilitates timely access to inmate information, aiding authorities in moving applications for bail more efficiently.

Support for poor prisoners

MHA stated that it has previously introduced the ‘Support to Poor Prisoners’ scheme to assist poor prisoners unable to pay fines or secure bail due to financial hardships. This initiative particularly targets socially disadvantaged individuals and low-income groups. Financial aid is provided through respective States and UTs, helping prisoners cover outstanding fines or bail bonds. Despite the Union Home Secretary’s communication of the scheme’s guidelines, many States and UTs have yet to fully leverage this opportunity.

However, MHA also noted that Union Home Secretary, vide his letter dated 19th June, 2023, had forwarded the ‘Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure’ of the Scheme to the Chief Secretaries and DG/IG Prisons of all States and UTs. However, it is noted that many States/UTs are yet to take full advantage of this scheme despite MHA’s repeated persuasion in this regard.

Impact of active involvement

Active participation and oversight from States and UTs are anticipated to significantly improve the situation of long detentions faced by under trial prisoners, while also addressing prison overcrowding. States and UTs are requested to take full advantage of the national e-Prisons portal and the Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme for providing relief to prisoners.

The Ministry of Home Affairs’ directive on October 16, 2024, emphasises the urgent need to address the plight of under trial prisoners in India. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on August 23, 2024, the implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS aims to alleviate long detentions and overcrowding. By utilizing tools like the E-Prisons portal and the Support to Poor Prisoners Scheme, States and UTs can significantly enhance the welfare of under trials and ensure fair treatment within the justice system.

Related:

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

The post Under trial Prisoners: MHA directs States/UTs to implement section 479 of BNSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.