– 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.

But another pattern has emerged alongside these flashpoints: ordinary citizens refusing to comply.

From Kotdwar and Nainital in Uttarakhand to Jaipur in Rajasthan, small acts of resistance are creating ripples that extend far beyond their immediate geography. These moments do not erase communal tension — but they complicate the narrative of inevitability.

Kotdwar: Republic Day, a shop sign, and a national ripple

On January 26, 2026, as reported by The Hindu (February 9, 2026), patriotic music echoed across Kotdwar’s Jhanda Chowk when a confrontation unfolded outside “Baba School Dress and Matching Centre,” a decades-old garment shop run by 71-year-old Wakeel Ahmed.

A group of young men demanded that Ahmed remove the word “Baba” from his signboard, claiming that Kotdwar — associated with Baba Siddhabali — did not permit a Muslim trader to use the term. Mobile phone videos later circulated widely, showing Ahmed visibly shaken.

The incident may have remained another viral moment of coercion had Deepak Kumar, a local gym owner, not intervened. When asked to identify himself, he responded: “My name is Mohammad Deepak.” The addition of “Mohammad” was deliberate — a symbolic rejection of rigid identity boundaries.

What followed, again reported by The Hindu, was swift escalation. An FIR was filed against Deepak, reportedly based on a complaint from members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. His gym memberships collapsed from 150 to 15. A crowd gathered days later outside his premises raising slogans. Police were deployed. His family reportedly received threats.

Yet this is where the story altered course.

As reported by The Indian Express, CPI(M) MP John Brittas publicly purchased a gym membership in solidarity. Fifteen Supreme Court senior advocates followed, each contributing Rs 10,000 as annual membership fees — deliberately structured as subscriptions, not donations, because Deepak refused direct financial aid. More than 20 lawyers pledged pro bono legal assistance.

Public figures such as Kaushik Raj, Raju Parulekar, Ramchandra Guha, Swara Bhaskar and Teesta Setalvad amplified calls for support.

A local confrontation thus transformed into a national solidarity campaign.

The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), in its January 2026 report Excluded, Targeted & Displaced, contextualised such incidents within a broader pattern of communal narratives, economic boycotts, and displacement in Uttarakhand since 2021. Kotdwar was not an aberration — it was part of a documented trajectory.

And yet, the ripple effect from Deepak’s intervention shows that the story does not end with targeting. It can expand into resistance.

Nainital: “Why are you beating everyone?”

In April 2025, Nainital witnessed unrest following the arrest of a 72-year-old man accused of molestation. According to reporting by The Hindu, although the accused was swiftly detained, protests escalated into vandalism of Muslim-owned shops and attacks on property.

Amid the chaos, Shaila Negi — daughter of a traders’ association office-bearer — confronted a swelling mob. In a viral video, she asks: “Sabko kyun maar rahe ho?” (“Why are you beating everyone?”).

She refused to shut her shop during a bandh called against Muslims.

The backlash, she later told The Hindu, included online rape threats and abuse. But her action inserted dissent into what might otherwise have appeared as unanimous anger.

The importance of her intervention lies not in scale but in rupture — she broke the logic of collective punishment.

Purola: When an 83-year-old lawyer said “no”

The summer of 2023 in Purola saw boycott calls and intimidation after allegations involving two youths of different faith in a love jihad case. Posters marked Muslim homes. Tenants were pressured to vacate. Protests reportedly involved groups including the Bajrang Dal.

As documented in The Hindu’s coverage and referenced in the APCR report, fear spread, and some minority families left. But 83-year-old lawyer Dharam Singh Negi refused to evict his Muslim tenants despite threats and posters pasted outside his own house. His defiance reportedly encouraged other landlords to stand firm. This was not viral. It did not trend nationally. But it stabilised a town at a fragile moment.

Jaipur: Public reversal of moral policing

On February 14, 2026, a public park in Jaipur became the setting for a confrontation that quickly travelled far beyond Rajasthan. Videos widely circulated showed a group of men, reportedly linked to the Bajrang Dal, approaching couples in the park on Valentine’s Day. Dressed in saffron scarves and carrying sticks, the men were seen demanding identification cards and questioning the legitimacy of the couples’ presence. Such scenes have, over the years, become almost ritualistic in parts of India, where fringe groups position themselves as defenders of culture against what they describe as Western influence.

Tingus from Bajrang Dal were asking for ID cards from couples.

People saw them and asked THEM for their ID cards.

All Bajrang Dal tingus started shivering.

This is gold stuff.pic.twitter.com/LNRw55gqZ0

— Jawaharlal Nehru (@PMNehru) February 14, 2026

What made this incident different, however, was the reaction it provoked. Instead of dispersing or complying quietly, the couples — joined by bystanders — began demanding identification from the vigilantes themselves. Voices in the video are heard asking under what authority the men were conducting checks. One individual insists on knowing their names and addresses and warns that he would take them to court. The dynamic of intimidation visibly shifted. What had begun as an attempt to assert moral authority turned into a public challenge to that very authority.

The exchange quickly escalated into a tense standoff, but the significance lay in the reversal. Moral policing typically operates through spectacle and psychological pressure — the presence of a group, symbolic attire, raised voices, and the implicit threat of escalation. Its power depends on the assumption that those targeted will feel embarrassed, cornered, or fearful. In Jaipur, that script collapsed. By demanding accountability, the public reframed the encounter as a legal question rather than a cultural one: who has the right to demand identification in a public park?

The viral circulation of the clip amplified this reversal. Social media users described the moment as an “UNO reverse,” but beneath the humour was a serious civic assertion. Instead of the now-familiar images of couples being chased or shamed, the video showed alleged vigilantes on the defensive, being questioned about their authority. The spectacle of humiliation, so often directed at young people celebrating Valentine’s Day, was replaced by a spectacle of resistance.

The Jaipur episode is important not merely as a viral moment but as an indicator of shifting public thresholds. Unlike instances in Kotdwar, Nainital, or Purola — where individuals initially stood almost alone — the Jaipur confrontation reflected collective, spontaneous pushback. It suggested a growing unwillingness among citizens, particularly younger urban residents, to concede public spaces to self-appointed moral enforcers. In doing so, it signalled that while intimidation may remain visible, compliance is no longer automatic.

The Pattern: From isolation to contagion

These incidents, taken together, reveal an emerging civic reflex:

• A gym owner interrupts harassment.
• Senior lawyers institutionalise solidarity.
• A woman challenges collective punishment.
• An elderly lawyer defies eviction pressure.
• Couples publicly question vigilante authority.

They are geographically scattered. They are politically unaffiliated. They are socially risky.

But they share one thing: they disrupt the perception of unanimity.

Communal polarisation often depends on silence. It thrives when intimidation goes uncontested. What these incidents demonstrate is that public dissent — even by one person — fractures that narrative.

The ripple from Deepak Kumar’s Republic Day intervention is especially instructive. His stand did not remain local. It catalysed legal networks, political support, and social media amplification. It reassured others that resistance might not mean isolation.

Jaipur shows what happens when that reassurance spreads.

None of these incidents eliminate structural tensions. None reverse policy shifts or ideological mobilisation. The APCR report makes clear that displacement and targeting remain real concerns in parts of Uttarakhand.

But they demonstrate something equally real: civic resilience.

They show that:

• Names cannot be monopolised.
• Crime cannot justify collective blame.
• Landlords need not obey mobs.
• Vigilantes can be questioned.
• Solidarity can be structured, visible, and contagious.

Hate travels quickly — through slogans, rumours, and viral clips. But courage travels too.

And increasingly, it is not travelling alone.

Related:

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Public Resistance and Democratic Assertion: India through protests, 2025

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

The post Against the Script of Hate: How ordinary citizens are reclaiming public space appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protest in 2025 was neither exceptional nor episodic. It formed part of the routine functioning of a democratic society in which citizens repeatedly turned to collective action when institutional mechanisms proved inadequate or unresponsive. From workers and farmers to students, environmental defenders, and religious minorities, different groups asserted their claims through peaceful assemblies, strikes, marches, sit-ins, and, at times, confrontational resistance.

Farmers returned to the streets years after the repeal of the farm laws because core demands remained unaddressed. Workers mobilised because new labour regimes threatened job security and social protection. Students protested because universities were being reshaped without consultation, autonomy, or academic rationale. Indigenous communities resisted development projects that endangered land, forests, rivers, and cultural survival. Women-led care workers demanded recognition of labour that the state depends upon but refuses to formalise. LGBTQIA+ communities marched not for symbolic inclusion, but for tangible civil rights denied through legislative inaction.

Equally significant was the geographic spread of these protests. They were not confined to metropolitan centres or politically oppositional states. Demonstrations occurred in border regions, hill states, conflict zones, university towns, industrial belts, forest villages, and district headquarters. This dispersion reflected a deeper reality: that the pressures producing dissent were systemic rather than sectoral.

The State’s response formed a critical backdrop to these mobilisations. Increasingly, protest was governed through prohibitory orders, preventive detentions, mass registration of FIRs, denial of permissions, barricading of public spaces, internet restrictions, and aggressive policing. Laws originally framed as exceptional—such as national security statutes or public safety legislation—were routinely invoked against demonstrators, students, and organisers. The language of governance shifted decisively from negotiation to control.

This year-ender documents these protests chronologically, treating each mobilisation as a distinct political event rooted in its own context. It does not seek to romanticise dissent or frame protest as crisis, but to record how public action functioned as a means of negotiation, contestation, and constitutional engagement throughout the year.

January 2025: Fragmented beginnings, shared democratic anxiety

1. Universities push back against the draft UGC regulations, 2025

January opened with Indian universities acting as early warning systems for democratic erosion. Students and faculty across campuses mobilised against the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, which proposed fundamental changes to the governance of higher education. The regulations sought to centralise power in the hands of the Union government by altering Vice-Chancellor appointment processes, diluting academic qualifications, and legitimising the induction of non-academic ‘industry experts’ into university leadership.

Left-leaning Students’ Federation of India (SFI) organised marches, classroom boycotts, public readings of the draft regulations, and discussions highlighting how these changes threatened institutional autonomy. Faculty associations warned that the proposals undermined peer review, disciplinary expertise, and the principle of universities as self-governing communities. The protests framed higher education as a constitutional public good linked to equality and freedom of thought, rather than as a market-driven enterprise.

2. Trade Unions place economic justice at the centre of the budget debate

Parallel to campus mobilisations, organised labour intervened in the Union Budget process. Ten Central Trade Unions (CTUs) submitted a joint memorandum to the Union Finance Minister ahead of the 2025–26 Budget. The memorandum foregrounded unemployment, inflation, contractualisation of labour, and the erosion of social security.

Workers demanded the filling of vacant public sector posts, expansion of MGNREGA to 200 days with enhanced wages, introduction of an urban employment guarantee, restoration of the Old Pension Scheme, and a halt to privatisation and disinvestment. The memorandum underscored that fiscal policy choices have direct constitutional implications for the right to livelihood and social justice.

3. Farmers reclaim Republic Day as a site of constitutional assertion

On January 26, farmers once again occupied public space through tractor rallies organised by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha across northern and central India. The rallies reiterated unresolved demands following the repeal of the farm laws, including a legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price, loan waivers, compensation for families of deceased protesters, and withdrawal of criminal cases against farmer leaders.

By mobilising on Republic Day, farmers deliberately linked their demands to constitutional promises of dignity, equality, and economic justice. The presence of tractors in urban centres challenged narratives of growth that marginalise agrarian distress.

February 2025: Labour, pensions, and the crisis of secure employment

1. Nationwide government employees’ protests against the new pension scheme

Throughout February, government employees across states organised coordinated demonstrations demanding the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). Rallies, organised by 10 central trade unions and independent sectoral federations and associations, were held in state capitals, district headquarters, and outside secretariats, with participation from teachers, clerical staff, engineers, health workers, and employees of public sector undertakings. Protesters argued that the New Pension Scheme (NPS), which links retirement benefits to market performance, fundamentally undermines the principle of social security.

Many participants highlighted that deductions from salaries over decades no longer translated into guaranteed post-retirement income. Retired employees spoke publicly about sharp reductions in expected pensions, while younger workers expressed anxiety about their future in the absence of defined benefits. The protests framed pensions not as a fiscal burden, but as deferred wages and a constitutional obligation of the welfare state.

State governments responded unevenly. While some engaged in negotiations, others invoked prohibitory orders and restricted assemblies. The persistence of these protests throughout the month underscored the depth of discontent among salaried public servants.

2. Trade Union mobilisation against the four Labour Codes

February also saw intensified mobilisation against the four Labour Codes passed earlier but yet to be fully implemented. Central trade unions organised gate meetings, factory-level demonstrations, and citywide rallies in industrial belts and banking centres. Workers argued that the Codes diluted protections relating to job security, union recognition, collective bargaining, and workplace safety.

Union leaders warned that provisions allowing longer working hours, simplified retrenchment processes, and reduced inspection mechanisms would institutionalise precarity. The protests connected labour law reform to broader economic trends—privatisation, contractualisation, and informalisation—arguing that the Codes formalised employer dominance.

Police presence was heavy in several cities, and union leaders were briefly detained during demonstrations. Despite this, protests continued across the month, signalling organised labour’s refusal to accept the Codes without substantive revision.

3. Education sector protests in Kerala against draft UGC Regulations

In Kerala, February witnessed sustained protests by teachers and academics against the Draft UGC Regulations. Under the banner of the All India Save Education Committee, faculty members organised marches, seminars, and symbolic actions including the public burning of draft copies. These protests explained in detail how the regulations threatened academic autonomy by centralising appointments and diluting qualification norms.

Speakers at the protest warned that universities would be transformed into administratively controlled entities, undermining peer review and disciplinary expertise. The protests framed education as a constitutional instrument of social justice rather than a market-driven service. The sustained nature of the protests reflected deep concern within the academic community.

4. Samsung workers continue sit-in against union suppression in Tamil Nadu 

Workers at Samsung India Electronics Limited’s Kancheepuram facility continued a sit-in protest that entered its fifteenth day on February 19, following the suspension of three office-bearers of the Samsung India Workers Union (SIWU). The union alleged that the suspensions were retaliatory and aimed at weakening collective bargaining.

The protest centred on two demands: reinstatement of the suspended union leaders and an end to the company’s reliance on contract labour. Workers accused the management of acting without due process, including suspending leaders without issuing show-cause notices.

Family members of workers joined the protest, underscoring the broader social impact of the labour dispute. The union announced plans to escalate the agitation if negotiations failed, including serving a strike notice.

The standoff highlighted ongoing tensions in India’s manufacturing sector over unionisation, labour rights, and state labour department intervention.

March 2025: Gendered labour and environmental resistance

1. Anganwadi and ASHA workers’ indefinite secretariat protest in Kerala

March marked one of the most sustained women-led protests of the year. Thousands of Anganwadi and ASHA workers gathered outside the Kerala Secretariat, launching an indefinite sit-in. These workers—central to nutrition delivery, maternal health, vaccination, and disease surveillance—demanded minimum wages of ₹21,000, recognition as government employees, pension benefits, and retirement security.

Protesters detailed long working hours, expanding responsibilities, and stagnant honorariums that failed to reflect their workload. Many women spoke of debt, health issues, and the absence of social protection despite decades of service. The protest highlighted how the welfare state relies on feminised labour while refusing formal recognition.

Negotiations with the government remained inconclusive, and police barricading restricted movement around protest sites. The sit-in continued through the month, becoming a focal point of labour resistance.

2. University of Hyderabad students defend the Kancha Gachibowli Forest

Students at the University of Hyderabad organised sustained protests against the proposed auction of the Kancha Gachibowli forest for commercial development. Marches, sit-ins, poster campaigns, and night-long vigils framed the forest as an ecological commons vital to the city’s environmental health.

Protesters demanded transparency, environmental impact assessments, and public consultation. They warned that urban expansion without ecological safeguards would exacerbate climate vulnerability. The protests linked environmental protection to democratic planning and the right to the city.

April 2025: Preventive Laws and the Criminalisation of Dissent

1. Statewide Mobilisation Against the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill

April saw widespread protests across Maharashtra against the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill. Civil liberties organisations, lawyers’ collectives, farmers’ unions, student groups, and political parties organised district-level marches and public meetings. Protesters warned that the Bill’s vague definitions would enable preventive detention of activists without adequate judicial oversight.

Legal experts explained provisions clause by clause at protest sites, transforming demonstrations into spaces of constitutional education. The protests stressed that normalising preventive laws erodes the presumption of innocence and chills democratic participation.

Despite heavy police presence and restrictions on assemblies, protests continued throughout the month, forcing public debate on the Bill’s implications.

May 2025: Indigenous Land, Development, and Militarisation

1. Protests against the Siang upper multipurpose project in Arunachal Pradesh

Indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh organised continuous protests against the proposed 11,000 MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project. Under the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum, villagers held sit-ins, road blockades, and village assemblies opposing displacement and ecological destruction.

Resistance intensified following the deployment of armed forces to facilitate survey work. Protesters described the move as intimidation, particularly in the absence of free, prior, and informed consent under the Forest Rights Act. Women led many of the protests, asserting custodianship over land, rivers, and cultural heritage.

The movement framed development as a political choice rather than a neutral necessity, demanding community consent as a binding requirement.

2. Tamil Nadu sugarcane farmers demand higher FRP and revival of SAP

Sugarcane farmers in Tamil Nadu held protests in Chennai demanding a Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) of ₹5,500 per tonne and the reinstatement of the State Advisory Price (SAP) by scrapping the revenue sharing formula introduced in 2018. The agitation was led by the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane Farmers Association (TNSFA), affiliated to the All India Kisan Sabha.

Farmers argued that the Union government’s announced FRP of ₹3,550 per tonne for the 2025 season was insufficient to cover rising input costs. They reiterated demands for implementation of the M.S. Swaminathan Commission’s recommendation of MSP at C2+50, warning that current pricing policies were accelerating the decline of sugarcane cultivation in the state.

The protest also highlighted long-pending dues of ₹1,217 crore owed by private sugar mills for procurements between 2013 and 2017. Farmers accused mills of delaying payments despite legal obligations under the Sugar Control Order, 1966, and demanded immediate disbursal of arrears.

Additionally, farmers called for the reopening of closed cooperative sugar mills, citing mismanagement and policy failures. They argued that reviving these mills would not only ensure fair procurement prices but also provide rural employment and stabilise the sugar economy in Tamil Nadu.

June 2025: Rights, Recognition, and the Limits of Constitutional Morality

1. Pride marches as claims to substantive citizenship

June 2025 marked a significant shift in the character of Pride marches across India. Held in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata, Chennai, Hyderabad, and several smaller cities, Pride this year unfolded in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriage, with the Court deferring responsibility to Parliament. This context fundamentally shaped the tone of the marches.

Participants framed Pride not as a celebration alone, but as a protest against legislative inertia. Placards, speeches, and manifestos articulated concrete demands: civil unions, inheritance and succession rights, joint adoption, medical decision-making authority, spousal benefits, and protection from discrimination in housing and employment. Protesters repeatedly emphasised that the absence of legal recognition translated into material precarity—particularly for queer persons estranged from natal families or excluded from informal social safety nets.

The marches also reflected generational differences within the movement. Older activists spoke of decades lost to criminalisation under Section 377 and warned against courts retreating from their role as protectors of minority rights. Younger participants highlighted intersections with caste, class, disability, and religion, arguing that queer exclusion compounds existing vulnerabilities.

Police presence was visible but restrained in most cities, though organisers reported heightened surveillance and bureaucratic hurdles in securing permissions. The marches collectively underscored a central contradiction: constitutional morality invoked in judgments remains hollow without legislative and administrative follow-through.

2. Mass mobilisation at Azad Maidan against Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill 

Thousands gathered at Mumbai’s Azad Maidan on June 30 to protest the proposed Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024, which critics described as a sweeping law aimed at curbing dissent. The protest brought together people’s movements, Left parties, and opposition formations under the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), marking one of the largest coordinated mobilisations against the Bill.

The demonstration was organised primarily by the CPI(M) and CPI, with participation from trade unions, student organisations, farmers’ groups, and civil liberties collectives. Leaders from the Shiv Sena (UBT), Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) attended, signalling a broad political consensus against the proposed legislation.

Addressing the gathering, CPI(M) state secretary Ajit Nawale characterised the protest as a decisive stand against what organisers viewed as an authoritarian expansion of state power. Protesters travelled from across Maharashtra, responding to calls to oppose provisions that allegedly allow for preventive action against vaguely defined threats to public order.

With the Bill expected to be tabled in the monsoon session of the Assembly, the mobilisation underscored growing concerns about legal frameworks that, according to critics, could be used to target activists, political opponents, and marginalised communities under the guise of public security.

July 2025: Mass Mobilisation and the Convergence of Long-Standing Struggles

1. Adivasi resistance to Forest Department overreach in Chhattisgarh

In July, Adivasi communities across Chhattisgarh intensified protests against forest department actions that curtailed Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Large rallies were held in Bastar, Surguja, Dantewada, and Kanker districts, drawing participation from village councils and grassroots organisations.

Protesters detailed how administrative circulars and evictions undermined Gram Sabha authority. Marches culminated in district headquarters, where memoranda were submitted demanding withdrawal of orders that violated statutory rights. The protests were marked by repeated assertions of the constitutional principle that development and conservation cannot proceed by dispossessing Indigenous communities.

Police monitored demonstrations closely, and in some areas, prohibitory orders were imposed. Despite this, mobilisation continued throughout the month, reflecting deep-rooted resistance to bureaucratic encroachment.

2. Nationwide Bharat Bandh of July 9

On July 9, a nationwide Bharat Bandh called jointly by Central Trade Unions (CTUs) and the Samyukta Kisan Morcha brought together workers and farmers in one of the largest coordinated actions of the year. Banking services, transport networks, coal mining operations, steel plants, and manufacturing units were disrupted across multiple states.

The bandh opposed the implementation of the four Labour Codes, privatisation of public sector undertakings, rising unemployment, and inflation. Protesters emphasised that economic policy was being formulated without democratic consultation, disproportionately burdening workers and small producers.

Heavy police deployment, detentions of union leaders, and prohibitory orders were reported in several cities. Nevertheless, participation remained significant, underscoring the scale of economic discontent.

3. Protests by terminated school staff in West Bengal

July also saw repeated marches by thousands of teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal who lost employment following judicial scrutiny of recruitment irregularities. Protesters described themselves as “untainted” and demanded differentiated accountability rather than blanket termination.

Demonstrations in Kolkata included long marches, sit-ins, and symbolic actions highlighting the human cost of administrative failure. Families spoke of financial distress, interrupted education of children, and social stigma. The protests raised difficult questions about governance failures and the limits of punitive institutional responses.

4. Bipartisan protests over arrest of Two Keralite nuns in Chhattisgarh 

Protests intensified in Kerala and New Delhi following the arrest of two Catholic nuns—Sister Vandana Francis and Sister Preeta Mary—at Durg railway station in Chhattisgarh on July 25, on charges of kidnapping, human trafficking, and forced conversion. The arrests were made following a complaint by a Bajrang Dal member, triggering widespread outrage among religious groups, civil society, and political leaders across party lines.

The protests assumed a rare bipartisan character, with Members of Parliament from both the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) publicly denouncing the arrests outside Parliament. Leaders alleged that the charges were fabricated and reflected a broader pattern of targeting minorities, while also criticising the role played by right-wing groups in precipitating police action.

As protests gathered momentum, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding justice for what he described as the “unfair incarceration” of the nuns. Senior leaders from Left parties, including Brinda Karat and Annie Raja, travelled to Chhattisgarh to engage with local authorities and affected families. Opposition leaders in Kerala linked the arrests to a wider climate of hostility toward Christians in BJP-ruled states.

The Union Minister of State for Minority Affairs stated that the matter was sub judice, while noting efforts by BJP leaders to engage with church authorities. Despite these assurances, protests continued, reflecting broader anxieties over religious freedom, misuse of criminal law, and the growing role of non-state actors in triggering arrests related to alleged conversions.

August 2025: Electoral Integrity, Labour Precarity, and Agrarian Anxiety

1. Protests over electoral roll revisions and voter deletions

August 2025 saw sustained and coordinated protests across Delhi, Maharashtra, Bihar, Karnataka, Telangana, and West Bengal over alleged irregularities in electoral roll revisions. Opposition parties, civil society groups, student organisations, and independent election watchdogs mobilised demonstrations outside offices of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and district election authorities.

The immediate trigger for these protests was the publication of revised electoral rolls in several constituencies that showed large-scale deletions of voters, particularly from urban poor settlements, minority-dominated neighbourhoods, migrant worker colonies, and informal housing clusters. Protesters argued that many deletions were carried out without due notice, verification, or accessible grievance redress mechanisms.

Demonstrations included marches, sit-ins, submission of memoranda, and symbolic actions such as mock voter registration drives to highlight procedural opacity. Legal activists addressed gatherings, explaining how disenfranchisement—whether intentional or through administrative negligence—directly undermines the basic structure of electoral democracy.

Police responses varied by region. In Delhi and Mumbai, heavy barricading and preventive detentions were reported, while in smaller towns protests were dispersed citing prohibitory orders. The protests foregrounded electoral integrity as a constitutional concern rather than a partisan issue.

2. Prolonged agitations by sanitation and municipal workers

Across several cities in August, sanitation workers intensified protests against privatisation, contractualisation, and delayed wages. In Chennai, Hyderabad, Gurugram, and parts of Uttar Pradesh, municipal workers staged sit-ins outside civic offices, undertook hunger strikes, and halted sanitation services for limited periods.

Workers detailed chronic issues: employment through contractors despite performing perennial civic functions, absence of social security benefits, hazardous working conditions, and lack of compensation for occupational injuries. Many protesters belonged to marginalised caste communities, underlining the intersection of caste and labour precarity.

Municipal authorities responded with threats of termination, police complaints, and selective negotiations. Arrests of protest leaders and forcible dispersal of sit-ins were reported in some cities. The protests highlighted the contradiction between celebrating cleanliness initiatives and eroding the rights of those who perform essential sanitation labour.

3. Farmers’ mobilisation against trade policy and import liberalisation

A joint platform of the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) and ten central trade unions across Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and parts of Maharashtra organised rallies in August opposing trade agreements and import policies perceived to expose Indian agriculture to volatile global markets. Tractor rallies, village-level meetings, and district marches were held to articulate concerns over declining crop prices and rising input costs.

Farmers warned that tariff reductions and import liberalisation disproportionately harm small and marginal cultivators while benefiting large agribusiness interests. Protest speeches frequently referenced the unresolved demands from earlier farmers’ movements, including legal guarantees for Minimum Support Price (MSP).

Police presence remained significant, particularly near state borders, reflecting continued state sensitivity to agrarian mobilisation.

4. Farmers push back against scrapping of import duty on Raw Cotton 

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) strongly condemned the Union government’s decision to scrap the 11% import duty on raw cotton between August 19 and September 30, 2025, a move notified by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). According to the CPI(M)-affiliated farmers’ organisation, the temporary removal of the duty would lower the price of imported cotton, thereby exerting downward pressure on domestic cotton prices at a crucial point in the agricultural cycle.

AIKS highlighted that the timing of the decision was particularly damaging, as cotton farmers across major producing regions had already completed sowing and incurred substantial input costs in anticipation of remunerative prices. With harvesting approaching, any decline in prices would directly impact farm incomes. Cotton-growing regions, the organisation noted, are already marked by chronic agrarian distress, indebtedness, and a history of farmer suicides, conditions that could be further aggravated by this policy shift.

The organisation also drew attention to what it described as a contradiction between the decision and the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech, in which assurances were made about safeguarding farmers’ interests. AIKS argued that India’s inability to protect its textile sector amid tariff measures imposed by the United States had resulted in domestic farmers bearing the burden of global trade pressures, despite being the weakest actors in the supply chain.

Citing data from the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), AIKS pointed out that cotton farmers were already receiving minimum support prices far below the C2+50 formula recommended by the Swaminathan Commission. The organisation further underscored the stark disparity between state support to cotton farmers in India and the United States, warning that continued concessions under external pressure could extend similar policy measures to other crops. AIKS called for a united nationwide agitation to compel the government to reverse the decision.

September 2025: Incarceration, representation, and regional discontent

1. Families of political prisoners protest prolonged undertrial detention

In September, families of activists and students incarcerated under stringent national security and anti-terror laws organised prolonged sit-ins and demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and in several state capitals. Many detainees had spent years in custody without commencement or completion of trial.

The protests were marked by testimonies from parents, spouses, and siblings who described the financial strain, psychological trauma, and social isolation caused by prolonged incarceration. Lawyers addressing the gatherings highlighted systemic issues: repeated denial of bail, delayed filing of chargesheets, and the normalisation of long-term undertrial detention.

Placards and speeches reframed the issue as one of constitutional rights rather than individual guilt or innocence. Police permitted the protests but maintained heavy surveillance, occasionally restricting movement citing security concerns.

2. Protests against media narratives and communalisation in Kashmir

In Srinagar and other parts of the Kashmir Valley, residents organised protests against national television channels accused of communalising incidents of violence and erasing local contexts. “Godi media hai hai!”- this is what a crowd of locals chanted today as they gathered around ABP News anchor Chitra Tripathi in Srinagar’s Lal Chowk during a protest to condemn the Pahalgam attack. Demonstrators gathered near press clubs and public squares, holding placards demanding ethical journalism and accountability.

These protests took place under intense surveillance, with movement restrictions imposed intermittently. Participants argued that misrepresentation in national media contributes to stigma, collective punishment, and further securitisation of civilian life in the region.

3. Intensification of the Ladakh movement for statehood and safeguards

September marked an escalation in the Ladakh movement demanding statehood and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule. Youth-led marches, hunger strikes, and shutdowns were organised across Leh and Kargil districts.

Protesters argued that prolonged central administration without elected representation had led to policy decisions taken without local consent, particularly regarding land, environment, and employment. Heavy security deployment, clashes, and reports of casualties deepened regional alienation and drew national attention to unresolved autonomy questions.

October 2025: Universities, autonomy, and administrative centralisation

1. Panjab University students’ shutdown over democratic deficit

In October, students at Panjab University enforced a complete shutdown of academic activities protesting delays in Senate elections and increasing centralisation of decision-making. Sit-ins, teach-ins, and marches were organised within and outside the campus.

Students argued that prolonged administrative control without elected bodies undermined institutional autonomy and student representation. Faculty members expressed solidarity, framing the issue as symptomatic of broader governance trends affecting public universities.

Police presence remained restrained, but university authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings against protest leaders. Similar, smaller protests were reported in other central universities, indicating a wider crisis of institutional democracy.

2. Dalit settlement demolished in Gurugram 

Residents of Premnagar Basti in Gurugram protested after large-scale demolitions razed most of the 45-year-old Dalit settlement. Families alleged forced evictions carried out despite legal protections and promises of rehabilitation.

The demolitions followed long-standing litigation initiated by local commercial interests. Protesters argued that the action violated constitutional protections and land acquisition laws.

Police action against protesting residents drew sharp criticism, reigniting debates over urban evictions and housing rights.

November 2025: Public health crisis, environmental breakdown, and faith under threat

1. Mass protests against lethal air pollution in North India

November 2025 saw sustained public protests across Delhi and the National Capital Region as air quality deteriorated to hazardous levels, with Air Quality Index readings remaining in the ‘severe’ category for extended periods. Residents, environmental groups, parents’ associations, and medical professionals mobilised protests demanding urgent state intervention to address the public health emergency.

Demonstrations were held outside government offices, pollution control bodies, and public squares. Protesters highlighted the failure of short-term emergency measures and criticised policy inertia despite recurring annual crises. Doctors and health experts participating in protests warned of irreversible harm to children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

Placards and public statements framed air pollution not as an environmental issue alone but as a violation of the right to life and health. Protesters demanded long-term structural solutions, including regulation of industrial emissions, vehicular pollution control, agricultural stubble management through state-supported alternatives, and accountability of enforcement agencies. Police presence remained visible but protests were largely peaceful, reflecting broad public consensus on the gravity of the crisis.

2. Flash protest at Lalbagh against Hebbal–Silk board tunnel project

On November 15, student and environmental collectives held a flash protest inside Bengaluru’s Lalbagh Botanical Gardens opposing the proposed 17-km twin tunnel road project between Silk Board and Hebbal. The protest was led by the All India Students Association (AISA) and Fridays For Future–Karnataka, who described the project as an expensive and environmentally hazardous intervention being pushed forward without adequate scrutiny or public consultation.

Protesters alleged that the Karnataka government was advancing the multi-crore tunnel project despite expert warnings and unresolved gaps in the Detailed Project Report (DPR). They highlighted that the estimated cost of the project—between ₹17,000 and ₹20,000 crore—would make it one of the most expensive transport infrastructure initiatives in the state. Activists questioned the prioritisation of such expenditure at a time when metro fares were being increased on the grounds of funding shortages, arguing that the tunnel would primarily benefit a limited section of private vehicle users.

A central concern raised during the protest was the absence of a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). According to the organisers, no comprehensive geological, hydrological, or biodiversity studies had been conducted, despite the tunnel passing beneath ecologically sensitive zones. Environmental groups warned that large-scale underground drilling could destabilise soil layers, disrupt groundwater flow, and worsen Bengaluru’s already severe flooding and drainage problems.

The protest also drew political attention, with Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, R. Ashok, accusing the Congress-led state government of damaging the environment in the name of development. Speaking at a separate event near Sankey Lake, he alleged that the project was proceeding without approvals from key departments, including the Environment, Archaeology, and Forest Departments. Together, the protests and political interventions highlighted growing public concern over transparency, environmental governance, and urban planning priorities in Bengaluru.

3. Workers’ and farmers’ protests mark five years of the 2020 Farmers’ Protest

On November 26, hundreds of thousands of workers and farmers across India participated in coordinated protests to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2020 farmers’ agitation. Rallies and demonstrations were reported in over 500 districts following a joint call by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) and Central Trade Unions (CTUs), making it one of the largest nationwide mobilisations of 2025.

The immediate trigger for the protests was the notification of the four Labour Codes on November 21, which trade unions opposed as anti-worker and detrimental to long-established labour protections. Workers from coal mines, railways, ports, refineries, textile mills, banks, and other sectors organised rallies, strikes, and workplace protests, with demonstrators in several locations burning copies of the labour code notifications as a symbolic rejection of the reforms.

Farmers joined the protests in large numbers, staging demonstrations at local, district, and state administrative headquarters in solidarity with workers and to press their own unresolved demands. SKM linked the mobilisation to the earlier farmers’ movement that forced the repeal of the three farm laws in 2021, while also highlighting the government’s failure to fulfil its commitment to provide a legal guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP), a key promise made at the time of the withdrawal of the protests.

The November 26 actions also carried constitutional significance, as the date coincides with Constitution Day. Protesters accused the BJP-led central government of undermining constitutional values through labour reforms, majoritarian politics, and policies that marginalise religious minorities. The participation of student unions, women’s organisations, agricultural workers, and civil society groups reflected a convergence of labour, agrarian, and democratic rights concerns across the country.

4. Goa mobilises against Coal Transportation corridors 

People’s movements in Goa, supported by the National Alliance of People’s Movements, organised mass protests against infrastructure projects facilitating coal transportation through the state. Protesters warned that rail, road, and port expansions threatened Goa’s ecology and livelihoods.

Demonstrations demanded the halting of port expansion, railway double-tracking, and denotification of rivers declared national waterways. Activists argued that public hearings had been ignored.

The Chalo Lohia Maidan protest highlighted sustained resistance to projects perceived as prioritising corporate interests over environmental protection.

December 2025: Workers’ rights, environmental resistance, and targeted violence

1. ASHAs, Anganwadi and midday meal workers’ day-and-night agitation in Hubballi 

December opened with a significant mobilisation of women workers in Hubballi, Karnataka, where hundreds of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), Anganwadi workers, and midday meal workers launched an indefinite day-and-night agitation outside the office of Union Minister Pralhad Joshi. Workers travelled from Vijayapura, Bagalkot, Belagavi, Gadag, Haveri, Dharwad, and Uttara Kannada districts to participate in the protest, converging at Chitaguppi Park adjacent to the minister’s office.

The protest was centred on long-pending demands for regularisation of services, improved honoraria, and recognition as workers rather than volunteers or part-time staff. Protest leaders highlighted that despite performing essential public health, nutrition, and education-related work, ASHAs and Anganwadi workers remain excluded from basic labour protections, social security benefits, and fair wages.

As negotiations with officials failed to yield immediate results, protesters spent the night in the open, continuing their agitation into the following day. Trade union leaders, including representatives from Akshara Dasoha Noukarara Sangha, CITU, and the Anganwadi Workers Association, addressed the gathering, framing the struggle as one for dignity of labour and gender justice. The agitation was suspended only after assurances were given by both State and Central Ministers, including an offer for dialogue in Delhi, underscoring the persistence required even to secure negotiations.

2. Violent clashes over Amera Coal Mine expansion in Surguja, Chhattisgarh 

On December 3, tensions escalated sharply in Chhattisgarh’s Surguja district as villagers protested against the proposed expansion of the Amera coal extension mine operated by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in Lakhanpur block. Residents alleged that attempts were being made to expand mining operations without lawful land acquisition, consent, or adequate compensation, threatening agricultural land, water sources, and residential areas.

When villagers attempted to prevent officials and workers from accessing the mine site, clashes broke out between protesters and police personnel deployed at the location. According to reports, villagers used sticks, axes, and slingshots, while police resorted to force to control the crowd. Around 40 police personnel sustained injuries, and several villagers were also hurt during the confrontation.

The protest reflected deep-seated anger over extractive projects proceeding without community consent, particularly in tribal and rural areas. Villagers demanded an immediate halt to mining activities until land acquisition was carried out lawfully and livelihood concerns were addressed. The incident highlighted the volatility of resource conflicts and the consequences of bypassing participatory decision-making processes.

3. Farmers’ ‘Rail Roko’ protest against Electricity (Amendment) Bill in Punjab 

On December 5, farmers and farm labourers in Punjab, under the banner of the Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (KMM), staged a statewide ‘symbolic rail roko’ agitation to protest the draft Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the installation of prepaid smart meters. Railway tracks were blocked at several locations, including near Amritsar, for a few hours.

Protesters argued that the proposed amendments would adversely affect the agriculture sector by increasing electricity costs and exposing farmers to market-driven tariff regimes. Farmer leaders accused the Centre of ignoring their concerns and warned that the policy would deepen agrarian distress. Several farmer leaders were reportedly detained by police ahead of the protest, though farmers continued to mobilise in large numbers.

The agitation was framed as part of a broader resistance to policy decisions perceived as undermining rural livelihoods. Farmer unions warned of escalating protests, including the removal of smart meters, if demands were not addressed.

4. Anganwadi workers’ statewide strikes in Andhra Pradesh and sit-ins in Tamil Nadu 

Between December 10 and 12, over one lakh Anganwadi workers in Andhra Pradesh went on a statewide strike, while workers in Tamil Nadu organised sit-ins and protests in Chennai demanding improved working conditions and recognition as full-time government employees. Clad in pink saris to symbolise unity, Anganwadi workers and helpers gathered in large numbers, raising slogans and submitting memoranda to authorities.

Key demands included twelve days of menstrual leave annually, twelve months of maternity leave, substantial pay hikes, travel allowances, and regularisation of services. Workers highlighted the contradiction of being classified as part-time employees while routinely working more than eight hours a day for meagre honoraria. Police removed protesters from protest sites in Chennai, underscoring the constrained space for collective bargaining.

The protests foregrounded gendered labour exploitation within state-run welfare schemes and drew attention to the emotional, physical, and economic toll on women workers delivering essential services.

5. Protests against threats to the Aravalli Hills in Rajasthan (December 23)

On December 23, protests intensified across Rajasthan against a new definition of the Aravalli hills accepted by the Supreme Court, which activists and Opposition leaders warned could leave over 90 per cent of the range vulnerable to mining and construction. Demonstrations were held in cities including Jodhpur, Udaipur, and Sikar, with protesters demanding environmental protection and review of the decision.

Clashes were reported in some locations, with police resorting to baton charges and detentions. Environmentalists, lawyers, and local communities argued that the revised definition threatened not only ecological balance but also the livelihoods and cultural sites of tribal and rural populations residing below the 100-metre elevation threshold.

The protests drew on decades-long histories of environmental resistance in the Aravalli region and framed the issue as a struggle to protect a fragile ecological heritage from renewed extractive pressures.

6. Kerala Protests After Attack on Children’s Christmas Carol Group 

Widespread protests erupted in Kerala after an alleged attack on a children’s Christmas carol group in Palakkad by an RSS-BJP worker. The incident, involving physical assault and damage to instruments, triggered condemnation from political parties and church authorities.

Youth organisation DYFI announced district-wide protest carols, framing the response as a defence of communal harmony. Political leaders across parties criticised attempts to justify the attack. Police arrested the accused, who was already facing charges under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act. The incident came amid heightened concern over communal violence in the state.

7. Protests against Christmas-time violence targeting Christian communities 

Between December 24 and 26, Christian communities and civil rights groups organised protests and solidarity gatherings across multiple cities in response to a wave of violence, intimidation, and disruptions targeting churches and worshippers during the Christmas period. Incidents included vandalism at Raipur’s Magneto Mall and disruptions of worship services in Jabalpur and Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar.

A prominent silent protest was held in Mumbai’s Goregaon West, organised by the Samvidhan Jagar Yatra Samiti and the Bombay Catholic Sabha. Participants held placards invoking constitutional values and freedom of religion, deliberately avoiding slogans to underscore the dignity and gravity of the protest.

Organisers described the attacks as part of a broader pattern threatening the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and worship. The protests demanded accountability, protection for religious minorities, and an end to impunity for perpetrators.

8. Women protest outside Delhi High Court over bail in Unnao Rape Case (December)

Women’s groups staged protests outside the Delhi High Court following its decision to grant conditional bail to former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. Protesters expressed fear for the survivor’s safety and criticised the suspension of sentence in a case involving grave violence.

The survivor and her family publicly voiced distress and loss of faith in the justice system, stating their intention to approach the Supreme Court. Demonstrators demanded accountability and reversal of the bail order.

Police issued warnings to disperse, but protests continued over several days. Women’s rights activists described the agitation as a response to systemic failures in protecting survivors of sexual violence.

Following sustained public pressure, the Central Bureau of Investigation announced it would challenge the bail order, underscoring the impact of protest on institutional responses.

9. Nationwide gig workers’ strike against unsafe work conditions

The year closed with escalating mobilisation by gig and platform workers across India. Following a digital protest on December 25 that saw tens of thousands of workers log off delivery apps, unions announced a nationwide strike on December 31 under the banner of the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers.

Workers demanded the removal of 10-minute delivery models, restoration of earlier payout structures, transparency in algorithmic management, grievance redress mechanisms, and social security benefits. Union leaders highlighted unsafe working conditions, income instability, and intimidation of workers through account deactivations and deployment of bouncers near warehouses.

The strike underscored the growing collective strength of gig workers and marked a significant moment in the evolution of labour resistance within the platform economy.

Conclusion: Protest as the moral record of a year

The protests of 2025, as documented month by month, form a cumulative moral and political record of India’s democratic life. Far from isolated eruptions, these mobilisations reflected sustained citizen engagement across issues of livelihood, environment, identity, labour, and governance.

Throughout the year, people protested not only against specific policies but against patterns of exclusion, neglect, and impunity. Farmers demanded economic justice, workers resisted precarity, students defended institutional autonomy, Adivasi communities protected land and forests, minorities asserted the right to live and worship without fear, and urban residents claimed the right to clean air and dignified survival.

Importantly, 2025 demonstrated that protest in India is adaptive. When streets were policed or permissions denied, dissent moved to courts, documentation, digital spaces, and symbolic action. When large mobilisations were curtailed, smaller local protests sustained democratic pressure. This adaptability reflects a deep-rooted commitment to constitutional values rather than episodic outrage.

The year also revealed the costs of dissent—surveillance, arrests, delayed justice, and social stigmatisation. Yet these pressures did not extinguish public mobilisation. Instead, they underscored the centrality of protest as a corrective mechanism when institutional responsiveness falters.

This year-ender records protest as democratic labour: the continuous work undertaken by citizens to make constitutional promises meaningful. In doing so, it affirms that the strength of a democracy is measured not by the absence of conflict, but by the presence of people willing to publicly contest injustice, month after month, across the country.

Related:

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

A Cultural Burden: The ascending hierarchy of caste warfare and the crisis of the Indian republic

From Fringe to Framework: How AHP’s hate ecosystem reconfigured law, society, and electoral politics

2025: On the ground, the bulldozer still arrives before the rule of law

The post 2025 in Protest: Across issues, across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

— Rohith Vemula

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

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

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

Under representation in these institutions

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

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

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

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

OBC, SC, ST – FACULTY IN IIM’s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.  What Has The Survey Revealed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These cases represent only the tip of the iceberg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

UGC Guidelines: Context, Counter-revolt and protest 

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the question we must confront.

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

Rohith’s death: We are all to blame

To Live & Die as a Dalit: Rohith Vemula

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

The 2025 Intervention Tracker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widespread crimes against SCs violating the PoA Act and Civil Rights

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

Targeted crimes against SCs, a pattern of abuse

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

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

Why did CJP intervene?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale of CJP’s Intervention

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

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

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

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

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

• Complaint over hate speech at Trishul Deeksha events

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

• Complaint against hate speeches at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events

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

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

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

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

1. Targeting Bengali-origin Muslims

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

• CJP’s key demands to the NCM

The complaint called upon the Commission to:

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

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

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

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

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

• Urge social media platforms to remove hateful content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Police Authorities: Demanding Neutrality & Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

Partisan conduct by Jagaon Police: CJP’s intervention

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

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

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

Curbing market vigilantism: the Malabar Hill incident

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

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

1.  Preventive Action against Hate-filled Gatherings

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

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

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

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

• CJP seeks preventive action against HJS’s Goa event

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

Rebuilding faith in the Rule of Law

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

Related

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

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

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

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