Both cases involve allegations of cow slaughter. Both result in the upholding of detention orders. But more importantly, both judgments articulate—and reinforce—a particular understanding of “public order”: one that is driven less by the intrinsic nature of the offence and more by its social meaning, communal context, and anticipated consequences. What makes these rulings especially significant is not merely their outcome, but the density of their reasoning. The Court draws extensively from on-ground facts, behavioural responses, intelligence inputs, and administrative measures, while also invoking broader assumptions about communal sensitivity, to construct a layered and multi-dimensional justification for preventive detention.

At first glance, both cases appear fact-specific: allegations of cow slaughter, local unrest, and administrative response. But a closer reading reveals something far more significant. Across both rulings, the Court systematically reorients the constitutional inquiry:

• From the nature of the offence → to its social meaning
• From proven disruption → to anticipated reaction
• From individual culpability → to collective sensitivity

Read together, these decisions reflect a clear doctrinal movement in which public order is no longer anchored solely in demonstrable disruption, but is increasingly shaped by perception, anticipation, and context.

The Shamli Case (Sameer v. State of U.P.): Public order rooted in predictable reaction

The incident and immediate aftermath: The case originates in March 2025, when police discovered dismembered remains of cows and calves in a field in Shamli district around the time of Holi. What might ordinarily have been treated as a criminal offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act quickly escalated into a larger law-and-order situation.

The Court records a chain of events:

• Large crowds, including members of Hindu organisations, gathered at the site
• Sloganeering and protests followed
• A major road blockade led to prolonged traffic disruption
• Police forces from multiple stations were deployed
• Authorities had to camp in several villages to restore normalcy

These consequences—particularly the collective mobilisation and disruption of everyday life—became central to the Court’s reasoning. The incident, in the Court’s view, was not contained; it radiated outward, affecting the “even tempo of life” across a wider locality.

Law and Order vs Public Order: Before the Court, the petitioner argued that the alleged offence was, at best, a violation of law and order, given that it was triable by a magistrate under ordinary criminal law. The Court, however, firmly rejected this characterisation. It held that the distinction between law and order and public order does not depend on the statutory classification of the offence, but on the extent and nature of its impact on society.

Relying on established precedents such as Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court reiterated that the relevant test is whether the act disturbs the “even tempo of life” of the community. The Court reiterates that not every crime disturbs public order; only those that disrupt the life of the community at large qualify. However, in applying this test, the bench adopts a context-heavy and consequence-driven approach.

It holds that even if an act is, in itself, a standard criminal offence, its “potentiality” and “impact”—particularly in a communally sensitive context—can elevate it into a public order issue. Thus, the focus shifts from the intrinsic nature of the act to its social reverberations.

Applying this test, it concluded that the widespread disruption, mobilisation, and administrative intervention in this case clearly elevated the incident beyond a mere law-and-order issue into the realm of public order.

Cow slaughter as an inherently volatile act: The most striking aspect of the judgment lies in its categorical treatment of cow slaughter. The Court asserts that:

• Cow slaughter “spontaneously evokes strong emotions”
• It has “immediate and widespread ramifications”
• It “almost always” leads to violence

This is not framed as a case-specific finding but as a generalised social truth. By doing so, the Court effectively pre-classifies certain acts as inherently capable of disturbing public order, irrespective of the specific factual matrix.

This reasoning has two major implications:

1. It reduces the burden on the State to demonstrate actual or imminent disorder
2. It allows anticipated communal outrage to become a legally valid ground for detention

In effect, the judgment shifts the inquiry from what the accused did to how society is expected to react—a move that sits uneasily with constitutional protections of liberty.

Reaction as justification: A central tension emerges here: should unlawful or violent public reaction determine the limits of individual freedom?

The Court’s reasoning suggests that it can. By treating predictable outrage as a given, the judgment risks normalising what is often described as the “heckler’s veto”—where the threat of public disorder becomes a basis to restrict rights.

This creates a troubling inversion:

• Instead of the State being obligated to control unlawful reactions
• The individual becomes the site of pre-emptive restraint

Such an approach may inadvertently incentivise coercive or violent mobilisation, as the mere possibility of disruption strengthens the case for preventive detention.

Preventive detention of a person already in custody: The Court also addresses whether a person already in jail can be preventively detained, relying on Kamarunnissa v. Union of India. The established test requires:

• Awareness that the person is in custody
• A real possibility of release on bail
• Likelihood of engaging in prejudicial activities upon release

In this case, the Court accepts:

• Police “beat information” alleging the accused intended to reoffend
• Intelligence inputs suggesting he was seeking bail and would repeat cow slaughter

Crucially, the Court treats these inputs as “reliable material”, without demanding rigorous evidentiary scrutiny. This reflects a broader judicial pattern in preventive detention cases—deference to executive satisfaction, even when based on informal or untested intelligence.

The blurring of preventive and punitive logics: Another significant concern is the gradual erosion of the distinction between preventive detention and criminal prosecution.

The petitioner argued that:

• The offence was triable by a magistrate
• It fell within ordinary criminal law
• NSA invocation was disproportionate

The Court rejected this, holding that the public order dimension justified bypassing the ordinary criminal process.

This reasoning risks transforming preventive detention into a parallel, anticipatory criminal system—one that operates not on proof of guilt, but on projected consequences and perceived risks.

Procedural Safeguards and Judicial Deference: On procedural grounds, the petitioner challenged delays in the disposal of his representation. The Court dismissed this argument, accepting the State’s timeline as adequately explained.

Notably, there is minimal substantive scrutiny of:

• The quality of evidence underlying the detention
• The proportionality of invoking NSA
• The necessity of detention vis-à-vis ordinary law

This underscores a recurring feature of preventive detention jurisprudence: courts often prioritise procedural compliance over substantive rights review.

The judgement may be read here:

The Jalaun Case (Hasnen vs Union of India and ors): Fear, timing, and administrative evidence

The incident and evidentiary detail: The second case arises from an incident on March 31, 2025, in Kalpi town, where an FIR was registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged:

• Recovery of approximately 3 quintals of beef
• Discovery of cattle, bones, skin, and weapons
• Involvement of multiple accused, including the three petitioners

The petitioners were already in custody, and in two cases, had even secured bail. Yet, the District Magistrate invoked Section 3(2) of the NSA, citing apprehensions of future harm and communal disturbance.

The petitioners challenged their detention through habeas corpus petitions, arguing:

• absence of independent material,
• reliance solely on police witnesses,
• lack of criminal antecedents,
• and the fundamentally criminal—not preventive—nature of the allegations.

The State, however, framed the incident as one with far-reaching communal consequences, asserting that the act had disrupted social harmony and posed a real risk of violence.

From “law and order” to “public order”: At the heart of the judgment lies the classical distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” a doctrinal line developed in cases like Ram Manohar Lohia and Arun Ghosh. The Court held that the Kalpi incident clearly crossed this threshold.

Drawing from the detention record, the bench emphasized:

• “Community-wide fear and terror” (भय व आतंक),
• behavioural changes such as residents no longer leaving cattle unattended,
• perceived conspiracy narratives among the public,
• inter-community tension between Hindus and Muslims,
• and a visible administrative escalation—including riot drills, deployment of additional forces, and high-level patrolling.

The Court concluded that these factors collectively disrupted the “even tempo of life,” thereby bringing the case squarely within “public order.”

Crucially, the Court gave significant weight to the timing of the act, describing it as deliberate and “precise,” capable of fracturing communal bonds during a period of heightened religious sensitivity.

Preventive detention as “reasonable anticipation”: The judgment strongly reiterates the preventive (not punitive) nature of detention under the NSA. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held:

• Preventive detention is based on anticipation, not proof.
• The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is paramount.
• Courts do not sit in appeal over such satisfaction unless it is vitiated by illegality.

Even the fact that the petitioners were already in custody or had secured bail did not deter the Court. It upheld the State’s power to detain on the ground of a “real possibility” of release and recurrence, reaffirming that preventive detention can operate parallel to criminal proceedings.

Procedural compliance: A major plank of the Court’s reasoning is strict procedural compliance:

• Detention orders were passed under Section 3(2),
• Grounds were communicated within statutory timelines,
• Representations were considered and rejected,
• The matter was referred to the Advisory Board,
• The Board affirmed “sufficient cause,”
• The State confirmed detention for one year under Sections 12–13.

The Court concluded that Article 22(5) safeguards were fully satisfied.

Yet, this formal compliance arguably obscures a deeper issue: whether procedural correctness can compensate for thin or contestable substantive grounds.

Elasticity of “public order”: The judgment’s most contentious aspect lies in its expansive reading of “public order.” Traditionally, courts have cautioned that not every criminal act—even if serious—amounts to a disturbance of public order. The distinction requires:

• a direct and proximate impact on the community,
• not merely a potential or speculative disturbance.

However, in this case, the Court relies heavily on:

• anticipated communal reactions,
• perceptions and fears, and
• administrative responses (like police deployment),

to elevate the incident into a public order issue.

This raises a troubling inversion:

• Does the intensity of public reaction—or the State’s response to it—become the basis for preventive detention?
• If so, the doctrine risks becoming self-fulfilling: State apprehension → heightened policing → evidence of “disturbance” → justification for detention.

The problem of timing and religious sensitivity: The Court repeatedly underscores that the act occurred during Navratri and Eid, treating this as a decisive aggravating factor.

While sensitivity to communal context is not misplaced, the reasoning edges toward a more problematic terrain:

• It attributes intentionality (“precise timing”) without clear evidentiary backing.
• It risks constitutionalising religious sentiment as a determinant of liberty.
• It implicitly prioritises majoritarian hurt as a ground for preventive detention.

This approach blurs the line between actual threat and perceived offence, raising concerns about the neutrality of constitutional protections.

Preventive detention and bail: Another striking feature is the Court’s endorsement of detention despite bail:

• Two petitioners had already been granted bail,
• yet were preventively detained to preclude future conduct.

This reflects a broader trend where preventive detention operates as a shadow system, effectively overriding judicial determinations in criminal law.

While doctrinally permissible, it raises structural concerns:

• Does preventive detention undermine the logic of bail jurisprudence?
• Does it allow the executive to circumvent evidentiary thresholds required in criminal trials?

The judgement may be read here:

Liberty at the edge of anticipation

When these two judgments are read together, a coherent doctrinal pattern becomes evident. Both decisions treat cow slaughter as an act with inherent potential to disturb public order, thereby lowering the threshold for invoking preventive detention. In each case, the Court places central emphasis on societal reaction, whether manifested through crowd mobilisation or behavioural fear.

At the same time, contextual factors such as festival timing and communal sensitivity are used to amplify the perceived seriousness of the act. Preventive detention is consistently justified through anticipatory reasoning, with courts accepting intelligence inputs and apprehensions of future conduct as sufficient. Additionally, the scale of administrative response is treated as indicative of the gravity of the situation, further reinforcing the conclusion that public order was at stake.

This emerging doctrine raises significant constitutional concerns. The reliance on intelligence inputs, behavioural indicators, and administrative response points toward a dilution of traditional evidentiary standards. By centring public reaction, the Court risks validating anticipated outrage as a basis for curtailing liberty, thereby shifting the burden away from the State’s responsibility to maintain order.

Furthermore, the increasing use of preventive detention in such cases suggests a blurring of the line between preventive and punitive measures, with the NSA functioning as a parallel mechanism to ordinary criminal law. The emphasis on context and symbolism, while relevant, also introduces a level of subjectivity that can make the concept of public order highly elastic.

A shift from exception to norm

These two rulings, taken together, signal a decisive transformation. Preventive detention—constitutionally conceived as an exceptional measure—is increasingly being normalised in communally sensitive majoritarian criminal contexts.

The shift is subtle but profound:

• From exceptional threat → to contextual sensitivity
• From proven disruption → to anticipated reaction
• From State responsibility → to individual restraint

At stake is not merely the interpretation of “public order,” but the future of personal liberty under the Constitution.

The critical question that emerges is this:

Can constitutional freedoms be made contingent on how society might react—or must the State bear the burden of ensuring order without pre-emptively sacrificing liberty?

In these judgments, the answer appears to lean decisively—perhaps dangerously—toward the former.

Related:

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

Judicial Pushback against Cow Vigilantism: Allahabad HC flags arbitrary FIRs, demands accountability from top officials

Supreme Court disposes of PIL on cow vigilantism, declines micro-monitoring of state compliance

Rampant cow vigilantism unleashes violence on Muslim truck drivers across the country

Rise in Cow Vigilantism: A leading driver of discrimination against India’s Muslim minority

The post From Cow Slaughter to “Public Order”: Allahabad High Court’s expanding use of preventive detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary thus quashed a 2021 order passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur, refusing to finalise the claims of 107 ‘Tharu’ community members for forest rights, specifically the right to collect and use minor forest produce for their livelihood. The Order of the High Court was passed on April 9, 2026.

In sum, in its order, the Committee, constituted under the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, had relied on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to reject the claim of the petitioners. The petition was filed by the NGO Udasa and 101 members of the Tharu community. The petitioners, residents of the Palia Kalan area in Lakhimpur Kheri and members of a Scheduled Tribe, had challenged a March 15, 2021, order that dismissed their claims to community forest rights.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the district-level committee’s rejection of their claims. They argued that as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to specific rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

It was the case of the petitioners that the Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted specifically for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. They contended that under Section 3 of the Act, their rights include the ownership, access, and use of minor forest produce traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.

Furthering this argument, the petitioners also relied on a 2013 Ministry of Tribal Affairs circular clarifying that the 2006 Act, being a subsequent statute, supersedes all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court found justification in their stance and noted that the 2006 Act aims to recognize and vest the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to ensure their livelihood and food security.

On a close reading of the case, the High Court observed that the district-level committee had fundamentally erred in its approach. The court noted that the committee failed to properly consider the intent and specific provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Instead, the authority had relied solely on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 to justify the rejection of the claims. The bench emphasized that the primary objective of the 2006 Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and to secure their livelihood and food security. Explaining this further, the Court clarified that with the enactment of this Act, the legislature had not created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather it had recognized the existing rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest owing to various historical reasons.

The court noted in its Order that:

“The objective of the Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and ensure their livelihood and food security, which cannot be overlooked.”

The judges also pointed out that the 2006 legislation was enacted specifically to address historical injustices and to provide a legal framework for the rights of these communities, making it imperative for committees to apply the Act’s provisions rather than relying on outdated interim orders It was against this backdrop that the Court found fault with the impugned order, which the bench said had not taken into account the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act and had only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order passed in 2000, prior to the enactment of the Act.

Following this, the court quashed the March 15, 2021, order and directed the concerned district authority to rehear the matter. The bench mandated that the petitioners be provided a full opportunity for a hearing and that a “reasoned order” be passed within a reasonable timeframe after a thorough examination of all relevant facts and records.

Furthermore, the court provided interim protection to the Tharu community members, clarifying that until the fresh decision is reached, the petitioners will continue to enjoy their existing forest rights without disruption.

In its Order, the Court highlighted that Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause, meaning that the central government recognizes and vests these rights notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Advocates Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh and Rajat Srivastava apeared for the petitioners. The judgement in Udasa and 106 others vs Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 others may be read here:

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

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

The post Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund has now listed the matter for April 24, 2026. While the hearing itself was limited to procedural aspects, the petition raises substantive challenges to the Foreigners Tribunal process, the delay in approaching the Court, and the legal consequences of an ex-parte declaration of foreigner status. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.

Details of the previous case proceedings in GHC, challenging their detention, may be accessed here, here and here.

Proceedings before the High Court

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, submitted that the writ petition is maintainable and deserves consideration on merits for two primary reasons.

First, it was argued that the delay in filing the petition has been sufficiently explained, and is not attributable to any deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner.

Second, it was emphasised that the present petition has been filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court, which had expressly permitted the petitioner to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal opinion.

Advocate Dutta also sought that the Court may call for the records of the Foreigners Tribunal, particularly in light of the contention that the proceedings were initiated without disclosure of the grounds of suspicion.

The State, at this stage, did not address the merits of the challenge. Instead, it sought time to file an affidavit raising preliminary objections, specifically on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

The Bench allowed the request and passed the following directions:

• The State is permitted to file an affidavit on preliminary objection,
• The interim protection against deportation is extended, and
• The matter is listed on April 24, 2026, with a direction that a copy of the order be furnished to the petitioner.

At this stage, the Court has not adjudicated on maintainability or merits, but has kept the petition alive and ensured that no coercive action is taken in the meantime.

Background: Tribunal opinion and subsequent proceedings

The petition challenges the ex parte opinion dated June 13, 2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang, in FT Case No. BNGN FT/CHR/220/07, declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who had allegedly entered India after March 25, 1971.

According to the petition:

• The petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal through an advocate,
• However, due to financial constraints, he was unable to continue legal representation or file a written statement,
• As a result, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte opinion.

Following the declaration:

1. The petitioner was detained on April 30, 2019,
2. Subsequently released on April 30, 2021 due to Covid based relaxations,
3. Thereafter, he was required to report regularly to the police station, which he is stated to have complied with.

The petition further states that:

• On May 25, 2025, he was taken into custody again, allegedly without issuance of an arrest memo or any formal order cancelling his release conditions.

This sequence of events forms the immediate background to the present writ petition.

Supreme Court proceedings and grant of liberty

An important stage in the litigation is the petitioner’s approach to the Supreme Court. After earlier proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner filed an SLP, which came to be disposed of on December 12, 2025.

While dismissing the SLP, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the Foreigners Tribunal opinion. This clarification is central to the present proceedings.

The petition asserts that:

• The current writ petition is being filed in exercise of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, and
• Therefore, objections based on delay or prior proceedings must be considered in that context.

Explanation for delay in filing the petition

The petition sets out a detailed explanation for the delay in challenging the 2018 Tribunal opinion.

1. Financial constraints- It is stated that the petitioner:

• Was unable to pay legal fees before the Tribunal,
• Could not pursue remedies thereafter due to continued financial hardship,
• Faced severe economic difficulty, particularly during the COVID period.2. Periods of detention- The petitioner’s ability to pursue legal remedies was affected by:

• His detention from 2019 to 2021, and
• His subsequent detention beginning May 25, 2025.3. Lack of access to the petitioner- The petition records that:

• Family members were not permitted to meet him freely,
• Efforts to obtain a fresh vakalatnama were unsuccessful,
• At certain points, even information regarding his whereabouts was not clearly disclosed.4. Absence of legal aid- It is specifically pleaded that:

• The petitioner was not provided legal aid, despite being eligible,
• The present petition has been filed only after assistance was arranged through an external organisation.5. Practical difficulties in preparing the petition- The petition had to be prepared:

• Without direct access to the petitioner,
• By reconstructing documents and facts from available records.

Legal submission on delay- On the basis of the above, it is argued that:

• The delay is neither intentional nor negligent,
• The matter involves citizenship and personal liberty, and
• The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to consider the petition on merits despite delay.

Challenge to the tribunal proceedings

The petition raises multiple grounds challenging the validity of the Tribunal proceedings.

1. Absence of “Main Grounds” in Notice- It is contended that:

• The notice issued to the petitioner was a standard printed format,
• It did not disclose any specific grounds or material forming the basis of suspicion.

The petition argues that such a notice is insufficient in law and affects the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the reference- The reference made by the police is challenged on the ground that:

• It was not based on disclosed material,
• There is no indication that there was application of mind before initiating proceedings.

3. Ex Parte opinion- The ex parte opinion is explained as a consequence of:

• The petitioner’s inability to sustain legal representation,
• Rather than any deliberate failure to participate.

4. Opportunity to contest- It is argued that:

• The petitioner was not provided access to materials relied upon,
• Nor given an effective opportunity to present his case.

Documentary basis of citizenship claim

The petitioner relies on several documents to establish his claim to Indian citizenship, including:

• Entries in the NRC 1951 relating to his family,
• Inclusion of his and his family’s names in voter lists of 1965 and 1970,
• Land records showing inheritance from his father.

These documents are relied upon to demonstrate longstanding presence and linkage within India.

Legal argument on burden of proof

The petition addresses the operation of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act by submitting that:

• While the law places an onus on the proceedee,
• This arises only after the State establishes basic facts justifying the reference.

In the present case:

• It is contended that no such foundational material was disclosed,
• Therefore, the burden could not have been validly shifted to the petitioner.

Reliefs sought

The petition seeks:

• Quashing of the Tribunal opinion dated June 13, 2018,
• Setting aside of the reference and notice,
• Directions restraining the authorities from acting on the declaration, including deportation.

Related:

“They were once sent back, awaiting deportation”: State’s new claim deepens uncertainty over fate of Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

The post Abdul Sheikh Citizenship Case: Deportation stayed as Gauhati High Court Hears challenge to ex parte foreigner declaration, state to raise maintainability issue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The process of drafting, tabling and passage of the Bill into law has been non-transparent and hurried, itself displaying an extremely undemocratic and unconstitutional approach. After some scant media reports regarding the state government’s intent, the Bill (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026) was tabled on Friday, March 13, 2026, hurriedly passed in the Vidhan Sabha on Monday March 16, 2026 (Vidhan Sabha) and March 17, 2026 (Vidhan Parishad).

Just days before Citizens for Justice and Peace, along with other city-wide groups had addressed a press conference outlining the major objections to the Bill. This Joint press conference was held on March 11, 2026. Participating organisations emphasise that introducing another anti-conversion law while the Supreme Court is actively considering the constitutional validity of similar statutes raises serious questions of legislative prudence and constitutional accountability.

CJP is a Lead Petitioner in the Supreme Court challenging all such laws filed in other states in since 2020.

The Maharashtra law, being hurriedly passed also comes at a time when the constitutional validity of similar anti-conversion laws across several states is already under challenge before the Supreme Court of India.

A batch of writ petitions –first filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Mumbai that is the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court– has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2020, raising fundamental constitutional questions about the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality before the law, and the limits of State power in regulating religious conversion and interfaith relationships. Hearings in the matter that have happened intermittently with pressing demands made by CJP for an interim stay on the most egregious provisions are also scheduled today, March 11, 2026.

Originally filed against laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the petitions were later expanded—with the Court’s permission—to include similar statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. As a result, the ongoing proceedings now concern nine state anti-conversion laws, each framed as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” statute.

The petitions argue that while these laws are formally presented as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions, their design and implementation have created a legal regime that treats voluntary religious conversion as inherently suspicious, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

Among the provisions under challenge are:

• mandatory prior declarations before a District Magistrate
• police inquiries into the reasons for conversion
• criminalisation of conversions associated with marriage
• third-party complaints by relatives or unrelated persons
• reversal of the burden of proof
• stringent bail provisions and enhanced penalties

According to the petitioners, these provisions subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to executive scrutiny and police investigation, opening the door to misuse and harassment, particularly against consenting adult couples and religious minorities.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court heard applications filed by CJP seeking interim relief against some of the most intrusive provisions, including those requiring prior declaration and enabling third-party complaints. The Court directed the Union Government and the concerned States to file responses, indicating that the matter raises serious constitutional questions requiring detailed consideration.

Several High Courts examining similar laws have already expressed concern regarding provisions that interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults. For instance, the Gujarat High Court stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act that criminalised interfaith marriages involving conversion, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed provisions requiring prior declaration before authorities. Ironically, BJP-ruled states have played ping-pong with Constitutional Courts on such laws since 2012. In that year, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Justices Deepak Gupta and Rajiv Sharma) had struck down portions of an earlier version of the law in that state which sought to monitor (and penalise) the intention behind converting. The BJP was in power in Himachal Pradesh at the time.

Evangelical Fellowship of India vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (4) RCR 283 (Civil), which was a judgement authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, the Himachal Pradesh High Court court had set aside Section 4 of the HP Act of 2006 as ultra vires the Constitution and struck down Rules 3 and 5 thereunder and held that the right to privacy and the right to change the belief of a citizen cannot be taken away under the specious plea that public order may be affected. Arguing its case before the Supreme Court in early 2023, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh e pointed out that the 2006 Act was repealed and replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 in which provisions set aside by the High Court have been included.

The post Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

– Poem by Amir Aziz

It is increasingly evident that Muslims in India are being robbed of their legitimate space and place within a nation that was once imagined as their collective constitutional dream. A vast majority chose to stay back in India after the 1947 bloody Partition, believing in existential roots, lived coexistence and constitutional equality. There have been riots and communal clashes in past decades post-Independence, but rarely was their very belonging to the nation so openly questioned and at grave risk. Rarely was their loyalty publicly doubted, their religion brazenly mocked.

It was uncommon for a sitting Chief Minister to pull a woman’s headscarf[1] simply because of her cultural choice, she donned a headscarf. It was unheard of for a Chief Minister to post violent and provocative imagery (video) depicting him shooting at Muslims[2]! What once manifested as communal ‘push and pull’ now appears to have been hardened and legitimised into something more systemic, an institutionalised propagation of directed othering, hatred and violence. 

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

Accidental to Institutional

 This messaging is not confined to political speeches only. It is reinforced through ‘mainstream’ cinema; films marketed as if “based on real events,” filled with questionable, even repulsive and inflammatory depictions that amplify suspicion and hostility towards the Muslim. These narratives shape public imagination. In one disturbing instance, children living on the streets of South Mumbai were heard using hateful language against Muslims. When asked where such sentiments originated, they reportedly said that “aunts and uncles” take them to watch films, one of the few outings they can afford, as their parents earn meagre incomes selling roses on Marine Drive. Hatred, it seems, is being curated and consumed.

Policy, too, reflects this exclusion. Measures such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise—executed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) though this has been strongly legally contested—have clearly resulted in the disproportionate removal of Muslim names from electoral rolls, raising concerns about potential disenfranchisement. Legislative developments have added to these anxieties. Under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (CAA), which came into force last year, members of specified persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries who entered India on or before 31 December 2014 were made eligible for Indian citizenship. Muslims were excluded from this framework. Not only has the Supreme Court of India kept the substantive legal challenges to this much criticised amendment (CAA 2019) in cold storage, the court will only now hear the batch of 250 petitions in early May 2026 (May 5-7, 2026).[3]

More recently, an order issued under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 extended relief to individuals particularly Hindus from Pakistan, who crossed into India after 2014, with officials stating that the cut-off has effectively been expanded by a decade due to the continued cross-border migration of persecuted minorities. This privileges one community over others in fast-tracked citizenship.

Taken together, these measures have intensified debate over whether citizenship policy is being recalibrated along religious lines, especially when viewed alongside voter roll revisions and public rhetoric framing Muslims as “infiltrators.”

‘Torching’ the lawn

Attempts by Hindutva affiliates to enter Masjids, incidents of mob lynching targeting Muslim vendors, mobs stopping individuals to demand proof of nationality, these have become disturbingly common. In Varanasi, “Operation Torch” was launched to identify so-called illegal migrants.

The forcible closure of Muslim-owned businesses under varying pretexts points toward the economic marginalisation of a community already made vulnerable. The cumulative effect suggests a systematic relegation of Muslims to second-class citizenship within their own country.

On the frontline of this targeting –in 2025-206 at least –are Bengali Muslim migrants—often daily wage labourers, domestic workers, and small vendors struggling for survival.

Direct Violence

“I am very poor, and my family is deeply worried about our future. Why did they beat me? I never forced anyone to buy my food.”

— Riyajul Sheikh, Food vendor from West Bengal

“I am a poor man. I earn a living for my family by selling utensils. After this incident, how will I go out and work?”

— Akmal Hussain, assaulted in Bihar in January 2026

On May 24, 2025, in Aligarh, four Muslim men Arbaz, Aqeel, Kadim, and Munna Khan, were brutally attacked by a mob of cow vigilantes over allegations of beef smuggling. The assailants set their vehicle on fire, blocked a highway, and assaulted them with sharp weapons, bricks, and sticks. One unconscious victim was seen being dragged from a police vehicle. This was reportedly the second attack on the same group at the same location within 15 days, suggesting targeted violence. A forensic report from a government laboratory in Mathura later confirmed that the meat was not beef, debunking the allegations. Police arrested four individuals under provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for rioting, attempt to murder, extortion, and dacoity.

Riyajul (December 2025) was beaten by a mob and his goods were destroyed. He sells patties by walking through the streets of Kolkata. In one such incident from West Bengal, he was allegedly asked whether he had chicken patties in his box. When he replied in the affirmative, the assault began. When they heard his name, the violence intensified as reported by The Wire. It seems that, for many, the only fault is being Muslim. Such initiative feeds into a larger narrative of suspicion.

Source: Maktoob Media

Didar Hossain, a rickshaw puller from Agartala, was assaulted by a mob that attempted to burn him alive. He was robbed of his entire day’s earnings and severely beaten.

On December 22, in Basti, Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Singh, a leader of the Vishva Hindu Mahasangh, along with members of the group, harassed and threatened a Muslim chicken vendor for operating his shop near a temple. He described the butcher’s knives as “weapons” that could be used to kill people and threatened to file a police complaint for possessing them.

On December 30, in Madhubani, Bihar, approximately 40–50 Hindu nationalist supporters brutally assaulted and paraded a Muslim construction worker. He was falsely branded a Bangladeshi and forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram” and “Bharat Mata ki Jai.” The attackers allegedly threatened to sacrifice him at a Kali temple. Each incident may appear geographically scattered in Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Tripura but the pattern is chillingly consistent.  The slogans are the same. The accusations are similar. The humiliation is public. The violence is performative. And the message is unmistakable: belonging is conditional.

On January 7, 2026, in Jharkhand, a 45-year-old Muslim man was killed by a mob after being accused of cattle theft.

On January 1, 2026, in Bhonkhera, Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh, threats were reportedly left inside the homes of Muslim residents in the region, creating an atmosphere of fear at the very threshold of their private spaces.

On January 14, 2026 in Sahada, Balasore, Odisha, cow vigilantes lynched Sheikh Makandar Mohammed, a 35-year-old Muslim helper on a pickup van. He was repeatedly forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram” and “Cow is my mother.” Police later took him to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

On January 22, 2026, a Bengali Muslim vendor from West Bengal was brutally beaten in Odisha by right-wing extremists who accused him of being a Bangladeshi infiltrator. A similar instance occurred the very next day, another Muslim vendor from Birbhum district, West Bengal, was allegedly forced to produce his Aadhaar card, made to chant religious slogans, and threatened with death if he did not leave Odisha.

Such attacks and atrocities have increasingly been framed as expressions of “patriotism.”

According to Akmal Hussain assaulted in Bihar, January 22 2026 (quoted above) the incident began when a woman showed interest in buying utensils and asked him to come near her home. When he arrived, a man confronted him, called him a Bangladeshi, and demanded identity documents. As he attempted to retrieve his phone, a crowd gathered and began assaulting him. He sustained injuries to his head, arms, and legs. Following the attack, he left the city and returned to his hometown in Hooghly, deeply traumatised.

These are not isolated events. There have been multiple incidents of Muslims being beaten to death and forced to chant slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Gai humari mata hai” before, during, or after being assaulted.

Institutions of prejudice

The University of Delhi found itself at the centre of controversy after its undergraduate admission form listed inappropriate caste-related entries in the “mother tongue” section. Instead of languages such as Urdu, Maithili, Bhojpuri and Magahi, the form reportedly included terms such as Cham***Mazdoor, Dehati, Mochi, Kurmi, Muslim and Bihari, as reported by The Wire and Hindustan Times.

The inclusion of “Muslim” as a language and the removal of Urdu triggered outrage on social media. Bengali was also allegedly absent. The episode raised concerns about institutional insensitivity and the normalisation of caste and religious stereotyping within academic processes.

Meanwhile, in Jammu and Kashmir, educational spaces became a communal flashpoint.

On January 6, hundreds of police and paramilitary personnel were deployed outside the Civil Secretariat in Jammu to prevent protests by a BJP-backed outfit opposing what it called a “biased” reservation system at the SMVD Institute of Medical Excellence in Reasi district.

The protest, led by the youth wing of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi (SMVD) Sangharsh Samiti and supported by Hindu right-wing groups, centred on the admission of Muslim and other non-Hindu students. Protesters demanded cancellation of their admissions or closure of the college.

“The presence of non-Hindus on the campus and their style of eating and worship is bound to hurt the sentiments of Hindus… The government should cancel their admission or shut down the college,” a protester stated as reported by The Wire.

The agitation is expected to intensify ahead of the J&K Assembly’s winter session beginning February 2. Colonel Sukhvir Singh Mankotia announced a ‘Sanatan Jagran Yatra’, a hunger strike, a signature campaign, and demonstrations on January 8 and January 10, warning of a shutdown across the Jammu division.

The Chief Minister maintained that the college, established through an Act of the J&K Assembly, does not restrict admissions on religious grounds. However, BJP Leader of the Opposition Sunil Sharma stated that only students “who have faith in Mata Vaishno Devi” should be admitted.

All 50 students were admitted on the basis of NEET rankings. The controversy erupted after only eight Hindu students appeared in the first batch, with the remaining 42 being Muslims from the Kashmir Valley. The issue was allowed to take a sharply communal turn, with right-wing affiliates raising slogans demanding the expulsion of non-Hindu students. Following the outrage countrywide and also by the ruling party and opposition in Kashmir and Jammu, on January 26 this year, the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) was compelled to “adjust” these 50 excluded students in seven government-run medical colleges across J&K based on NEET-UG merit and their preferences. Read more here

At Jamia Millia Islamia, another controversy unfolded. On December 23, 2025 when the university suspended Professor Virendra Balaji Shahare of the Department of Social Work over a question in an end-semester examination paper titled Social Problems in India, set for BA (Honours) Social Work, Semester I, 2025–26. The query attempted a discussion on the plight of the Muslim minority in India (see below).

Source: The Wire

Algorithm for and by Hate

Elected officials, sitting in constitutional positions directing hate. This has been a singular feature of the past close to a dozen years and 2025 and early 2026 were no exception.

A video circulated by the Assam BJP in 2025 intensified concerns about the normalisation of dehumanising rhetoric in mainstream politics and even more specifically within law enforcement.

Source ; The Wire, X deleted video

The footage appeared to show Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma handling an air rifle, interspersed with AI-generated visuals depicting bullets striking images of men wearing skull caps and beards widely recognised as markers of Muslim identity. The clip portrayed Sarma as a Western-film hero, overlaid with the slogan “foreigner free Assam” and captioned “point blank shot.” Reports stated that Assamese text in the video included phrases such as “no mercy,” “Why did you not go to Pakistan?” and “There is no forgiveness to Bangladeshis.”

The imagery echoed Sarma’s earlier public remarks. On January 25, during a press conference, he declared: “Only ‘Miyas’ are evicted in Assam. Which Hindu has got notice? Which Assamese Muslim has got notice? We will do some utpaat [mischief], but within the ambit of law.” On January 27, he said: “This Special Revision is preliminary. When the SIR comes to Assam, four to five lakh Miya votes will have to be deleted in Assam.” A day later, he added: “Whoever can give trouble [to Miyas] should. If a rickshaw fare is Rs.5, give them Rs.4. Only if they face troubles will they leave Assam. Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas.” He has earlier stated that his job was to “make the Miya people suffer.”

Multiple petitions were subsequently filed before the Gauhati High Court seeking action against Sarma for alleged hate speeches targeting Muslims in the state. On Thursday, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury issued notices to the Chief Minister, the Central government and the Assam government. The matter is scheduled for hearing on April 21.

The petitions were filed by the Indian National Congress, Assamese scholar Hiren Gohain and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), after the Supreme Court advised them to approach the High Court. Senior advocates including Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Uday Singh and Meenakshi Arora argued that Sarma’s remarks were provocative and threatening, particularly his references to the “miya” community , a term often used in Assam as a pejorative for Bengali-speaking or Bengali-origin Muslims, though the Chief Minister has described it as referring to “illegal immigrants.” The rhetoric has not been confined to one state.

BJP MLA Nitesh Rane posted a tweet on August 5, 2025 asking: if Hindus were being attacked in Bangladesh, why should Indians spare a single Bangladeshi in their country? He added that they would hunt down and kill every Bangladeshi living in India. The tweet was later deleted after controversy.

In January 2024, during the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha procession in Mira Road, Mumbai, amid communal tensions, Rane made a similar incendiary statement threatening to hunt down individuals. Hate speeches by senior BJP leaders, including Devendra Fadnavis and others, have also drawn criticism, with opposition parties and rights groups alleging a pattern of majoritarian mobilisation. Concerns have extended beyond the executive to the judiciary.

On December 8, 2024, a year before at a lecture on the Uniform Civil Code in Prayagraj organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court made remarks widely criticised as Islamophobic. Among other statements, he said: “My country is one where the cow, the Gita, and the Ganga form the culture, where every idol embodies Harbala Devi, and where every child is like Ram.” He added: “Here, from childhood, children are guided towards god, taught Vedic mantras, and told about non-violence. But in your culture, from a young age, children are exposed to the slaughter of animals. How can you expect them to be tolerant and compassionate?”

Justice Yadav also used the term ‘kathmullah’, a slur used against Muslims, and stated that “this country and law will function as per the wishes of the majority.” Lawyers’ bodies renewed calls for an in-house inquiry into his remarks.

Stark and questionable has it been that the higher constitutional courts have taken no action against Justice Yadav for this.

But what does the data reveal?

Parallel to this rhetoric, data-driven reports corroborate these patterns of violence.

In November 2025, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released an India-specific issue update describing what it termed systemic religious persecution. The report cited the “interconnected relationship” between the Bharatiya Janata Party and the RSS, linking it to citizenship, anti-conversion and cow slaughter laws. It noted that hundreds of Christians and Muslims have been arrested under anti-conversion laws, with 70% of India’s inmates being pre-trial detainees and religious minorities disproportionately represented. In its 2025 Annual Report, USCIRF recommended that the U.S. Department of State designate India as a Country of Particular Concern, or CPC, for engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations.

According to a CSSS report, released in early February 2026, mob violence against Muslims formed a significant category of harm in 2025. Fourteen lynching incidents were reported during the year, resulting in eight recorded deaths. These cases were often linked to allegations of cattle-related offences, suspicions of illegal immigration, and claims of “love jihad,” with some incidents reportedly involving forced religious slogans.

Among the cases cited were the killing of migrant worker Juel Sheikh in Sambalpur, Odisha; multiple lynching incidents in Bihar’s Nawada district; deaths linked to cattle theft accusations in Jharkhand; killings in Maharashtra, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh; an attack on a Muslim migrant in Kerala; and a case involving a student subjected to slurs in Dehradun. Reported by NDTV.

A separate analysis by India Hate Lab recorded 1,318 hate speech incidents in 2025, of which 98 per cent were stated to have targeted Muslims. These reportedly occurred at public rallies, religious gatherings, street events and across social media platforms. Human rights workers quoted in the study argued that such rhetoric had become routine, creating an atmosphere of insecurity despite constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

The CSSS report further raised concerns regarding uneven policing and prosecution, asserting that action appeared swifter in cases involving Hindu victims, while Muslims faced disproportionate arrests or police scrutiny. It also alleged that post-riot narratives sometimes attributed responsibility to Muslims without publicly available evidence.

The study concluded that the violence extended beyond physical attacks to what it described as heightened assertion of majoritarian cultural identity through religious symbols and festivals, alongside marginalisation of Muslim cultural expression. It stated that the cumulative effect was increased impunity for vigilante groups and a deepening sense of insecurity among Muslim citizens.

CSSS noted that its findings were based on monitoring national and regional publications including The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Times of India, Sahafat and Inquilab. Read more on this here.

Conclusion

In a recently released report by Human Rights Watch in February 2026, it was stated that,

“India’s slide to authoritarianism under the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – led government continued, with increased vilification of Muslims and government critics. Authorities illegally expelled hundreds of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, some Indian citizens among them, claiming they were “illegal immigrants.” [page no. 215 ]

The demolition of homes belonging to poor, underpaid and hardworking people has become a recurring image of this moment. The victims, in most cases, are among the most economically vulnerable Muslim families. Hindu extremist groups, critics argue, have increasingly operated with overt or tacit support from segments of the government, administration and, in some instances, judicial authority, a development they attribute to the ideological leanings of the Modi government.

At the same time, India’s deepening political ties with Netanyahu’s Israel invoked here specifically as Netanyahu’s Israel to acknowledge that many Israelis oppose the policies of his regime are seen by some observers as reflective of a broader hardening of majoritarian statecraft.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has warned of a “well-thought-out conspiracy” to alter India’s population composition, referring to “these infiltrators.” Such language, when deployed by the country’s highest elected office, carries consequences. It reinforces the framing of a section of Indian citizens not as equal stakeholders in the republic, but as demographic threats.

When eviction drives, voter roll deletions, hate speeches, vigilante violence and institutional silences converge, they create not just isolated incidents but an atmosphere.

The question that inevitably arises is not only legal or political, but existential: What does it feel like to be a Muslim in Modi’s India?

For many, the answer lies in the steady normalisation of suspicion in the knowledge that citizenship can be questioned, belonging debated, and dignity negotiated.

And that, perhaps, is the deeper crisis beneath the data.

[During the research of this article an overwhelming number of incidents were found, it was difficult to cut down and mention a few. That in itself shows the horrendous state of minorities in our country.]

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

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/india-chief-ministers-removal-of-womans-hijab-demands-unequivocal-condemnation/

[2] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUiu9zZin8u/; https://scroll.in/latest/1090625/himanta-sarmas-shooting-at-muslims-video-left-parties-move-supreme-court

[3] https://www.scobserver.in/reports/citizenship-amendment-act-supreme-court-schedules-final-hearings-in-may-2026/; https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-hear-caa-petitions-from-may-5/article70651374.ece

Related

India Hate Lab Report 2025: How Hate Speech has been normalised in the public sphere | CJP

CJP 2025: a constitutional vanguard against hate and coercion during elections | SabrangIndia

The post Evicted, Accused, and Deleted: The shrinking space for Muslim citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Under the draft law, any person wishing to convert to another religion would be required to seek prior permission from a designated authority and provide a 60-day notice, after which the conversion must be registered within 25 days or risk being declared null and void as per The Indian Express. The legislation further mandates that if a relative of the person converting alleges coercion, the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate an investigation. Importantly, offences under the proposed statute are non-bailable, dramatically raising the stakes for those accused.

While the government has framed the law as a safeguard against forced conversions, the political messaging surrounding the bill reveals a much narrower ideological framing. Maharashtra minister Nitesh Rane explicitly described the proposed law as one that would prevent “forcibly marrying and converting Hindu girls,” repeatedly invoking the conspiracy theory of “love jihad” while speaking to the media in Mumbai, reported The Indian Express. The term itself has no legal recognition: the Ministry of Home Affairs has previously informed Parliament that Indian law contains no definition of “love jihad.”

A law framed as protection, designed for surveillance

The structure of the proposed law reflects a deeper pattern visible in anti-conversion statutes enacted across several Indian states. While ostensibly directed at preventing coercion or fraudulent conversions, the operational design of these laws effectively places state surveillance over deeply personal decisions relating to faith and marriage.

By requiring advance notice to authorities before conversion, the law transforms a matter of personal conscience into a regulated administrative act. Such provisions have been widely criticised by jurists, activists and constitutional scholars alike because they invert the principle of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which protects not only the right to practise and profess religion but also the freedom to adopt and change one’s faith.

Further, the provision enabling relatives to trigger criminal investigations significantly expands the scope for social interference in private decisions. In practice, similar provisions in other states have enabled families, vigilante groups, and politically motivated actors to initiate criminal proceedings against consenting adult couples.

A pattern across states

Maharashtra’s proposed legislation does not emerge in isolation. Laws regulating religious conversions already exist in multiple states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Haryana, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh.

However, multiple civil society groups and rights organisations have documented how these statutes are frequently invoked not to address genuine cases of coercion but to police interfaith relationships and minority religious practices.

Reports compiled by the Citizens for Justice and Peace, also the lead petitioner against the constitutional challenge to anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, indicate that since the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, dozens of cases have been filed against interfaith couples—often after complaints by unrelated third parties or vigilante groups. Many of these cases have later collapsed for lack of evidence, but not before the accused were subjected to arrest, detention, and intense social stigma.

The constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court

These patterns have already triggered a broad constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court of India, where several petitions contest the legality of anti-conversion statutes across multiple states.

One of the principal challenges has been first brought by Citizens for Justice and Peace in 2020 itself, which argues that such laws violate fundamental rights including personal liberty, freedom of conscience, and the right to choose one’s partner. During hearings in April 2025, Senior Advocate C. U. Singh told the Court that the statutes were being “weaponised” to target interfaith couples and minority communities, urging the Court to intervene and prevent further misuse. Despite repeated attempts by the organisation to get the matter listed for early hearing, including interim prayers for a stay on the most egregious provisions of the law, the SC has not found time to address these concerns.

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, disputed these claims made by the petitioners and has argued that states possess legitimate authority to enact such legislation. The bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the Union government to examine the petitions and respond to the concerns raised at the hearing held on April 16, 2025.

The Court is currently examining whether these statutes violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, privacy, and personal autonomy, particularly in light of landmark decisions such as Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right.

Detailed report may be read here.

The social climate behind the law

The proposed legislation has also emerged in the context of intensifying campaigns by Hindutva organisations demanding stricter laws against religious conversions. Over the past several months, coordinated demonstrations have been organised across districts in Maharashtra by groups such as the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, calling for the enactment of a stringent anti-conversion law.

At the same time, minority groups have warned that such laws are already contributing to an atmosphere of suspicion and intimidation. Christian organisations in Maharashtra have repeatedly raised concerns about vigilante groups disrupting prayer meetings and accusing pastors of forced conversions. According to figures compiled by the United Christian Forum, hundreds of incidents involving harassment or violence against Christians have been reported across India in recent years.

In April 2023, more than 40 Christian organisations gathered at Azad Maidan in Mumbai to protest what they described as a growing pattern of false allegations of conversion used to justify attacks on churches, pastors, and congregations. Demonstrators argued that anti-conversion laws have often functioned as a “Damocles’ sword” over minority communities, enabling vigilante groups to pressure police into filing cases even where no evidence of coercion exists.

Gujarat’s attempt of policing relationships

The Gujarat government is preparing to amend the rules under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 in a move that significantly tightens state oversight of marriage registration and introduces mandatory parental involvement—changes that could undermine adult autonomy and further legitimise social control over interfaith and inter-caste relationships.

Addressing the Gujarat Legislative Assembly on February 20, Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghvi said the proposed amendments are aimed at protecting women, preventing fraud, and making the system more transparent. While stating that the government has “no objection to genuine love marriages,” Sanghvi framed the proposed changes as necessary to prevent deception and exploitation, invoking the controversial narrative of men allegedly concealing their religious identity to lure women into relationships. Referring to such cases, he remarked that authorities would act strictly if individuals “pose as someone else” to trap women, as per Hindustan Times.

Sanghvi also invoked concerns about “love jihad,” a term widely used by right-wing groups to allege a conspiracy by Muslim men to target Hindu women through romantic relationships. The term, however, has repeatedly been rejected by courts and has no official recognition by the Union government, with several investigations failing to substantiate claims of any organised conspiracy.

Despite this, the proposed regulatory overhaul appears to embed many of the anxieties that underpin the “love jihad” narrative within the administrative framework of marriage registration. According to Sanghvi, the amendments are intended to prevent identity concealment and coercion while protecting what he described as “Sanatan traditions” and Indian marriage customs—phrasing that has raised concerns among civil liberties advocates about the increasing conflation of state policy with majoritarian cultural norms.

One of the most contentious proposals is the introduction of mandatory parental notification. Under the proposed system, when couples—particularly those entering into love marriages or eloping—apply for marriage registration, the bride’s parents will be formally notified within ten days. Applicants will be required to submit the Aadhaar details and verified address of the parents, and the issuance of the marriage certificate will be delayed by at least 40 days from the date of application to allow time for verification, consultation, or objections.

One can argue that such provisions effectively place adult relationships under familial surveillance and may expose couples—especially those in interfaith or inter-caste relationships—to intimidation or coercion. Under the existing framework, couples are able to register marriages by submitting basic documentation and witnesses without the need to inform their parents, reflecting the legal principle that consenting adults are free to marry without external approval.

The proposed amendments also seek to tighten documentation requirements, mandating the submission of Aadhaar cards, birth certificates, school leaving certificates, photographs, and wedding invitation cards where available. Witnesses from both sides would also have to provide photographs and Aadhaar details. In addition, the government plans to shift the registration process away from lower-level revenue offices and create a dedicated online portal to monitor registrations—particularly those categorised as love marriages.

Sanghvi justified the move by citing alleged irregularities uncovered during investigations in Panchmahal district, where authorities claim fraudulent marriage registrations were issued. Referring to villages such as Kankodakoi and Nathkuwa, he alleged that hundreds of nikah certificates had been issued despite there being no Muslim families residing in those villages. While the government says action has been taken in such cases, isolated administrative irregularities are increasingly being used to justify sweeping regulatory changes that disproportionately affect interfaith relationships.

As per Times of India, the amendments follow three months of consultations led by Law and Justice Minister Kaushik Vekeriya, during which about 30 meetings were held with community representatives. Among those welcoming the move is Patidar leader Dinesh Bambhaniya, who said the proposal addresses long-standing demands raised by caste organisations through rallies and memorandums.

However, the proposed amendments also appear to reflect a growing alignment between state policy and local social enforcement mechanisms that have emerged across parts of Gujarat. Even before the changes have been enacted into law, several villages and caste bodies have begun enforcing informal codes regulating how members of their communities marry.

In some areas, these community resolutions have hardened into quasi-legal declarations threatening couples who marry without parental approval with social boycott, ostracism, or exclusion from public life. From gram sabha resolutions in Kheda district to directives issued by caste organisations representing Patidar and Thakor communities, the common justification offered is that marriages without family consent threaten tradition, destabilise social order, and endanger women.

According to Times of India, a recent resolution adopted by the Gram Sabha in Nand village reportedly imposes a total social boycott on couples who marry despite opposition from their families. Such couples may be barred from using community facilities, attending religious gatherings, or participating in social events. The resolution also introduces restrictions on wedding and funeral expenses, bans DJs and what it calls “objectionable songs,” and prescribes fines for violations.

Taken together, the developments in Gujarat, along with Maharashtra, also appear to reflect a broader national trend in which state governments are increasingly seeking to regulate intimate relationships through legal and administrative mechanisms. By placing parental consent and community norms at the centre of the marriage registration process, the changes could erode the constitutional principle that consenting adults have the fundamental right to choose their partners—an autonomy repeatedly affirmed by courts in decisions protecting interfaith and inter-caste marriages.

Policing intimacy and identity

The deeper danger of these laws lies not only in their legal provisions but in the social narratives they reinforce. By framing interfaith relationships as conspiracies or threats, such legislation legitimises public suspicion of couples who cross religious boundaries.

This dynamic is particularly visible in the persistent invocation of the “love jihad” narrative, which portrays Muslim men as orchestrating a coordinated campaign to convert Hindu women through romantic relationships. Despite repeated claims by political actors, no investigative agency in India has produced credible evidence of any organised conspiracy of this nature, a point acknowledged in Parliament by the Union government itself.

Yet the political potency of the narrative continues to drive legislative action. At its core, the controversy reflects a deeper constitutional dilemma: whether the state’s role is to protect individual autonomy and minority rights or to police these in the name of social order and cultural anxieties.

Related:

Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado

Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025

Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

The post Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At first glance, the dispute appeared narrow. The petitioner objected to the proposed film title “Ghooskhor Pandat”, arguing that it equated a caste identity with corruption and thereby stereotyped and denigrated an identifiable community. The relief sought included restraint on the release and exhibition of the film and a direction to the certification authority to re-examine it.

However, before the matter could proceed into a contested adjudication, the producer unequivocally withdrew the impugned title and undertook before the Court that any future title would neither resemble nor evoke the earlier one. On that basis, the writ petition was formally disposed of.

Yet the constitutional significance of the case did not end there.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, concurring in the disposal, authored a separate opinion — not because a judicial determination on facts was required, but because the constitutional issues implicated were too important to leave unarticulated. In doing so, the Court seized the opportunity to restate foundational principles governing the limits of community vilification and the scope of free expression in a constitutional democracy that is now more than seventy-five years old.

The opinion is remarkable not for dramatic judicial intervention, but for its clarity of constitutional vision. It situates the controversy within the Preamble’s promise of fraternity, the fundamental duties under Article 51A, and the long line of precedents safeguarding freedom of expression. It addresses a contemporary reality where speech — whether delivered from political platforms, circulated as memes, expressed through satire, or embodied in cinema — can both challenge and wound.

Importantly, the Court did not allow the language of fraternity to become a tool for censorship. Nor did it allow the language of free speech to become a shield for collective denigration. Instead, it reaffirmed that constitutional democracy demands maturity: the maturity to tolerate critique, and the discipline to refrain from vilification.

What emerges from the judgment is not merely guidance on film titles. It is a reaffirmation of constitutional character — that India’s constitutional order protects dignity without suffocating dissent, and safeguards expression without permitting hate.

The restatement of principles in this case therefore assumes a resonance that extends well beyond cinema. It speaks to public discourse more broadly — to political rhetoric, social media expression, and artistic experimentation — reminding all actors, State and non-State alike, that constitutional freedoms and constitutional responsibilities are inseparable.

Detailed analysis of the judgment is below.

Fraternity: The republic’s moral spine

The judgment begins where the Constitution itself begins — with the Preamble.

Fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation, is not decorative prose. It is, as the Court emphasized, part of the Constitution’s guiding philosophy. Article 51A(e) further imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious, linguistic, regional, and sectional diversities.

“One of the solemn objectives of our Constitution which finds mention in the Preamble is to promote amongst all the citizens of India fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. This is the guiding philosophy of our Constitution. Article 51A reminds every citizen of India that it shall be their duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. More specifically, Article 51A(e) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.” (Para 11)

Justice Bhuyan invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s constitutional vision, reminding that liberty, equality, and fraternity were conceived as an inseparable trinity. Fraternity, he noted, is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence toward fellow human beings.

“Dr. Ambedkar highlighted the concept of fraternity and bracketed it with liberty and equality. According to him, these three fundamental concepts together form the bedrock of democracy. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow human beings. Thus, cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow.” (Para 12)

“Dr. Ambedkar’s introduction of the term ‘fraternity’ into the constitutional Preamble reflects his persistent efforts towards eradicating caste discrimination, his advocacy for unity and brotherhood which mirrors his commitment to inclusivity. Unlike the West, in India, fraternity is distinctly perceived as a vital instrument for realising equality and harmonizing the diverse segments of society. It serves as a conduit for transcending societal disparities and working towards collective well-being. Therefore, in the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes a dynamic and inclusive role, aligning with the broader goals of social justice, equality and upliftment.” (Para 13)

The Court drew doctrinal support from the Constitution Bench decision in in Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, where fraternity was described as a collective bond meant to cultivate brotherhood across all segments of society — not confined to any one group.

From this foundation, the Court articulated a categorical constitutional position:

“It is therefore constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as, speeches, memes, cartoons, visual arts etc. to vilify and denigrate any community. It will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be. This is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional o4ce who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution.” (Para 14)

This was not framed as a matter of statutory interpretation, but as a constitutional command.

The Court underscored that targeting any community on the basis of religion, caste, language, or region violates the Constitution’s ethos. The warning was especially sharp for those holding high constitutional office. Public figures who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution bear heightened responsibility; when they engage in divisive or denigrating speech, the breach is not merely rhetorical — it is constitutional.

Free Speech: The republic’s lifeblood

Yet the judgment does not tilt toward suppression. On the contrary, Justice Bhuyan turns with equal force to the constitutional guarantee under Article 19 (1) (a).

Freedom of speech and expression, the Court reiterated, is a foundational democratic right. It enables dissent, critique, satire, artistic creation, and social reform. It cannot be stifled merely because some groups find expression uncomfortable or offensive.

The Court methodically reaffirmed established precedent:

• In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, it was declared that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed due to threats of demonstration or violence. Yielding to such pressure would amount to surrendering the rule of law.
• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, liberty of thought and expression was described as a cardinal constitutional value.
• In Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Court cautioned that a mature Republic cannot be seen as so fragile that it feels threatened by artistic or poetic expression. (A detailed report on the judgment may be read here.)
• In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, the Court emphasised that depiction of social evil in art cannot be prohibited merely because it portrays disturbing realities.
• In Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, it was reaffirmed that once a film is certified by the statutory authority, States cannot prohibit exhibition on speculative law-and-order grounds.

The doctrinal thread is clear: Expression must be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable, strong-minded, and prudent viewer, not hypersensitive individuals predisposed to perceive insult.

The Cinematograph Act entrusts certification to an expert body. Once certification is granted, courts must be slow to interfere. Restrictions must fall squarely within Article 19(2), justified by necessity — not public discomfort.

Justice Bhuyan cautioned that if creative freedom is stifled beyond permissible limits, the casualty is not merely artistic autonomy, but democratic vitality itself.

The constitutional equilibrium

What makes this judgment remarkable is not that it chooses one value over the other — but that it refuses to. It does not permit the language of fraternity to become a pretext for censorship. It does not allow the language of free speech to become a shield for communal vilification. Instead, it restores balance.

Fraternity demands that communities are not collectively degraded. Freedom demands that art, satire, and dissent are not smothered by intolerance. The Constitution, the Court reminds us, protects both.

Justice Bhuyan concluded by noting that though no adjudication was strictly required, it was necessary to restate these first principles “lest there remain any lingering misconception.” The message is unmistakable: constitutional democracy requires both mutual respect and intellectual courage.

A republic neither fragile nor permissive of hate

Seventy-five years into constitutional governance, India cannot be so brittle that it fears artistic expression. Nor can it be indifferent to attacks on community dignity.

This decision stands as a doctrinal reaffirmation that:

• Vilification of communities is constitutionally impermissible.
• Creative expression enjoys robust constitutional protection.
• Courts must guard against both communal denigration and populist censorship.
• Fraternity and freedom are not adversaries — they are co-equal pillars of the constitutional order.

In closing the controversy over a film title, the Supreme Court has opened a larger constitutional conversation — reminding that the Republic’s strength lies in its ability to protect dignity without suffocating dissent.

It is, in essence, a judgment about the character of constitutional democracy itself.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing

Free speech, even in bad taste, is protected if no incitement to violence: HP HC

Between Free Speech and Public Order: Dissecting the complaint against Anjana Om Kashyap

Recalibrating Free Speech: The Supreme Court’s constitutional turn in the digital age

Mixed Messaging: Free speech jurisprudence from the Supreme Court

The post A Republic Must Tolerate Art — But Not Denigration: Supreme Court reasserts fraternity as a constitutional boundary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through a series of strategic legal interventions, CJP has challenged the normalisation of “state-sponsored demonisation” and the blatant misuse of administrative authority. By filing rigorous complaints with the Election Commission of India and State authorities, CJP has sought to remind those in power that welfare is a right, not a partisan incentive, and that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law. Our 2025 interventions highlight a commitment to ensuring that the focus of Indian democracy remains on governance, equality, and the dignity of every citizen, regardless of their faith or political affiliation. This 2025 report details our key actions against hate offenders and the corruptive influence of communal propaganda in the democratic process.

1. Combating communal polarisation in the Delhi Assembly Elections, 2025

Complaint against Habitual Hate Offender Nazia Elahi Khan

On January 20, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with Delhi’s Chief Electoral Officer, R. Alice Vaz, against BJP leader and hate offender Nazia Elahi Khan for an inflammatory speech delivered in Rohini, Delih. The complaint detailed how she targeted the Muslim community with dehumanising stereotypes, falsely associating and targeting the community with inherent violence, terrorism, and “love jihad.” CJP argued that these baseless generalisations, including derogatory remarks about the Koran, were a calculated attempt to polarise voters along religious lines and disrupt communal harmony during the critical pre-election period.

The speech was flagged as a severe violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A), which prohibit using religious appeals to influence voters. CJP emphasised that such rhetoric shifts the focus from governance and policy to divisive identity politics, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. By calling for a public censure and a ban on Khan’s future campaigning, CJP sought to protect the integrity of the democratic process and ensure that the Delhi elections remained focused on developmental issues rather than communal anxieties.

CJP seeks action against BJP Councillor for communal campaigning

Similarly, on January 10, 2025, CJP also filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Delhi against BJP Councillor Ravinder Singh Negi for an inflammatory speech delivered during a January 6 election event in Patparganj. The complaint outlines that Negi utilised divisive communal narrative for electoral gain, referring to Muslims as “descendants of the Mughals” and asserting that only “Jai Shree Ram” would dominate India. CJP argued that these remarks were a deliberate attempt to communalise the election process, painting the Hindu community as victims in need of protection from an alleged Muslim threat.

The complaint highlights that Negi’s speech stigmatises Muslims by linking them to past rulers and spreads fear regarding population growth, specifically citing West Bengal. By invoking the Kashmiri Pandit exodus and events in Bangladesh, the speech exploited communal sentiments to stoke fear rather than addressing policy issues.

CJP emphasised that such language violates Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit undue influence and religious appeals. Furthermore, CJP noted that this discourse aggravates communal tensions and breaches the Model Code of Conduct, challenging the democratic integrity of the Delhi elections.

2. Intervening in the Bihar Assembly Elections 2025: combatting “Hate, Fear, and Violence”

• Complaint against Ashok Kumar Yadav: ridicule and coercive loyalty

CJP on October 30, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar against hate speech in Darbhanga on October 16, 2025, where Madhubani MP Ashok Kumar Yadav addressed “Muslim brothers,” instructing them to say “tauba tauba” and renounce government benefits like free grain and gas cylinders. CJP’s complaint describes the speech as “mocking religious practice and publicly demanding a ritual renunciation of entitlements,” amounting to psychological coercion. By equating welfare use with political loyalty and faith with betrayal, Yadav’s speech redefined citizenship as conditional, fusing spiritual vocabulary with partisan mobilisation.

CJP argues that mocking religious language and demanding a ritual renunciation of state-built roads and bridges constitutes “undue influence.” This bombast moves from ridicule to coercion, framing welfare schemes not as rights but as favours to be repaid through political allegiance. Those who refuse are branded as “ungrateful,” turning a phrase of repentance into a performative punishment. The legal core remains clear: these are prima facie offences that weaken the constitutional promise of free and fair elections, where what begins as a jest ends as an exclusionary policy.

• Complaint against Giriraj Singh: public loyalty tests and humiliation

CJP on October 29, 2025, approached the CEO Bihar regarding Union Minister Giriraj Singh’s speeches in Arwal and Begusarai on October 18 and 19, 2025, transformed gratitude for welfare into a religious oath of political loyalty. In Arwal, he asked a “Maulvi” to swear “on Khuda” to acknowledge benefits received under the government, declaring, “I don’t need votes from namakharam people.”

In Begusarai, Giriraj Singh manipulated the word “haram” into a slur, questioning the faith and morality of Muslims who did not vote for the BJP. The complaint describes these statements as “coercive and communal,” violating the Model Code of Conduct’s (MCC) ban on religious appeals. CJP sought immediate action, including FIR registration under the BNS for promoting enmity, framing the language as “a public loyalty test administered through humiliation.”

CJP stated in its complaint that these speeches fall within the definition of “corrupt practice” under Section 123(2) of the RPA. By identifying an internal enemy and demanding a religious oath for political support. The strategy reinforces a hierarchy where welfare schemes—rations, gas cylinders, and Ayushman cards—are presented as debts owed to the ruling party. This sequence demonstrates how easily populist politics collapses faith into allegiance and citizenship into a privilege contingent on identity.

• Complaint against Nityanand Rai: xenophobia and state-sanctioned exclusion

CJP also filed a complaint the local authorities of the Election Commission of India (ECI) on October 30, 2025, that stated that on October 22, 2025, in Hayaghat, Union Minister Nityanand Rai pivoted from religious invocations to overt nationalism and xenophobia, targeting those wearing “reshmi salwar and topi (mode of dress and skull cap).” He claimed that “Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators” were taking away the livelihoods of Bihar’s youth and insisted they must be excluded from voter lists.

The complaint noted the gravity of a Home Ministry official using xenophobic tropes, arguing such speech carries “the force of state policy” when uttered by a minister responsible for internal security. Rai’s rhetoric blends three distinct offences: an appeal to religion, the vilification of a religious group, and the use of ministerial office to threaten administrative exclusion. This prepared the ground for Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s speech in Siwan, which explicitly promised to “identify and expel each and every individual ghuspaithiya (infiltrator).”

Together, these speeches identify a community as outsiders usurping entitlements and anti-national threats. This progression reveals a tested campaign grammar where the trope of the “infiltrator” shifts the narrative from faith to belonging. When senior ministers use the language of exclusion, the threat carries bureaucratic plausibility, replacing the right to participate as an equal citizen with a test of loyalty and threat of removal.

Complaint against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam

In two formal complaints submitted on November 10, 2025, CJP moved the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer and DGP against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam. The complaints highlight a dangerous shift where hate and threats have replaced democratic debate during the Bihar election campaign. CJP called for urgent action, highlighting how “hate, fear, and violence” have been weaponised to replace civic discourse.

• Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma (Siwan Rally)

At an election rally on November 4, 2025, in Raghunathpur, Siwan, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma delivered a speech that CJP described as “state-sponsored demonisation.” Sarma compared RJD candidate Osama Shahab to the global terrorist Osama bin Laden, urging the audience to “eliminate all Osama Bin Ladens” from Bihar.

The complaint notes that he framed the election as a Hindu versus Muslim battle, invoking figures like Babur and Aurangzeb and declaring that a victory for the opposition would be a “defeat for Hindus.” He further boasted about stopping salaries for “mullahs” and characterised Muslims as “infiltrators” threatening the safety of women. CJP argues this statements constitutes an “incitement to exterminatory politics” and a direct breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, as a sitting CM holds a heightened responsibility for neutrality.

• Tausif Alam (Kishanganj Rally)

Within 24 hours of the Siwan speech, AIMIM’s Tausif Alam delivered a retaliatory address at Laucha Naya Haat, Kishanganj. In response to RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav calling Asaduddin Owaisi an “extremist,” Alam issued a direct threat of grievous bodily harm. He told the crowd that “I will cut his eyes, fingers, and tongue if he dares insult Owaisi Sahab again.”

The complaint flags this as a “direct threat of physical mutilation” and a calculated attempt to intimidate political rivals. By replacing civic discourse with “open intimidation and violent abuse,” Alam’s speech is cited as a violation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Representation of the People Act.

3. Targeted demographic hate speech in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur

On November 13, 2025, CJP filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar and the DGP against BJP MP Ashwini Kumar Choubey for inflammatory remarks made during a campaign in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur on November 9.

The complaint asserts that Choubey utilised his platform to deliver deeply communal and derogatory statements that directly target the Muslim population under the guise of national security. By appealing to the community to “reduce their population” and explicitly linking them to “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) allegedly crossing the border, the speech is described as hate propaganda that seeks to delegitimise the citizenship of Indian Muslims.

Remarks that constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification”

The complaint highlights specific statements where Choubey invoked demographic myths to create fear, stating that while the government provides infrastructure to all, the rising population of a specific community and the influx of infiltrators represent a threat of “vote theft.”

CJP argues that these remarks constitute a “direct communal appeal” and “demographic vilification,” violating Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits religious appeals and the promotion of enmity. Furthermore, the speech is flagged under Sections 196 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for outraging group dignity and promoting mischief.

Consequently, CJP in its complaint demanded the registration of an FIR, a ban on his further campaigning, and a public censure from the Election Commission.

4. Complaint against Ojing Tasing for electoral misconduct in Arunachal Pradesh

On December 9, 2025, CJP submitted an urgent complaint to Election Commission of India Arunachal Pradesh, regarding coercive and unlawful threats made during a campaign rally in Lower Dibang Valley on December 3, 2025. During the election period, the Minister unequivocally declared that panchayat segments where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) loses will be denied government development schemes. He was recorded stating:

“Government schemes will not go to those panchayat segments where the BJP is defeated… I do what I say. As the panchayati raj minister, I mean what I say.”

CJP stated that these remarks constitute a direct abuse of state power and a misuse of official authority to influence voter behavior. By conditioning taxpayer-funded welfare on partisan victory, the Minister has transformed essential governance into a tool of political extortion. Such actions represent a textbook case of undue influence and intimidation, weaponising public resources to coerce the electorate.

CJP asserts that these statements violate Sections 123(1), 123(2), and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibit bribery, undue influence, and the abuse of official positions. Furthermore, they breach the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which forbids linking development schemes to voting patterns. Constitutionally, the Minister’s threats violate Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), as government benefits must be distributed without political prejudice.

Consequently, CJP seek immediate action, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, a ban on further campaigning, the registration of an FIR for criminal intimidation, and a recommendation for the Minister’s removal from office to preserve the integrity of the democratic process.

CJP’s intervention in the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad against communal and derogatory appeals

CJP on November 11, 2025, approached the CEO Telangana regarding a complaint against BJP leader Bandi Sanjay Kumar for making communal and derogatory appeals during the Jubilee Hills by-election roadshow in Hyderabad. Kumar allegedly mocked Muslim religious practices, specifically the skull cap and namaz, while invoking his Hindu identity as a mark of “authenticity.” He reportedly stated, “If a day comes when I must wear a skull cap for votes, I’d rather cut off my head,” and asserted he would not “insult other faiths by faking a namaz.”

CJP’s complaint argues that these remarks, aimed at polarising voters and deriding opponents like Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, constitute a trifold offence against the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). By framing religious inclusivity as deceit and “vote-seeking hypocrisy,” the speech is characterised as hate speech intended to incite communal contempt.

5. CJP’s intervention against communal dog-whistles

CJP moved the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission, Maharashtra, on December 19, 2025, seeking urgent action against BJP Mumbai President Ameet Satam for making inflammatory and hate-based remarks during a political event in Malad West. The complaint details how Satam, while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, delivered a speech alleging that “jihadis” had infiltrated the Goregaon Sports Club and accused Muslims of facilitating Rohingya and Bangladeshi migrants in illegally acquiring land and identity documents.

The complaint asserted that by propagating conspiracy narratives such as “vote jihad” and “land jihad,” Satam is accused of criminalising an entire religious community and using demographic fear to polarise the electorate.

CJP’s argues that such dehumanising tactics, which portrays Muslim citizens as conspirators and threats to governance, erodes the constitutional principles of equality and secularism. Consequently, CJP has sought immediate sanctions, including a show-cause notice and restrictions on Satam’s campaigning, to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and prevent the normalisation of communal targeting.

6. Constitutional and legal breaches: CJP’s multi-pronged legal strategy

Across all interventions in 2025, CJP has observed a recurring pattern of violations that threaten the very core of India’s democratic machinery. The complaints filed by CJP emphasise the following legal and constitutional anchors:

• Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951: Section 123(2) (Undue Influence): Whether it is Ojing Tasing threatening to cut off funds in Arunachal Pradesh or Tausif Alam threatening physical violence in Bihar, both constitute a direct interference with the free exercise of electoral rights through coercion.
• Section 123(3) & (3A): The interventions against Bandi Sanjay Kumar’s religious mockery and the inflammatory speeches of Nazia Elahi Khan and Ravinder Negi exemplify the prohibited use of religious symbols and the promotion of enmity between different classes of citizens for electoral gain.
• The Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The MCC is designed to ensure a level playing field. CJP’s rigorous complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Ashwini Kumar Choubey highlight how the misuse of government machinery and the making of communal appeals—under the guise of “national security”—violate the spirit of “free and fair elections.”
• Constitutional Mandates: Articles 14 & 15: These articles mandate that the State cannot discriminate against citizens. Using welfare schemes as a “reward” or a “threat” for voting patterns is a direct subversion of the right to equality.
• Article 21: The right to live with dignity is compromised when voters are intimidated into submission through the threat of economic deprivation, physical harm, or state-sanctioned demonisation.

Conclusion

The interventions of 2025 demonstrate that the battle for India’s democracy is increasingly being fought in the arena of public discourse. When elected representatives and political leaders feel emboldened to use “exterminatory politics,” “political extortion,” or “hate propaganda” as campaign tools, the role of civil society as a constitutional vanguard becomes more critical than ever. CJP’s year-long campaign has consistently unmasked how communal dog-whistles and the weaponization of welfare are used to replace democratic choice with coercion.

CJP remains dedicated to the principle that public welfare schemes—funded by taxpayers—belong to the people, not to a political party. We believe that the secular foundation of our Constitution is not a mere suggestion but a mandatory framework for all political participation. Our documented cases from Bihar to Arunachal Pradesh, and from Delhi to Telangana, serve as a reminder that the pulpit of a campaign rally is subject to the rule of law.

As we move into 2026, CJP will continue to monitor, document, and intervene, even legally challenge every attempt to substitute constitutional justice with communal revenge, ensuring that the integrity of the Indian electoral mandate remains protected from the corruptive influence of hate.

Related:

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

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

The post CJP 2025: a constitutional vanguard against hate and coercion during elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By an opinion dated November 27, 2025, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, presided over by Member N.K. Nath, declared that Anowara Khatun is an Indian citizen, answering the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, in the negative.

The order brings to a close the said proceedings that originated over two decades ago and highlights persistent structural issues in Assam’s citizenship determination framework, particularly its impact on poor and marginalized women.

Team CJP Assam sits to discuss the case with Anowara Khatun and family outside their home in Assam

From IMDT to Foreigners’ Tribunal: A case born of institutional suspicion

Anowara’s case originated as far back as 2004, when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara referred her name under the now-defunct Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, alleging that she had illegally entered India between 1966 and 1971. The referral admitted that the “doubt” arose because she could not immediately produce documents during verification — a familiar and deeply flawed basis used against the poor and illiterate.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, Anowara’s case was mechanically transferred to Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara under the Foreigners Act, 1946, shifting the entire burden of proof onto her under Section 9.

Who is Anowara Khatun?

Anowara Khatun was born and raised in Kharda Manikpur (also recorded as Kharija Manikpur), Goalpara, Assam. She is the daughter of Late Alom Shah, a lifelong resident of Assam, and Korimon Nessa, and the granddaughter of Late Rose Mamud Shah. Documentary evidence showed that her father, Alom Shah, purchased land in Assam in 1947, 1952, and 1959. His name, along with that of Anowara’s mother, appears in the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, demonstrating their presence in Assam prior to the relevant cut-off dates.

Anowara studied up to Lower Primary level at Majgaon LP School, married Saiful Hussain of Mamudpur Part-I, and later settled in Sidhabari Part-II, where she has lived for decades. She first voted in 1985, and her name consistently appears in electoral rolls for 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, and 2015.

Despite this, she was eventually marked a “D-Voter”, stripped of voting rights, and subjected to relentless suspicion — a fate shared by thousands of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam.

Her personal circumstances make the cruelty of this process even more stark. Anowara suffers from mental imbalance and chronic health issues, lives in extreme poverty, has no proper bedding, and struggles daily for food and medical care. She and her husband survive on daily labour, entirely unequipped to navigate a legal system designed to break the poor.

CJP Steps In: Building a case where the State saw only suspicion

Recognising the grave injustice involved, Assam Team CJP took up Anowara’s case, committing to pursue it despite the enormous evidenti and procedural hurdles.

On behalf of Anowara, Advocate Ashim Mubarak, assisted by Advocate Shofior Rahman, and supported by CJP’s para-legal and community teams, presented a meticulous defence before the Tribunal.

Four defence witnesses were examined:

• DW-1: Anowara Khatun herself
• DW-2: Her brother, Kurban Ali
• DW-3: Her sister, Ambia Bibi
• DW-4: The Land Record Assistant, Matia Revenue Circle

CJP placed before the Tribunal a comprehensive documentary trail, including:

• Three registered land sale deeds executed in 1947, 1952, and 1959 in her father’s name
• Electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, recording her parents as Indian voters
• Subsequent voter lists (1979, 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, 2015) showing uninterrupted electoral presence
• Jamabandi and citha records proving inheritance of ancestral land in Assam

The Tribunal explicitly accepted that the land deeds were over 30 years old and required no further proof, and relied heavily on the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 to establish her father’s citizenship.

Even when Anowara’s deteriorating mental health made her continued presence difficult, CJP persisted with evidence and arguments, ensuring the case did not collapse under procedural cruelty.

Anowara Khatun with her husband and CJP Team Assam outside her home in Assam

The Tribunal’s Finding: Citizenship proven, suspicion rejected

After a detailed appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that:

• Alom Shah, Anowara’s father, was conclusively established as an Indian citizen, present in Assam since at least 1947
• Anowara, being his daughter, cannot be treated as a foreigner
• The state failed to rebut the overwhelming documentary record

The reference was therefore answered in the negative, and Anowara Khatun was declared not a foreigner, with directions issued to inform the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara.

Anowara Khatun holding up the FT order outside her home in Assam

A system designed to break the poor

Anowara Khatun’s case is not an aberration — it is a window into a larger architecture of state oppression. Instruments such as D-Voter tagging, Foreigners’ Tribunals, NRC, detention camps, “push-backs,” the Passport Act, SR and SIR exercises operate together to produce statelessness among workers, farmers, minorities, and Bengali-speaking communities.

Assam has long served as a pilot project for citizenship stripping, but the same logic is now visible across India. Behind this bureaucratic machinery lie document-wars, midnight detentions, suicides, custodial deaths, and families torn apart — all in the name of identifying “Bangladeshis.”

India’s constitutional promise of secularism, dignity, and equality collapses when impoverished citizens are tortured for papers they were never equipped to preserve.

CJP’s Role: Law as resistance

At a time when the Chief Minister of Assam openly targets Muslims, spreads communal suspicion, and legitimises exclusion under the rhetoric of “illegal migration,” CJP continues to fight case by case, restoring citizenship through evidence, law, and persistence.

In the first week of February, members of Team CJP — State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh, DVM Goalpara Zeshmin Sultana, Community Volunteer Hasunir Rahman, and Office Driver Ashikul Hussain — stood by Anowara and her family, reaffirming that justice is not charity, but resistance.

Anowara Khatun’s victory is not just hers. It is a reminder that citizenship in India is increasingly something the poor must fight to prove, and that without sustained legal intervention, countless others will disappear into detention camps, deportation attempts, or silent graves.

This case stands as another testament to what determined legal solidarity can achieve — even in the face of a system designed to erase.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

Communal Dog-Whistles in an Election Season: CJP flags hate speech by BJP’s Ameet Satam to election authorities

From Hate Speech to State Action: How communal vigilantism at Malabar Hill continues unchecked

The post From D-Voter Tagging to Citizenship Declaration: Anowara Khatun’s case before the foreigners’ tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Throughout the year, CJP successfully challenged problematic impugned broadcasts of several leading news channels—including Zee News, India TV, Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, and Times Now Navbharat—for airing content that relied on presumptive narratives, unverified claims, and polarising themes. These interventions led to landmark decisions where the regulator (NBDSA) ordered the removal of offensive content, issued formal warnings, and released advisories to broadcasters regarding the sensitive framing of religious and communal issues.

A notable shift in 2025 was CJP’s focus on the “war-like” rhetoric and inflammatory tickers used during coverage of sensitive geopolitical events, such as the reported India-Pakistan tensions, and domestic flashpoints. By documenting these violations in real-time, CJP not only secured apologies and content deletions but also pushed for a more robust accountability framework.

The following CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker provides a detailed, channel-wise breakdown of the complaints filed by CJP and the subsequent decisions rendered by the NBDSA to uphold broadcasting standards.

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA Interventions Tracker

CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions: a year of ensuring accountability in media reporting

1.  Landmark decisions delivered in 2025

The year began with a series of significant decisions from the NBDSA on complaints CJP had filed regarding broadcasts that sought to communalise sensitive domestic and international issues.

• Zee News: the “Budaun Encounter” case

On January 27, 2025, the NBDSA delivered a pivotal order regarding a broadcast aired on March 20, 2024. The show, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल?” focused on a tragic criminal incident involving two brothers.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP argued that the anchor, Pradeep Bhandari, repeatedly used the term “Talibani-style murder” and framed the entire debate around the religious identity of the accused. The show suggested a broader conspiracy rooted in religion rather than treating the incident as an individual criminal act.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority ruled that the broadcast violated the Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime. The NBDSA noted that linking a crime to a specific religion or using extremist terminology like “Talibani” without evidence was inflammatory.
• Action taken: A formal warning was issued to Zee News on January 27, 2025. The channel was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and ensure the order was disseminated to all member broadcasters as a corrective measure.

• Times Now Navbharat: communalising the Israel-Hamas conflict

Also on January 27, 2025, the NBDSA ruled on two segments from October 16, 2023 on theme “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”

• Fact of the complaint: CJP stated that how the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, portrayed Indian Muslims and opposition leaders supporting the Palestinian cause as “Hamas sympathisers.” The broadcast used leading questions to suggest that religious ties in India were fueling support for global terrorism.
• The NBDSA decision: The regulator found that the broadcaster had exceeded its limits by targeting a particular community. The NBDSA observed that the debates conflated political support for Palestine with support for a banned entity (Hamas), thereby creating prejudice.
• Action taken: The NBDSA issued a formal warning for violating neutrality and ordered the immediate removal of the content within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: addressing communal tones in cultural debates

• Facts of the complaint: On September 9, 2024, CJP filed a complaint against the show “Desh Ka Mood Meter: सनातन संस्कृति…कट्टरपंथियों के लिए सॉफ्ट टारगेट?” which aired on September 2, 2024. The program was flagged for its inflammatory framing of issues related to Sanatan culture and its portrayal of certain groups as “extremists” targeting religious sentiments. CJP argued that the broadcast lacked objectivity and used a sensitive cultural subject to build a polarising narrative.
• NBDSA Action: Regarding this intervention, the NBDSA delivered its decision on December 3, 2025, directing the broadcaster to remove the content from its website, YouTube channel, and all other digital links within 7 days.

Times Now Navbharat: caution against presumptive Madrasa narratives

• Moreover, CJP intervened on August 26, 2024, concerning two segments aired on August 19, 2024: “Sankalp Rashtra Nirman Ka: कराची का लिटरेचर..भारत के मदरसों में क्या कर रहा?” and “Rashtravad: भारत का मदरसा…पाकिस्तान का सिलेबस?”. The complaints cantered on the unverified nature of the claims that literature from Karachi was being taught in Indian Madrasas, which CJP argued contributed to the stigmatisation of religious educational institutions.

• NBDSA decision/action: In its decision dated June 9, 2025, the NBDSA decided to close the complaint but concluded with a strong advisory observation. The Authority emphasised that anchors must be significantly more cautious when framing programs involving religious or communal issues, particularly when claims are unverified. Furthermore, the NBDSA warned that broadcasters should strictly avoid presumptive narratives that have the potential to foster feelings of hatred or ill-will toward any community.

C.)  India TV: the Bahraich violence reporting

On September 25, 2025, a decision was reached regarding the show “Coffee Par Kurukshetra: यूपी में पत्थरबाजों की फौज कहां से आई? UP Bahraich Violence | CM Yogi” (aired October 15, 2024), which covered communal violence in Bahraich, UP.

• Fact of the complaint: CJP pointed out in its complaint that the channel used the inflammatory headline “Army of stone-pelters” and conducted a one-sided debate that demonised a specific community as “outsiders” and “aggressors” without providing space for a neutral or dissenting view.
• The NBDSA decision: The Authority found that the channel failed to maintain objectivity. It ruled that the broadcast was likely to incite communal hatred and was not a balanced representation of the facts on the ground.
• Action taken: The NBDSA ordered the removal of the broadcast from the channel’s website and YouTube within 7 days.

1.  CJP’s 2025 NBDSA interventions

• Network 18 (News18 MP Chhattisgarh)

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Theme of the show: “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal | India Pak War,” dated May 7, 2025.

• Facts of the complaint: On May 14, 2025, CJP moved a formal complaint against News18 MP Chhattisgarh regarding its May 7, 2025, broadcast titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal.” The complaint alleges that the channel grossly misreported the death of Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a respected religious scholar and teacher from Poonch, Jammu and Kashmir, by labeling him a “most-wanted terrorist” and “top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander” killed in a purported airstrike.

• However, official statements from the Poonch Police and independent fact-checkers confirmed that Iqbal was a civilian who died due to cross-border shelling and had no links to militancy. This broadcast constitutes a severe breach of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics, specifically the principles of accuracy, impartiality, objectivity, and the right to privacy.

• CJP demanded an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal unconditional apology to the deceased’s family, and the permanent removal of the defamatory content from all digital platforms to redress the significant moral and journalistic failure. 

• Action Taken: Response was received from the channel, video removed and apology rendered by the channel.

• ABP News

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Title/Theme of the show: “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट” Dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of complaint: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against ABP News for broadcasting misleading visuals during its May 8, 2025, segment titled “India Pakistan War Update.” The channel allegedly aired four-year-old footage of Israel’s Iron Dome system from 2021, falsely presenting it as real-time evidence of Indian air defences intercepting a drone attack in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

• This misrepresentation, identified by independent fact-checkers like Alt News, constitutes a severe violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality. By prioritising sensationalism over due diligence during a period of heightened national anxiety, the broadcast risked inciting public panic and glorifying military violence through fabricated success.

• Furthermore, the report disregarded specific Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of disinformation. CJP argues that such reckless journalism compromises national security and erodes public trust in mainstream media. Consequently, the organisation demands an immediate on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology from the channel, and the permanent removal of all contentious content from digital platforms to prevent further circulation of this disinformation.

• Aaj Tak

Complaint Date: May 14, 2025

Title/Theme of the show: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi]” dated May 9, 2025

• Facts: On May 14, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Aaj Tak for broadcasting misrepresented and sensationalised content regarding “Operation Sindoor.” On May 9, senior anchors Anjana Om Kashyap and Shweta Singh presented footage claiming to show a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer and an “all-around attack” on Lahore and Karachi. These segments utilised the sensational headline: “पाकिस्तान पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान.”

• Technical verification revealed a systemic failure in journalistic due diligence. Specifically, on May 7, the channel aired visuals of seven missiles allegedly being launched in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Reverse image searches confirmed this footage was actually from a Sputnik Armenia report dated October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The Israeli Air Force’s official records further corroborated the origin of the clips.

• NDTV

Complaint Date: 15.05.2025

Theme/Title of the Show: “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू” dated May 8, 2025

• Facts of the complaint: On May 15, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint against NDTV regarding its May 8 broadcast titled “India-Pakistan Tension: India Attacks Pakistan Breaking.” The complaint alleges that NDTV aired visuals falsely depicting a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. However, independent fact-checkers, including Alt News, established that the footage was actually a four-year-old video from 2021 showing Israel’s Iron Dome system.

• CJP asserted, in its complaint, that this constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards, specifically breaching principles of impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. By presenting recycled foreign footage as real-time military action without due diligence, the channel disseminated dangerous disinformation during a sensitive national security crisis.

• Further it was argued that “this irresponsible brand of journalism” not only misled the public but also violated Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) advisories against real-time reporting of defines operations and the spread of misinformation. Consequently, CJP demands that NDTV issue a prominent on-air corrigendum, a formal public apology, and immediately remove all related digital content from its platforms. The organisation emphasised that such lapses can provoke mass panic and compromise national security, necessitating urgent corrective action to restore journalistic integrity.

• Times Now Navbharat

Complaint Date: May 15, 2025

Theme/Title of show: “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India]” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 15, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint against Times Now Navbharat regarding a May 9 broadcast titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’.” The channel aired visuals allegedly showing a Pakistani air attack being foiled by Indian air defines systems in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan; however, fact-checking established that the video was actually four-year-old footage sourced from a 2021 YouTube upload by NSFchannel, likely depicting Israel’s Iron Dome.

• The complaint highlights that the footage was presented with a tone of real-time urgency and lacked any disclaimers or source identification, creating a false narrative of active military escalation. This broadcast constitutes a gross violation of the NBDSA Code of Ethics—specifically regarding accuracy, impartiality, and neutrality—and disregards the MIB advisory dated April 25, 2025, which prohibits real-time reporting of defines operations and the dissemination of disinformation.

• India TV

Complaint Date: May 16, 2025

Title/Theme: “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK” dated May 9, 2025.

• Facts: On May 9, 2025, India TV broadcasted a segment titled “Pakistan Drone Destroyed in Rajasthan: राजस्थान के रामगढ़ में गगराया गया पागकस्तानी ड्रोन [Pakistani drone shot down in Ramgarh, Rajasthan] IND Vs PAK.” The complaint filed before NBDSA on 16.05.2025 highlighted that the channel used a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome Air Defence System (originally published on May 11, 2021, by @NSFchannel) to represent a current drone intercept in Jaisalmer. The broadcast lacked any “file footage” disclaimer, creating a false narrative of real-time military success.
• Consequently, on May 29, 2025, the channel admitted the error, removed all digital content, and issued a public apology.

The 2025 Media Sentinel: CJP’s Crusade against ‘Digital Hate’

This, in 2025, continuing with its systematic monitoring and well-researched interventions, CJP emerged in the vanguard against the digital-ised hate era of Indian television. By moving beyond isolated protests and focusing on the systemic weaponisation of newsroom aesthetics, CJP urged the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) to deliver its most significant set of accountability orders to date.

The year 2025 has established that communal polarisation is no longer a “risk-free” revenue model for broadcasters. Through sustained legal interventions, CJP has turned the NBDSA from a silent regulator into an active arbiter of truth. Broadcasters are now on notice: every sensational ticker, unverified “war” clip, and biased panel will be documented, challenged, and eventually dismantled in the interest of constitutional harmony.

Related

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

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

Human Rights Day 2024: CJP’s Fight for Access to Justice in India

The post CJP’s 2025 Hate Watch: leading the fight for accountability in the digital media appeared first on SabrangIndia.