The morning of the scheduled hearing of the matter in the Supreme Court today, March 21, an affidavit filed by the State of Assam, detailed the status of 270 individuals detained in its deportation centres. The affidavit provides an extensive breakdown of detainees’ identities, dates of detention, case statuses, and the progress of deportation procedures. It also highlights whether the necessary travel permits have been secured and if deportation has actually taken place.

Details provided in the affidavit

A substantial number of detainees remain in custody despite long periods of confinement, with, the earliest example of a detainee having been incarcerated since 2012. The document reveals that only ten individuals have been deported thus far, with some cases pending clearance from diplomatic channels, with the Ministry of External Affairs, India and Bangladesh High Commission. As crucial, as the affidavit admits, several are subject matter of legal appeals, with their challenges to the status of “foreigner” status unilaterally handed down by the state’s controversial Foreigner tribunals, still pending in Gauhati High Court. The question then arises whether they should have figured on any list at all!

Among these is the case of Ajabha Khatun, supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), who’s deportation has been stayed by the Gauhati High Court on March 3, following an intervention application filed by her in the Supreme Court (see details below) in the present case.

Therefore, according to the data provided, of the 63 detainees that the Union government had (insubstantially, without evaluating evidence or status) claimed to be in line for deportation, 5 have been granted conditional bail and have been released from the Matua Transit Camp on the basis of the orders passed by the Gauhati High Court. The affidavit also provides that a total of 11 detenues have been granted travel permits by the Assistant High Commissioner of Bangladesh, paving the way for their deportation from India to Bangladesh. However, only 10 out of these 11 detenues have been actually deported to Bangladesh. The deportation of the last detenue could not take place as the Authorities across the border were concerned for a discrepancy in stated Father’s name of said detenue. It is critical to highlight here that these 11 people who have been deported to Bangladesh are not from the original list of 63 persons that the union government had deemed to be from Bangladesh. 

Shockingly, of the 63 detainees, that the state had earlier claimed were ‘in line for deportation,’ the state has now stated in its affidavit that 33 of these have their petitions pending in the Constitutional Courts. Each of them has initiated legal proceedings against their declaration as illegal migrants by Foreigners Tribunals. As per the affidavit, 29 such proceedings are pending before the Gauhati High Court, and 4 remain pending before the Supreme Court.

Additionally, the affidavit details the steps taken for deportation, including:

1. Issuance of National Status Verification (NSV) requests: The NSV format has been sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for all 270 detainees for further diplomatic engagement with foreign governments, primarily Bangladesh.
2. Reminder letters and follow-ups: The state has sent multiple reminder letters, with the most recent batch dated February 2, 2025.
3. Travel permit requests: Only eleven have had their travel permits issued, out of which ten have been successfully deported.

Despite these efforts, the affidavit underscores that deportation remains a sluggish process, hindered by bureaucratic red tape and international cooperation hurdles. Additionally, it is pertinent to highlight that the detainee list reveals that a significant portion of those confined in Assam’s deportation centres are Bengali-speaking Muslims, a demographic that has long been at the centre of Assam’s citizenship debates. Several cases include elderly individuals, women, and even minors who have been detained alongside their family members

The case of Ajabha Khatun

It is crucial to point out that the affidavit records Ajabha Khatun (serial no. 18), whose case is being fought by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), as having her petition pending in the Gauhati High Court. Ajabha Khatun, detained in September 2024, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal No. 1, Barpeta in an ex parte order issued in 2019. On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court stayed her deportation after noting the procedural irregularities in her case. Her name had been included among 63 individuals marked for deportation by the Union government, despite her pending legal challenge. The stay by the Gauhati High Court was granted following an Intervention Application (IA) was filed before the Supreme Court in the ongoing Rajubala Das case, and the top court directed her to seek interim relief from the High Court. A division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi issued a notice returnable on April 4, 2025, directing the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond. The court also requisitioned relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal to further decide the case.

Ajabha Khatun’s case exemplifies the systemic issues within Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal framework. Her citizenship status has been contested since 1997, when her name was arbitrarily removed from electoral rolls. The tribunal disregarded crucial evidence, including voter lists featuring her family members, and imposed an undue burden of proof on her. Beyond procedural lapses, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp raises serious human rights concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The order of the Gauhati High Court may be accessed here.

Challenges in the deportation process

The affidavit submitted by the State of Assam provides crucial insights into the realities of deportation centres in India. It highlights a system mired in bureaucratic inertia, legal complexities, and diplomatic constraints. While Assam continues to process deportations through formal channels, the sheer number of 270 detainees languishing in prolonged detention points to an urgent need for judicial and legislative scrutiny. The information provided underscores the necessity of addressing due process concerns, human rights violations, and the broader implications of Assam’s citizenship policies. The affidavit inadvertently exposes the inefficiencies within the deportation system. Several critical roadblocks include:

• Prolonged delays in nationality verification: Many detainees remain in limbo as diplomatic negotiations fail to yield timely responses.
• Legal entanglements: A significant number of detainees are engaged in lengthy legal battles, further slowing down the process.
• Limited diplomatic cooperation: The process relies on responses from foreign governments, particularly Bangladesh, which has not always been forthcoming in acknowledging deportation requests.

Related:

Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, seeks Tribunal records for review of FT’s order declaring her foreigner

Victory at Last: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long struggle

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

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

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

The post Assam govt to SC: 33/63 of those marked for ‘deportation’ are contesting ‘foreigner’ status in courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the broadcast in question by Zee News on March 16, 2025, titled “Taal Thok Ke LIVE: होली करेंगे ‘बदरंग’, ‘भाईजान’ कराएंगे सिर कलम! LIVE #WaqfvsHoli.” (Will they tarnish Holi… will ‘Bhaijaan’ have heads severed?) surrounded the call for protest against the proposed Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, announced by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind earlier on March 13, 2025, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. It is important to mention that the date of the peaceful protest against the Bill was initially set for March 10, 2025, but later rescheduled to March 13 due to administrative reasons.

Subsequently, with the Holi festival on March 14, 2025, AIMPLB, in a press conference at the Press Club of India on March 11, 2025, decided to defer the March 13 protest and scheduled it for March 17, 2025.

The Anchor misrepresented the Waqf protest, fabricated it as a threat to the Holi festival

According to the CJP’s complaint to the channel on March 16, the program “Taal Thok Ke” systematically compromised journalistic integrity through its biased presentation and inflammatory discourse. Host Chandan Singh orchestrated a narrative that deliberately conflated a legitimate protest concerning the Waqf Amendment Bill with a fabricated threat to the Hindu festival of Holi. The program’s reliance on sensationalist tickers and unsubstantiated claims, coupled with the host’s selective questioning and interruptions, created a hostile environment that undermined the principles of fair debate.

CJP stated in its complaint that, Singh’s conduct throughout the broadcast demonstrated a calculated effort to manipulate the narrative. He repeatedly ignored factual clarifications regarding the protest’s rescheduling, instead opting to perpetuate a false narrative of deliberate disruption. His leading questions, such as “Is it normal to start the protest just one day before Holi? Is this a coincidence? Is there a plan behind this?” (Time Stamp: 03:40-03:59), were designed to provoke suspicion and reinforce a predetermined agenda.

Singh’s abrupt interruptions and dismissal of panellists’ explanations, particularly those attempting to provide context for the date changes, revealed a clear bias and a refusal to engage with factual information.

“Moreover, his active endorsement of panellists’ inflammatory statements, like Pawan Bansal’s claim of a “larger conspiracy to turn Holi into chaos” (Time Stamp: 04:55-05:22), further underscored his role in promoting a divisive and misleading narrative. We are complaining because of the host’s deliberate misrepresentation of facts, biased moderation, and the creation of an environment conducive to communal discord” as per complaint

Problematic and misleading tickers used by channel in the show

CJP pointed out in its complaint to channel that, the host aired tickers on the screen with inflammatory sub-titles such as, “शाहीन बाग वाली धमकी: सरकार वक्फ बिल वापस लें,” (Shaheen Bagh threat: Government should withdraw the Waqf bill) “CAA से बड़ा इंकलाब होगा,” (A bigger revolution than CAA will happen) “NRC से बड़ा विरोध होगा,” (There will be a bigger protest than NRC) “एक शाहीन बाग दिल्ली में था, गली गली में शाहीन बाग होगा.” (There was one Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, now every street will have a Shaheen Bagh)

As per the CJP’s complaint, the given tickers such as “वक्फ के नाम पर सिर कटा लेने की धमकी क्यों?”, (Why the threat of beheading in the name of Waqf?), “वक्फ संसोधन के खिलाफ प्रदर्शन होली से पहले क्यों?” (Why the protest against the Waqf amendment before Holi?), “वक्फ संसोधन बिल से मुस्लिमों को क्यों ऐतराज?” (Why do Muslims object to the Waqf amendment bill?), and “हर कानून के खिलाफ भीड़ जुटाने वाला षड्यंत्र कब तक?” (For how long will the conspiracy to gather crowds against every law continue?) are deeply problematic because they sensationalize and polarize an important issue without providing factual clarity or context.

These statements frame the topic in a way that stirs fear, outrage, and confusion among viewers, rather than promoting understanding. By focusing on inflammatory and leading questions, the show manipulates public perception, potentially inciting hatred.

Panellist Bansal threatens Rizvi, Host remains mute spectator

Further, as per the CJP’s complaint, during the show, while discussing the CAA/NRC, panellist Pawan Bansal openly threatened Rizvi over the Waqf protest, making violent remarks. Despite Rizvi objecting, the host remained silent and did not intervene. This silence was concerning as panellist Pawan Bansal openly threatened Rizvi regarding the Waqf protest, saying, “मैं कहता हूँ कि अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया! मैं चैलेंज कर रहा हूँ अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया, अगर होली के दिन उत्पात किया! समझ लेना बहुत बुरा हस्र होगा.”( I’m saying, if you create chaos on Holi! I’m challenging, if you create chaos on Holi, if you create chaos on Holi! Understand that the consequences will be very severe). 

When Rizvi objected, urging Bansal not to issue threats, the host, rather than stepping in, remained a mute spectator, failing to uphold any responsibility as a moderator.

This silence was particularly troubling because Rizvi is linked to a specific community and the Waqf Bill, making him a direct target of Bansal’s threats. Even after Rizvi voiced his opposition, Bansal repeated, “ये दुस्साहस मत करना, ये दुस्साहस मत करना,” (Don’t you dare do this, don’t you dare do this) and continued questioning the validity of the protest, saying, “क्यूँ प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं, कानून में क्या कमी हैं? आप कितना भी कुछ कर लीजिये कानून बन कर रहेगा” (Why are you protesting, what is lacking in the law? No matter what you do, the law will be enacted). Despite these inflammatory remarks, the host did nothing to intervene, CJP stated in its complaint to channel

Notably, CJP strongly mentioned in its complaint that during the CAA/NRC protests, as the world witnessed, Shaheen Bagh became a symbol of peaceful resistance. The key fact here is that there was no violence reported at the Shaheen Bagh protest site in Delhi. However, the host in this debate show deliberately invoked the Shaheen Bagh reference in a conspiratorial context. The statement “जगह-जगह शाहीन बाग़ बना देंगे” (We will create Shaheen Bagh everywhere) was used to symbolically refer to organizing protests against the Waqf Bill, drawing a parallel with how Shaheen Bagh was organized during the CAA/NRC protests.

This was not an indication of any conspiracy but rather a reference to a form of peaceful protest that had already been part of India’s democratic tradition.

Violations of NBDSA principles, penal laws and Supreme Court judgements

The CJP, in its complaint, highlighted multiple violations of the NBDSA’s principles by the Zee News broadcast. The channel failed to adhere to Fundamental Principles of professional journalism, as outlined by the NBDSA. These include seeking truth, reporting with integrity, and avoiding bias in selecting news (Principles 1 and 4).

The program violated Principles of Self-Regulation, especially the duty to ensure neutrality and avoid portraying allegations as facts (Principle 2), and it also breached Racial and Religious Harmony guidelines by propagating content likely to incite religious intolerance (Principle 9). Additionally, the program disregarded the guidelines for Anchors conducting Programs, as it allowed inflammatory and divisive statements without intervention (Specific Guidelines for Anchors).

The channel also violated the Cable Television Network Rules (Rule 6), which prohibit content promoting communal attitudes or encouraging violence. The inflammatory content presented on the show amounted to hate speech, an offence punishable under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), sections 196, 298, 302, and 356, as it promoted enmity between communities and maligned religious beliefs.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2020) emphasized the need to address content that fosters divisiveness, and the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) case clarified the damaging societal impact of hate speech. The actions of Zee News align with the concerns raised by the court in these cases, as the show perpetuated a narrative that undermines the unity and integrity of the nation. Given the impact of such content, CJP urges the channel to remove the offending material, issue an apology, and adopt more responsible reporting practices to ensure that divisive rhetoric does not continue to harm communal harmony.

CJP’s complaint to channel on March 16, 2025 may be accessed here:

Related:

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

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

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

The post CJP urges Zee News remove debate show “Taal Thok Ke” over divisive Waqf-Holi debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yesterday, a division bench of the Gauhati HC, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stayed her deporation taking note of the order passed by the SC on her IA in the Rajubala case. The court has also requisitioned records from the Foreigners Tribunal to examine her prayer for bail given the procedural validity of the FT declaration. In the writ petition before the HC filed last November, Ajabha Khatun’s has challenged her declaration as a foreigner by the Foreigner’s Tribunal No. 1st, Barpeta. Khatun’s case is that the tribunal had issued an ex parte order on February 8, 2019, declaring her a post-1971 foreigner, effectively stripping her of Indian citizenship. The HC has issued notice returnable on April 4, 2025 and directed the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond.

Recognising the seriousness of her situation, the High Court granted temporary relief by staying her deportation, ordering that she shall not be removed from the country without an order of the high court. Her prayer for bail will be heard once the tribunal records are received.

The present order of the Ajabha Khatun’s case came after Supreme Court, through the ongoing matter of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India, where the apex court is examining the overcrowded conditions of detention camps in Assam. As part of the proceedings the issue of the deportation of those individuals declared foreigners in Assam arose. The Union government had made the (unsubstantiated) claim that 63 persons from the Matia Relief camp were in line for deportation. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been closely monitoring the case and when it’s team found that Ajabha Khatun, whose case was still pending in the Gauhati HC also figured as number “18” on this list of 63, CJP assisted her in filing the IA before the apex court. In the order on Ajabha’s case passed by the SC, the court stated that the petitioner should seek interim relief from the High Court in her case. On February 25, 2025, it was on the basis of this order that the deportation was stayed yesterday.

Details of the Gauhati High Court proceedings and immediate relief

Thereafter, on March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court took cognisance of her pending writ petition challenging the tribunal’s decision that had declared her foreigner. A division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi issued a notice returnable on  April 4, 2025, directing the Union of India, the State of Assam, the NRC authority, and the Election Commission to respond. The court also requisitioned relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal to further decide the case.

The court has also ordered the requisition of relevant records from the Foreigners Tribunal that have been challenged by Ajabha Khatun with legal aid assistance from CJP.  Given that the writ petition has challenged the declaration of Ajabha Khatun as not Indian”, and prayed for her release on bail, the procedural or substantive lapses in the FT order will now be considered by the High Court. Counsel Mrinmoy Dutta appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioner is currently detained at Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara. A crucial relief granted to the petitioner is the court’s order that she shall not be deported from the country without the court’s explicit permission, while her prayer for bail and release from the relief camp is pending hearing. Yesterday’s order ensures that she is not removed from India before the matter is fully adjudicated.

The order may be read here.

Supreme Court proceedings in the Raju Bala Das Case

Ajabha Khatun’s case is part of a broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. On February 25, 2025, Khatun, with assistance from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), sought impleadment as a party petitioner in the Supreme Court case of Raju Bala Das v. Union of India.

During this hearing, senior advocate Aparna Bhat argued that since Khatun’s challenge to the tribunal’s order was still pending before the High Court, any deportation order against her would be legally untenable. Deportation without exhausting legal remedies would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, acknowledged that her case was still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. While the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief, it instructed her counsel to seek appropriate orders from the High Court.

In the ongoing Raju Bala Das case, the Assam government had been directed to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. During previous hearings, the state argued that 63 detainees, including Khatun, were foreigners and should be deported. However, when questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about their country of origin, the Assam government failed to provide concrete proof which is why they have been asked to file further affidavits.

Denial of fundamental rights and legal violations

Ajabha Khatun’s case demonstrates the systematic denial of fundamental rights in Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system. Her ordeal began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for the Barpeta Assembly Constituency raised doubts about her citizenship and referred her case to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Barpeta, under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, later subsumed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The tribunal ultimately declared her a foreigner in 2019, but she was only arrested in September 2024. CJP subsequently assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. Her case resurfaced when the state submitted an affidavit in the Raju Bala Das case, listing her as one of the 63 detainees marked for deportation.

Her citizenship has been in question for over two decades, during which her fundamental rights have been severely curtailed:

• Since 1997, she has been denied the right to vote, as her name was arbitrarily struck from electoral rolls without justification.
• The Foreigners Tribunal disregarded evidence such as voter rolls featuring her father, husband, and herself.
• The burden of proof was misapplied, and her father’s testimony confirming her identity was ignored.

Beyond procedural violations, her indefinite detention at Matia Transit Camp amounts to a grave infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. She remains confined without a criminal charge, in deplorable conditions that the Supreme Court has previously criticised. Her right to equality under Article 14 is also at stake, as citizenship determination processes in Assam disproportionately target the state’s most marginalised sections.

Her detailed story may be read here.

Related:

Victory at Last: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long struggle

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

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

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

The post Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, seeks Tribunal records for review of FT’s order declaring her foreigner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Similarly, T Raja Singh, notorious for his divisive views, has with his statements about “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” a theory that frames Muslims as a threat to India’s identity. Alongside these leaders, right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani has propagated harmful stereotypes and hate against Muslims.

Nitesh Rane: spreading misinformation and suspicion through alleged theories of ‘Love Jihad’ and ‘Land Jihad’

Nitesh Rane, the BJP MLA from Kankavli in the Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra and now the Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister, has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of aggressive hate speech in the state. Many of his speeches from February 2025 have caused a significant uproar, raising concerns for the social climate in the state. 

February 20, 2025 

February 20, during a public felicitation event at Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj Nanijdhama in Ratnagiri, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a hate-filled speech targeting Muslims. 

Rane in his speech said that, “Because issues like Love Jihad and Land Jihad are actively happening around us. Through Love Jihad and religious conversion, a large-scale effort is underway to bring countless Hindu mothers and sisters into Islam by those engaging in Jihad.”

He propagated unfounded conspiracies about ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ intensifying his rhetoric by labelling Muslims as “jihadis.” Rane also criticised Mazhars and Dargahs, claiming that the said structures “pop up anywhere,”.

He further added that, “I have initiated a program through my ministry to make our 720-kilometer coastline Jihad- free. Therefore, in all these matters, it is extremely important for me to receive Swamiji’s guidance and blessings from time to time. All the illegal activities happening around us—wherever you look, spreading the green cloth, building mazars and tombs everywhere—against all this, our Maharashtra government will take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias. On this occasion, I assure Swamiji of this today.”

His words not only spread fear but are also baseless accusations against an entire religious community. His speech serves as another example of the dangerous rhetoric emerging from political figures in the region.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 19, 2025 

On February 19, at a Shiv Jayanti event organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a series of inflammatory remarks targeting Muslims. He boldly declared, “This is a Hinduwadi government,” and went on to threaten that in Sindhudurg, anyone who even “looks at Hindus in an incorrect manner” would face consequences, urging people to contact him directly to “settle it before next Friday.”

Rane said that, “the Chief Minister is a staunch Hindutva. If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday. Don’t worry about anything.”

He also labelled Muslims as “green snakes,” who are involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy against Hindus. Rane’s speeches continued in this vein throughout the month of February, spreading more hateful conspiracy theories, and even suggesting that if Muslims “looked at Hindus in an incorrect manner,” they would face consequences. He stated that, “Our government is very bad. What is going on around I am aware of everything. You don’t have to struggle. Wherever something wrong is happening, wherever someone tries to slaughter a cow, wherever someone tries to smuggle, wherever green snakes try to wriggle, just make one call, and leave the rest of the arrangements to me.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 8, 2025 

On February 8, at the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Kudal, Sindhudurg, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a divisive speech, alleging that ‘jihadis’ were targeting Hindu temples and again referring to Muslims as ‘green snakes.’ He said that India is a Hindu nation and alleged that Muslims were conspiring to turn the country into an Islamic state by 2047. Rane then propagated the baseless conspiracies of ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ fearmongering about the supposed Islamization of India. He accused Muslims of attempting to seize Hindu lands and religious sites, symbolically covering them with a ‘green shroud.’ 

Nitesh Rane’s speech is deeply problematic due to its divisive and inflammatory nature. He quite deliberately, and repeatedly perpetuates harmful stereotypes and spreads fear by framing certain religious communities as a threat to Hindu society. His speech begins with claims of “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references to the “Waqf Board,” which without evidence, target Muslims and imply a coordinated effort against Hindus:

“While taking out these rallies, there were some cases of Love Jihad, some cases of Land Jihad, and some cases related to the Waqf Board. We, as the Sakal Hindu Samaj, took out those rallies and went to meet the affected families and we tried to provide them justice. How far have these Islamization and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should all imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.”

This statement fuels unfounded fear and animosity, casting Muslims as a monolithic and hostile group. He further stokes this narrative by discussing the supposed encroachment of Muslims on religious sites, such as temples:

“I always wonder—if you want to spread Islam, why do you always target our temple lands? If you want to build a mosque or a dargah, then buy an open piece of land yourselves and say, ‘We want to build a mosque here, a dargah here.’ But they always want to do these things on the land of our temples.”

Such rhetoric incites division, mistrust, and hostility. He concludes by framing this as a grand conspiracy:

“By 2047, they want to turn our Hindu nation into an Islamic nation. Their evil eyes are on the temples, and we should be moving towards ensuring how to keep them safe,” Rane Said.

Rane referred Savarkar in his speech and said, “Swatantryaveer Savarkar has written very well that the Hindu society suffers more from Hindus themselves than from Muslims. Some of these people ask me how I can call it a Hindu nation, as it does not fit within the Constitution.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 5, 2025 

On February 5, at a public event organised by a coalition of far-right groups in Wagholi, Pune, BJP MLA Rane delivered an inflammatory anti-Muslim hate speech, propagating the baseless conspiracies of ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ while falsely claiming that Muslims aim to turn India into an Islamic state. 

During his speech, he urged Hindus to rent homes only to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.” Targeting the azaan, he claimed that if Hindus rented to Muslims, soon they would be overrun and the azaan would echo five times a day. He openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging the audience to “just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.” Rane further fuelled the conspiracy of ‘love jihad,’ continuing to spread baseless fears of a demographic threat.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 3, 2025 

On February 3, in Chandrapur, Rane made a chilling threat towards Muslims, declaring that acts like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and “cow slaughter” would no longer be tolerated. At a religious assembly, Rane openly warned the minority religious community, stating that the state had a Hindutva-based government, and if these issues persisted, they would take direct action.

He was quoted as saying:

“If these people sporting beards do not stop this Love Jihad, Land Jihad, and the drama against Hindu society in time, then even those sitting in Pakistan will not be able to recognize you. I guarantee.”

His rhetoric targets Muslims as a collective threat to Hindu society, presenting them as part of a grand conspiracy to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047. The speech perpetuates harmful myths such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” which have no basis in reality but are used to fuel hatred and division. Rane asserts:

“When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”

This unfounded claim creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, portraying Muslims as scheming to overthrow the country’s demographic makeup.

He continues with further inflammatory statements:

“Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave. Then, five times a day, their loudspeakers will start blaring.”

This passage not only reinforces the idea of Muslims as an invasive force but also promotes communal fear by linking Muslims to undesirable behaviour.

Additionally, Rane makes claims about “Love Jihad,” where he manipulates personal stories to push the narrative of Hindu girls being brainwashed:

“I have met sisters who have been victims of Love Jihad. You would be shocked to see their miserable condition. These girls are brainwashed to the extent that they refuse to recognize their own parents.”

This kind of rhetoric is not new for Rane, who has long harboured views that fuel communal animosity. At this event, he claimed that a strict law against religious conversions would be introduced in Maharashtra. He further warned Muslims involved in such acts of “trapping” Hindu women that the government would deal with them harshly, reinforcing the idea of an aggressive, intolerant Hindutva ideology.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister #NiteshRane on Monday sounded a stern warning to a particular community, stating that “Love jihad, Land Jihad, and cow slaughter” will not be tolerated. He emphasised that the state has a #Hindutva-oriented government and discussed the… pic.twitter.com/OZfJAUR67L

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) February 4, 2025

Recently, two FIRs were filed against Nitesh Rane for alleged hate speech targeting Muslims in Ahmednagar. Both FIRs were filed by the Ahmednagar Police against Nitesh Rane for his controversial remark. Rakesh Ola, the Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, confirmed the registration of two FIRs—one on September 1, 2024, and the other on September 2, 2024. These FIRs were filed at the Shrirampur and Topkhana police stations, respectively. Rane made his speeches during public meetings in the Shrirampur and Topkhana, in support of Hindu seer Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, who had made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Rane warned of repercussions if the Maharaj was harmed. In his address, Rane had said, “If anything happens to Maharaj, there will be repercussions. I’m going to give this threat in the language which you understand. If you have done anything against our Ramgiri Maharaj, we will kill you after barging into your mosques. You must remember this threat,” Rane had said, reported Times of India.

On September 5, an FIR was also filed against Nitesh Rane for his hate speech. The case was registered by the Gittikhadan police in Nagpur under sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR follows a complaint lodged by Mohammed Yunus Patel (47), a resident of Awasthi Nagar in South Nagpur, who alleged that Rane hurt the religious sentiments of a specific community during a speech he delivered in Ahmednagar on September 1, 2024, as HT reported.

Rane’s rhetoric, including claims of Love Jihad and Land Jihad, is not an isolated incident but part of a wider strategy by certain BJP leaders to stoke communal fears for political leverage.

T Raja Singh: Escalating divisive narratives

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often extremist views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh went on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. 

His rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Singh’s speeches only contribute to a growing sense of fear and mistrust between India’s communities, feeding into a larger narrative of religious confrontation and division.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Kajal Hindustani: A right-wing influencer encouraging harmful communal divisions

February 19, 2025 

Kajal Hindustani is another key figure spreading dangerous communal poison. At a Shiv Jayanti event in Nagpur on February 19, Hindustani not only pushed the harmful “love jihad” narrative but also revived harmful stereotypes about Muslims. She referred to Muslims as “jihadis,” equating them with violence and radicalism. Additionally, she launched an attack on the Muslim practice of Azaan, fuelling the existing prejudice against Islamic religious practices.

This kind of speech is highly problematic, as it promotes an environment where one community’s practices and identity are vilified and targeted. Hindustani’s reach as an influencer amplifies her harmful messages, reaching a much wider audience.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Following the complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) on October 25, 2024, against Kajal Shingala, also known as Kajal Hindustani, for delivering an anti-Muslim hate speech at an event in Thane, an FIR was registered on October 30, 2024, at the Wagle Estate Police Station in Thane. The FIR charges Hindustani under sections 299, 302, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which address offenses related to promoting religious animosity and public mischief. In addition, the event’s organizer, Veer Bahadur Yadav, was also booked for his involvement in permitting the speech. 

Ashwini Upadhyaya: Legitimising hate and conspiracy theories

February 20, 2025 

Ashwini Upadhyaya, a Supreme Court lawyer and prominent BJP leader, has also been vocal in spreading far-right narratives. On February 20, at a lecture on the Indian Constitution in Parbhani, he advocated for the restoration of “historic sacred places” like Kashi, Mathura, and Bhojshala, referring to which he claimed that the Mosque had been built after destroying temples. This rhetoric is rooted in the ideological push for the Ram Mandir, built at the destruction site of Babri Majid, and other religious sites to be reclaimed as symbols of Hindu supremacy.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Upadhyaya’s speeches are filled with conspiracy theories, including baseless claims about “love jihad” and “land jihad.” He further exacerbated these fears by drawing on international examples, citing China and Israel as models for population control measures. Linking population control to “love jihad” reflects a troubling trend where he frames demographic changes, especially Muslim migration, as a grave threat to India’s Hindu identity.

February 11, 2025 

On February 11, in Raigarh, Upadhyaya made statements about “infiltration jihad” and the alleged presence of six crore “infiltrators” in India, many of whom, according to him, were Muslims. Such claims serve no purpose other than to stoke fear and division in society.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 2, 2025 

On February 2, in Pune, at the V.D. Savarkar Memorial Lectures organized by Swanand Janakalyan Pratishthan, Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay demonized Muslims by selectively citing cases where Hindu women were murdered by Muslim men. He stirred fear about ‘infiltration’ and led the audience in an oath against alleged ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ promoting unfounded and divisive claims about demographic threats.

The video of speech can be seen here:

The role of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti: furthering hate and division

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, a far-right organisation, also plays a significant role in spreading of conspiracies and peddling hatred with potential to harm our social fabric and harmony. On February 3, during a press conference on Bangladeshi ‘infiltrators’ at Marathi Patrakar Sangh, Mumbai, organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Sanatan Sanstha leader Abhay Vartak claimed that on alleged Bangladeshi “infiltrators,”. Abhay Vartak, claimed that up to ten lakh Bangladeshi immigrants live in Mumbai, which he linked to an increase in crimes and unemployment. His remarks were clearly aimed at inciting fear and suspicion towards the Muslims living in Mumbai, holding them responsible for collectively attacking the Indian economy. Vartak further promoted the conspiracy of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” underscoring how these controversial and harmful ideas are being propagated at multiple levels.

The impact of hate speech on Maharashtra and beyond

The hate-filled speeches delivered by these lawmakers and influencers are not only harming Maharashtra’s social fabric but also endangering the unity of the nation. Such rhetoric creates an environment where one minority community feels persecuted, that can lead to a cycle of hate and retaliation. Moreover, these statements are dangerous as they normalize a call for violence and discrimination against a particular religious community, portraying them as collectively acceptable responses to perceived grievances.

By invoking divisive terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “infiltration jihad,” these above-mentioned leaders are playing on people’s fears, creating imaginary threats to the nation’s demographic and religious balance. 

Furthermore, these speeches shrinking the very foundation of India’s secular democracy, where all religions are meant to be treated equally. Instead, they promote a vision of India where one religion is dominant and all others are viewed with suspicion and hostility.

The role of authorities in curbing hate speech

The time has come for a serious conversation about the accountability of public figures, particularly legislators, who use their platforms to promote hate and division. In Maharashtra, BJP leaders like Nitesh Rane, T Raja Singh, Ashwini Upadhyaya, and others have proven that they are willing to sow communal discord for political gain. Their speeches not only undermine the values of unity and secularism but also pose a grave threat to the fabric of society.

It is critical for the authorities to take swift action against hate speech and hold leaders accountable. The continued silence and inaction will only embolden others to follow in their footsteps, further poisoning the political discourse and deepening the divisions within our society. The future of Maharashtra, and indeed India, depends on the strength of its commitment to secularism, equality, and justice. It is time for the nation to stand united against hate, no matter where it originates.

Related

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

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

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

The post Leaders and the spread of divisive narratives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dangers to academic freedom

Due to the potential impact on academic freedom and university autonomy, the recent UGC regulations that changed the Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointment process have generated extensive controversy. Under the effected changes, the Centre now has more decision-making power, these developments are perceived as reducing the autonomy of academic institutions. Since education is a Concurrent List subject (Item 25 of the Concurrent List in the 7^th Schedule of the Constitution of India), which grants both the Centre and the states control, the regulations create questions regarding federalism from a constitutional standpoint. Critics contend that regulations challenge the constitutional balance of power and undercut governmental authority in higher education. The ensuing political turmoil underscores the conflicts between centralization and regional autonomy, as state governments and educational groups voice their disapproval. These changes reflect larger concerns regarding the future of higher education in India.

Erosion of academic autonomy and freedoms

Widespread concerns about the degradation of academic autonomy and institutional freedoms in India’s higher education system have been sparked by the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) recent draft regulations on the appointment of vice chancellors (VCs). In order to prevent political and administrative meddling in academic decision-making, Indian universities have historically enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. One of the most important indicators of this autonomy has been the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs), who are crucial in determining the academic orientation and governance of institutions. The new regulations, however, are viewed as a major step towards limiting institutions’ independence by concentrating authority over them.

The UGC’s draft guidelines appear to diminish the involvement of university governing bodies and state governments in the appointment process, which is one of the primary concerns. Many state universities had their own procedures for selecting VCs under the previous frameworks, which were customized to meet their unique institutional requirements and local educational environments. A search committee made up of governmental authorities and university stakeholders was frequently involved in these procedures. However, the new laws give the UGC and, indirectly, the Union government more power, which may allow them to circumvent state-specific processes and enforce uniform appointment standards. Concerns regarding the loss of institutional variety and the imposed, centralized, one-size-fits-all paradigm on institutions have arisen as a result of this change as reported by The Wire.

Academic independence may also be seriously impacted by the centralization of the appointment process. Instead of emphasizing academic excellence and critical inquiry, VCs face the risk of being swayed by political or bureaucratic influences when university leadership is chosen through centralized directives rather than a more autonomous or localized process. The fundamental tenets of higher education institutions—academic freedom, critical thinking, and intellectual independence—may be undermined as a result. If a university’s leadership is bound by political interests or central commands, it may be less able to promote free discussion and debate.

The new UGC regulations’ clause permitting the appointment of vice chancellors without an academic background raises serious concerns as well. Historically, successful academics with significant backgrounds in teaching, research, and university administration have been the only ones eligible to act as VCs. This criterion guaranteed that those chosen to run institutions understood academic values, institutional governance, and the challenges faced by professors and students. However, it seems that the new regulations have expanded the eligibility requirements to cover individuals with non-academic credentials. Critics contend that this would allow for the appointment of bureaucratic or political appointees who have little to no background in academic leadership. Such appointments can jeopardize the academic environment since those without sufficient knowledge regarding higher education might put administrative or political objectives ahead of academic performance. This modification raises even more concerns about the decline of university autonomy and may jeopardize the caliber and legitimacy of post secondary educational establishments nationwide.

Additionally, the long-standing practice of public universities serving as breeding grounds for language and regional variety in higher education may be impacted by the new rules. Numerous colleges serve the educational requirements of particular linguistic, cultural, and geographic groups. These universities might be unable to give local educational and cultural interests priority if state control over VC selections is reduced. This could have long-term consequences for the intellectual and social diversity of Indian higher education.

In essence, the autonomy of Indian institutions appears to be threatened by the new UGC regulations. These rules may compromise the autonomy of university governance and erode the preservation of academic freedoms by restricting state engagement and consolidating appointment authority with the Centre. In the long-term, this loss of autonomy may inhibit intellectual development and lower the standard and variety of higher education in India.

Constitutional violations

In India, the Constitution’s Concurrent List provides education as a subject, giving the Union and State governments the power to enact laws pertaining to education. However, many critics believe that the new UGC regulations will violate the delicate balance of federalism inherent in the Constitution by infringing on the autonomy of state governments.

The statutes of the respective state universities have historically controlled the appointment of VCs, enabling practices that complement local administrative structures and pedagogical interests. Regardless of state-specific laws, the new UGC draft regulations aim to standardize the requirements for VC eligibility and appointment procedures at all universities. Critics contend that by imposing a centralized structure on institutions that have traditionally functioned under state jurisdiction, this action compromises the legislative authority of state governments as reported by Indian Express.

The University Grants Commission Act of 1956 created the UGC, whose primary responsibility is to coordinate and uphold university education standards throughout India. The Act does not specifically give the Commission the authority to control the administrative procedures for selecting university leadership, even while it gives the UGC the authority to establish academic standards and control teaching credentials. The UGC is believed to be going beyond its legislative jurisdiction by expanding its reach into the nomination of VCs, which could make the draft regulations ultra vires, or beyond the authority provided by the enabling statute.

The independence of state governments in matters pertaining to education has been strengthened by judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court ruled in Suresh Patilkhede vs. The Chancellor, University of Maharashtra (2011) that the qualifications and procedures for selecting VCs are under the jurisdiction of the relevant state laws since they have no direct bearing on academic standards as reported by Vajiram and Ravi. This ruling upholds the idea that although the UGC has the authority to establish general educational standards, the state still controls university administration, including the selection of VCs.

A number of state governments and academic organizations have voiced strong opposition to the proposed regulations, which have also caused political instability. They argue that by consolidating authority over higher education, the UGC’s action upsets the federal balance in addition to violating state rights. Cooperative federalism, which aims to strike a balance in the distribution of power between the Union and the States, is thought to be incompatible with this centralization.

A possible solution to the current controversy is provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kalyani Mathivanan vs K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors (2015) case that the regulation by the UGC regarding vice-chancellors is advisory rather than mandatory for State universities.

Political implications

State governments have historically played a major role in the appointment procedures that are adopted by state institutions, which are customized to their local administrative and educational requirements. The new regulations, however, offer a centralized, standardized framework that essentially diminishes the role of states and strengthens the UGC’s authority over VC nominations. Critics contend that this action limits state sovereignty in the governance of higher education and consolidates authority with the Union government.

There are substantial political ramifications to this centralization. Several state governments such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala have denounced the draft guidelines as a clear violation of their constitutional rights, especially those headed by opposition parties as reported by India Today. They view these regulations as a political move to limit state governments’ authority in areas where they have historically had influence. Such central control is viewed as both politically motivated and impracticable in highly decentralized and heterogeneous educational environments.

Furthermore, the action might also open the door for political appointments in higher education, when VCs are selected based on their ideological affinities with the central government rather than their academic qualifications. Universities’ intellectual independence may be jeopardized by such appointments, which would transform them from hubs for research and critical thinking to platforms for political objectives as reported by Eurasia Review.

Concerns regarding possible ideological influence on educational institutions have been raised by the appointment of members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to important academic positions at Indian universities. In one of the instances a historian with ties to the RSS, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, was named the Indian Council of Historical Research’s (ICHR) chairperson in 2014. Rao had not published in peer-reviewed journals and was mostly unknown in academic circles before taking up this position. His nomination was seen as an attempt to match historical research with a specific ideology. Rao has drawn criticism from the academic community for his support of the caste system and his belief that Hindu epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata are historically accurate.

An important influence on the development of educational resources in India has come from Dinanath Batra, an educationist connected to the RSS. He played a key role in the removal of A.K. Ramanujan’s article “Three Hundred Ramayanas” from the history curriculum at Delhi University on the grounds that it offended Hindu feelings. In an effort to have history textbooks reflect a narrative that aligns with his ideological beliefs, Batra has also been involved in legal lawsuits against the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). His campaigning has drawn criticism for stifling academic freedom and advancing a homogenized cultural viewpoint.

Further, renowned RSS ideologue Rakesh Sinha was hired as a lecturer at Delhi University. He has taken an active position in public discussions, frequently defending the viewpoints of the RSS. His nomination has been seen by some as a component of a larger plan to integrate people with particular ideological views into academic institutions, which could have an impact on the discourse and atmosphere of the academic institutions, as reported by the Caravan Magazine.

The political turmoil brought on by the regulations highlights the escalating conflict over education policy between the central government and the states. In order to guarantee equitable educational governance, a number of political leaders and education specialists have advocated for a reform or rollback of the regulations, highlighting the necessity of cooperative federalism. The laws may worsen political polarization and erode confidence in the fair administration of India’s higher education system if they are put into effect as is.

Social and educational ramifications of the UGC Regulations

Concerns have also been raised concerning the possible long-term social and educational repercussions of the draft UGC regulations on Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointments. Universities foster critical thinking, creativity, cultural variety, and regional identities in addition to being centers of higher education. The new regulations might limit the autonomy and diversity that colleges require to succeed by centralizing authority over university leadership.

The possible loss of regional representation is one of the main societal issues. Numerous state colleges serve the distinct linguistic, cultural, and educational requirements of particular areas. State-mandated VC appointments frequently represent the social concerns of the communities these colleges serve. These local priorities face the risk of being overlooked or repressed in favor of uniform national norms that might not be in line with local realities when there is centralized management. Academic priorities, regional cultures, and languages might become marginalized as a result.

The proposed regulations are also likely to limit institutions’ capacity to innovate or adapt to local demands in the field of education. Although academic institutions value intellectual independence, critical thinking and research that contradicts prevailing narratives, the same might be stifled if university leadership is chosen with more political or administrative clout. This could eventually reduce possibilities for students from different backgrounds and lower the general standard of higher education in India.

Furthermore, the regulations may erode both faculty and student trust in university administration. Appointments that are seen as politically motivated or under the control of centralized authority may foster mistrust and hinder academic collaboration and productivity.

Conclusion

Widespread concerns on academic freedom, federalism, and the independence of educational institutions have been triggered by the draft UGC regulations on vice-chancellor appointments. These regulations pose the risk of weakening university autonomy and the constitutional balance of power between the central government and the states by concentrating power in the hands of the Union government. Additionally, the quality of higher education may be jeopardized by the possibility of bureaucratic and political meddling in appointments. The Centre, states, and educational stakeholders must work together to ensure that academic excellence and institutional autonomy are maintained in order to secure the future of India’s higher education system.

Related:

Education for a Hindu Rashtra: UGC-NCERT pushing a divisive agenda

New UGC Rules for Qualification of Professors Condemned

How do the new UGC regulations affect prospective students applying to JNU? Ayesha Kidwai

The post Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Background of the case

This case revolves around the arrest of Marfing Tamang under FIR No. 157/2024, registered at P.S. Kamla Market, Delhi, under several provisions of the IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The petitioner was accused of managing an establishment involved in sexual exploitation and benefiting financially from such activities. The police alleged that the establishment functioned as part of a larger network engaging in trafficking and forced prostitution.

On May 17, 2024, the petitioner was detained and subsequently arrested at 6:30 p.m. He was initially placed in police custody for two days before being remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. The core contention in the case was whether the procedural safeguards under Section 50 CrPC were adhered to. Specifically, the issue was that the grounds of arrest were not communicated at the time of the arrest but instead were served later, after the remand application had been filed. The petitioner argued that this violated his fundamental rights and due process under the law, making the arrest illegal. The court was called upon to determine whether this procedural lapse warranted the quashing of the arrest and remand orders.

Issues

1.  Whether the phrase “forthwith”under section 50 CrPC mandates immediate communication of grounds of arrest.
2.  Whether the delay in serving the grounds of arrest invalidates police custody and judicial remand.
3.  Whether discrepancies in the grounds of arrest mentioned in the remand application and those later served affect the legality of the arrest.

Court’s observations

• The court distinguished between “forthwith”in section 50 CrPC and “as soon as may be”under PMLA. It held that “forthwith” means immediate and simultaneous communication of arrest grounds at the time of issuing the arrest memo.

“..the word ―forthwith‖ appearing in section 50 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted strictly, meaning thereby that the grounds of arrest or the grounds for arrest must be communicated to an arrestee immediately and without delay.” (Para 30.6)

• The court held that the failure to inform the petitioner of the grounds for arrest at the time of his detention amounted to a direct violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and procedural safeguards under Section 50 CrPC.

“Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandate of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.” (Para 32)

• The court emphasised that the grounds of arrest must not only be communicated in writing but must be done in a timely manner that allows the accused to prepare for legal representation.

“Once the grounds for requiring a person’s arrest have been formulated in the investigating officer‟smind, there can possibly be no reason why those grounds cannot be reduced into writing and communicated to the person simultaneously at the time of arrest.” (Para 30.8)

• The court reiterated that the Magistrate erred in ruling that serving the grounds of arrest just before the remand hearing was sufficient compliance, as meaningful legal representation requires adequate notice.

“This was clearly an erroneous interpretation and application of the law by the learned Magistrate, since furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing just about an hour before the remand hearing in the present case, cannot possibly be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of section 50 Cr.P.C., which mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee forthwith that is to say simultaneously and immediately upon the arrest of such person.” (Para 34)

• The remand order dated May 18, 2024 was set aside as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 CrPC, rendering the petitioner’s continued detention unlawful.

“In order to bring abundant clarity in the matter, this court would also observe that sufficient time must given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody.” (Para 36)

Accordingly, remand order dated 18.05.2024 also stands vitiated and is set-aside. (Para 37)

• The court reaffirmed the significance of procedural compliance in arrests, underscoring that any deviation from statutory mandates weakens due process and constitutional protections.

“In light of the above, without addressing the controversy as to whether the petitioner stood deprived of his liberty once he reached the police station at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024, there can be no contest that the petitioner was formally arrested when the arrest memo was issued to him i.e., at 06:30 p.m. on 17.05.2024. In compliance of section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted above, the I.O. was required to serve the grounds of arrest upon the petitioner simultaneously with the issuance of the arrest memo. This was admittedly not done.” (Para 31)

How this judgment can be applied for the advancement of human rights

This judgment establishes a strong precedent for safeguarding human rights, particularly in the realm of criminal justice and due process. By mandating immediate communication of the grounds of arrest, it ensures that accused individuals are not deprived of their fundamental rights arbitrarily. This ruling upholds the principle that legal processes must be transparent, ensuring that law enforcement agencies strictly adhere to procedural requirements.

Additionally, this case reinforces the necessity of allowing accused persons adequate time to prepare their legal defence. Ensuring that legal representation is meaningful rather than a mere formality is crucial for upholding the right to a fair trial. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) and procedural mandates under Section 50 CrPC, making it clear that any deviation from these principles weakens the integrity of the justice system.

Beyond individual rights, this ruling has broader implications for the protection of vulnerable communities. It prevents law enforcement from abusing detention powers and sets a precedent for judicial intervention when fundamental rights are violated. This judgment can serve as a tool for human rights advocates to challenge unlawful detentions and ensure accountability in law enforcement practices.

By reinforcing procedural compliance and transparency, the ruling contributes to the larger framework of human rights jurisprudence, emphasising that the rule of law must prevail over arbitrary actions by the state. It strengthens the principle that liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed without adhering to established legal norms, thereby protecting individuals from unjust state actions.

The judgment in the case of Marfing Tamang v. State (NCT of Delhi) delivered by Anup Jairam Bhambhani J, Delhi high court on 4th Feb 2025 may be read here:

(The Legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this judgement primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

Law on Arrest and Detention: Know your rights!

Democracy can never be a police state: Supreme Court

The post Delhi high court strikes down illegal arrest: Reaffirms the right to immediate disclosure of grounds of arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), which has long acted as a safeguarding organisation of human rights of the citizens of India, is the lead petitioner in the writ petitions, filed in January 2021, challenging anti–conversion laws of various states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently in additional petitions, anti-conversion laws of Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka have also been challenged. The draconian laws have been challenged on various grounds such as for violating right to personal liberty and autonomy, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to privacy, freedom of faith, right against discrimination.

CJP has also explored the illusive concept of “love jihad” which is a sectarian concept and against the principles of pluralism and secularism adopted by India. The petition also challenges the law on the grounds of being anti–women and discriminatory against women, as it takes away the agency of women for making decisions of their own lives.

Content of the legislation

The Rajasthan government recently enacted the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill 2024, which aims to stop forced religious conversions and has sparked a lot of debate. Despite the bill’s claimed goal of preventing coerced religious conversion, its harsh provisions—such as 10-year prison sentences and penalties of up to 50,000—raise fundamental questions regarding individual liberties and the possibility of abuse. Critics contend that by targeting particular communities under the pretence of preventing forced conversions, such law not only violates individual liberty but also runs the risk of widening communal disparities. The Bill is available on the website of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.

Important Provisions

According to the Bill, religious conversion by compulsion, force, allurement, or deception is primarily considered prohibited. Allurements may include money, material rewards, employment, free education, etc.

As per the Bill, the individual who “caused” the conversion have the duty of proving that the religious conversion was not achieved by fraud, coercion, undue influence, allurement, or any other fraudulent means or methods.

The assumption of innocence principle, which often applies to the accused in a criminal proceeding, is being reversed here.

The offences covered by this Bill are classified as cognisable and non-bailable, which means that the accused may be arrested without a warrant and that obtaining bail may be difficult. Concerns regarding the possibility of misuse and the violation of individual liberties are raised by this classification.

The draft suggests harsh punishments for illegal conversions, such as fines of up to ₹50,000 and jail time of one to ten years. In particular, converting women, children, or members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can lead to a fine of ₹25,000 and two to ten years in prison. The penalty rises to three to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 for mass conversions. Repeat offenders would be punished no more than twice the legal penalty for each additional offence. Concerns regarding possible abuse and the targeting of particular communities have been raised due to such severe penalties.

The Bill also includes “conversion by solemnisation of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage,” in its list of offences.

The Bill states that “Any marriage done for sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion, either by converting himself/herself before or after marriage, or by converting the woman before or after marriage, shall be declared void by the Family Court or where Family Court is not established, the Court having jurisdiction to try such case on a petition presented by either party.”

As per the Bill, blood relatives have the power to lodge an FIR in a suspected case. It says that, “Any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a FIR”.

Authorities are shielded from prosecution or other legal actions for any actions conducted in accordance with the proposed law by Section 13 of the Bill, which is titled “Protection of action taken in good faith.”

The Bill states that “No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall lie against any authority or officer for anything done in good faith or intended to be done, or purported to be done, or omitted to be done in pursuance of this Act, or any rule or order made thereunder.”

There have been various instances in recent years where members of disadvantaged communities have been wrongfully accused of converting individuals and then acquitted by the courts.

While the Bill protects government officials from potential legal action, it does little to stop instances in which innocent people are targeted after being falsely accused of illegal conversion.

Voluntary conversions

The Bill provides an exhaustive procedure to be followed by individuals who wish to voluntarily convert to another religion.

Individuals who wish to convert to another religion must apply to the district magistrate (DM) at least 60 days before the conversion; failure to do so can result in a minimum fine of Rs 10,000 and a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

Subsequently, the “convertor,” or the one conducting the conversion ceremony, would notify the DM one month in advance via a designated form; failure to do so would result in a minimum punishment of Rs 25,000 and a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

An officer not below the rank of Additional DM will then “have an inquiry conducted through police with regard to the real intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed religious conversion.”

Within 60 days of conversion, the converted individual must submit a declaration to the DM in the required format. Until the date of confirmation, a copy of the declaration must be posted on the DM’s office notice board.

The convert’s date of birth, permanent or current address, father’s or husband’s name, religion before and after conversion, conversion date and location, and other details will be included in this declaration. In order to prove their identification and validate the information in the statement, the convert must then appear before the DM within 21 days of the declaration being filed.

Requirement of the Bill

According to the Bill’s statement of reason, while the constitution guarantees everyone the fundamental right to profess, practise, or propagate their religion, the freedom of conscience and religion cannot be interpreted as a collective right to proselytise; the right to religious freedom is equally applicable to the person seeking conversion as it is to the person converting.

The statement of reasons says that “However, in the recent past many such examples have come to light where gullible persons have been converted from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by fraudulent means. The law related to right to religious freedom already exists in various States of the country but there was no statute on the said subject in Rajasthan.” It further add that “In view of the above, it was decided to enact a law to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or fraudulent means or by marriage and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Ghanshyam Tiwari, a legislator for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), commended Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma for his “historic decision” to crack down on religious conversions and “love jihad,” a phrase used by right-wing groups to refer to a purported Muslim plot to court Hindu women. The phrase is not recognised by the Union government or courts.

The issue of “love-jihad” and the myth surrounding forced conversions has been discussed in depth in an article published by CJP.

Concerns raised by the Bill

While the Bill proposes to be aimed at preventing forced conversions, various concerns have been raised as the Bill may infringe upon the Fundamental Rights and has a vast potential for misuse.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which protects people’s freedom to openly profess, practise, and propagate their religion, is allegedly violated by the law, according to critics. It is believed that the necessary advance warning and post-conversion statement requirements constitute excessive government meddling in private religious choices.

There are concerns that the bill can be abused to target religious minorities and stifle peaceful religious expression. It has been reported that similar laws have been used in other jurisdictions to harass minority communities while claiming that they are preventing forced conversions.

The requirement that people inform authorities of their intention to convert is seen as a breach of their right to privacy and their freedom. Critics have argued that these clauses might discourage people from exercising their freedom to freely choose and convert to a different religion.

Further, those suspected of unlawful conversion are given the burden of proving their innocence under the bill, which goes against the legal doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.” This change may result in legal abuse and erroneous convictions.

Authorities that operate “in good faith” under the statute are granted immunity under Section 13 of the bill. Critics contend that the authorities may act without any concerns of consequence because they are protected from legal action, this clause may result in the persecution of innocent people.

Furthermore, the bill gives family courts the authority to deem marriages void if it turns out that they were performed with the intention of committing an illegal conversion. This clause has drawn criticism for presumably violating people’s right to marry and choosing their own religion.

What is the reality of Religious Conversions in India?

While the right–wing government is attempting to introduce legislation governing religious conversions, an important question arises regarding the reality of religious conversions and the threat posed by the same. Is religious conversion a serious issue which requires implementation of a law that could potentially violate fundamental rights, or is it just a Trojan horse being used by the Government to fulfil hidden sinister agendas under the garb of protecting “gullible persons.”

In 2021, the Pew Research Centre released a report titled Religious Composition of India. The Report dealt with the changing religious composition of India and the causes of religious change.

According to the Report, 99% of persons who claim to have been raised as Hindus still identify as such. 97% of those who were raised as Muslims remain Muslims. Additionally, 94% of Indians who grew up as Christians remain Christians. Furthermore, people who change their religions often balance each other out. For instance, of all Indian adults, 0.7% were raised as Hindus but do not identify as such at the moment, while 0.8% were raised outside of the religion but are now Hindu.

Additionally, interfaith marriage is highly uncommon. 99% of married Hindus, 98% of married Muslims, and 95% of married Christians report having a spouse who shares their beliefs, according to the same survey. 92% of Christians and comparable percentages of Muslims and Hindus claim that their spouse was brought up in their present faith.

These findings raise questions about the true intentions of anti-conversion laws and the threat posed by forceful conversions. The false sense of insecurity regarding religion created by right–wing extremists has served merely as a fuel to fan the flames of religious disparities in India.

Conclusion

While the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, purports to prevent forced conversions, it actually poses the risk of violating the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of India. The law fosters an atmosphere that is conducive to abuse by giving officials broad immunity, imposing undue procedural limits on voluntary conversions, and transferring the burden of proof to the accused. It exerts state control over individual faith choices rather than defending religious freedom, disproportionately harming interfaith couples and religious minorities.

Furthermore, the narrative of widespread forced conversions is not supported by empirical data, which raises questions about whether such legislation is merely political ploys rather than providing true protection. In other states, similar legislations have already resulted in increased communal divisions, harassment, and false allegations. Laws such as this divert attention and are a means of policing individual liberty rather than tackling actual socio-economic problems. The government must concentrate on establishing legislative protections that forbid coercion without violating individual liberties if the goal is really to uphold individual rights. Otherwise, this law remains yet another step towards eroding India’s secular and pluralistic fabric.

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

Related:

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP’s Love Jihad Petition: SC issues notice to UP and Uttarakhand

CJP moves SC against “Love Jihad” laws

RightsCast: How India’s anti-conversion Laws are linked to the weaponization of the state administration

Curbing Freedom of Faith: India’s Anti-Conversion laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

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

Rising religious polarisation: Tridents symbolise growing communalism in Rajasthan

The post Are Indian anti-conversion laws targeting minorities or protecting the vulnerable? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Legal and judicial context

A long battle against manual scavenging India has had laws and judicial pronouncements aimed at eradicating manual scavenging for decades. The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 was the first attempt to criminalize manual scavenging, but it was poorly implemented. Subsequently, the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 expanded the definition of manual scavenging and mandated rehabilitation measures, including cash assistance, housing, education, and skill development. Despite these laws, the practice persisted, leading to significant judicial intervention.

Key Supreme Court decisions

Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014):

• The Supreme Court observed that manual scavenging was a clear violation of Articles 17, 21 of the Constitution and directed its complete eradication.
• The Court acknowledged that despite the enactment of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, the practice continued unchecked for two decades.
• Due to judicial intervention, the Government enacted the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which provided a stronger legal framework for abolition and rehabilitation.
• The Court emphasised that manual scavengers, primarily from Dalit communities, were subjected to extreme social discrimination and inhuman treatment, which was a form of untouchability prohibited under Article 17.
• The judgment stressed the international obligations of India under conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), reinforcing the need for India to abolish the practice.
• It directed the railway authorities to adopt a time-bound strategy to end manual scavenging along railway tracks.
• The ruling further ordered the identification of families of all individuals who had died in sewer-related work since 1993 and provided for compensation of ₹10 lakh per death.
• The Court concluded that while judicial monitoring was not required, all state governments and local bodies bore the responsibility of ensuring complete eradication and taking punitive action against defaulters.

The judgment may be read here:

Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023):

• The Supreme Court condemned the persistent violation of the 2013 Act and noted that despite legal prohibitions, manual scavenging continued unabated in various parts of the country.
• The Court directed the Union of India and states to ensure strict enforcement of the 2013 Act, including a comprehensive, nationwide survey to identify manual scavengers.

“The statutory scheme cannot be undermined through an interpretation that would leave the implementation of the 2013 Act solely with the local bodies, without any guidance from the Governments – State and Central. In other words, the salutary commitment made by the 2013 Act must be fulfilled by the local bodies in accordance with a policy-framework laid down by the Central or State Government.” (Para 53)

• It emphasized the failure of state and district-level monitoring committees, mandating their immediate reconstitution and active oversight.

“During the course of proceedings, on May 2, 2023, it was brought to notice of this court about irregular functioning of the Central Monitoring Committee envisaged under the Act of 2013.” (Para 8)

• The Court expressed deep concern over continuous sewer deaths, ruling that hazardous manual sewer entry amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution.

“Drawing from the above principles, it can be held that where minimum protective gear and cleaning devices are not provided to hazardous workers, the employment of hazardous workers amounts to forced labour and is thus prohibited under the Constitution.” (Para 90)

• The Court ordered ₹10 lakh compensation per sewer death, with state authorities held directly accountable for compliance.
• It stressed the need for better mechanization and technological interventions, directing municipal bodies to replace manual scavenging with mechanized solutions.

“It was noted that many countries have replaced the term “manholes” emphasizing the significance of change in language…… shortcomings in schemes like Swachh Bharat Mission and NAMASTE as it is only limited to urban local bodies, second it remains silent on mechanization technology deployed by the state authorities.” (Para 25)

• It highlighted discrepancies in official data, questioning the gross underreporting of manual scavengers and deaths, and called for transparency and accountability inreporting mechanisms.

“The appropriate government (i.e., the Union, State or Union Territories) shall devise a suitable mechanism to ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course of contractual or “outsourced” work. This accountability shall be in the form of cancellation of contract, forthwith, and imposition of monetary liability, aimed at deterring the practice” (Para 96)

• The Court directed urban local bodies and railways to phase out manual scavenging completely within a fixed timeframe, ensuring full mechanization of sewer cleaning operations.

“The Union should take appropriate measures and frame policies, and issue directions, to all statutory bodies, including corporations, railways, cantonments, as well as agencies under its control, to ensure that manual sewer cleaning is completely eradicated in a phased manner” (Para 96)

• It ruled that states failing to comply with rehabilitation measures would be held in contempt of court, with potential financial penalties imposed for non-compliance.

“The liberative nature of the statute coupled with the object of Article 17 and 23 require entitlements to be given to the families of those persons who died while working in sewers or septic tanks. This is also because the entire family would be rendered without a bread-winner. The economic and social status of the already downtrodden and oppressed family would dwindle further. The dignity of the individual, guaranteed by law under Article 21, must be ensured through rehabilitative processes.” (Para 92)

The judgment may be read here:

Despite these laws and judgments, the ground reality remained unchanged. The latest SC ruling is an acknowledgment of this persistent failure.

Key directives of the 2025 Supreme court order the January 2025 ruling directed that

• All manual sewer cleaning and manual scavenging must stop immediately in the six metro cities: Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad.
• Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of each city must file affidavits before the Supreme Court by February 13, 2025, detailing how they have implemented the ban.

The order may be read here:

Manual scavenging: A never-ending saga in India

Despite multiple judicial interventions, manual scavenging continues to persist due to deep-rooted socio-economic inequalities, caste-based discrimination, and administrative apathy. According to Garima Chawla’s research in The Grim Reality of Manual Scavenging in India: A Human Rights Perspective, published in the Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development (2024), manual scavengers continue to face grave health hazards and socio-economic hardships due to inadequate rehabilitation efforts and the failure of enforcement mechanisms.

The study highlights:

The overwhelming majority of manual scavengers belong to Dalit communities and are subjected to systemic caste-based discrimination.

• Many state governments underreport the prevalence of manual scavenging to avoid accountability and liability.
• Lack of mechanization in sanitation work continues to force marginalized workers into life-threatening conditions.
• Rehabilitation programs fail due to insufficient financial support and lack of alternative livelihood opportunities.
• There is an urgent need for stronger legal enforcement, public awareness campaigns, and rehabilitation efforts to ensure justice and dignity for affected communities.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

Breaking the cruel cycle of oppression: one more judgment against manual scavenging in India

Manual scavenging: Hate crime with caste discrimination at its root, Indian Railways an offender

How courts have expanded jurisprudence for Manual Scavengers

The Manual Scavengers Act: Jurisprudence so far

Manual scavenger deaths: How effective is the law in preventing them?

Death down the drain

The post India’s struggle to end manual scavenging continues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case originated from an FIR (No. 60/2017) lodged against multiple individuals, including Ajay Malik, for the wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker. The complainant, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe from Chhattisgarh, had left her home in search of employment but was allegedly deceived and brought to Delhi under false pretences. She was forced to work without proper wages and subjected to harsh conditions by an unregulated placement agency that controlled her employment. Ajay Malik, a senior scientist at DRDO, employed her as a domestic worker at his official residence, having entered into an agreement with the placement agency. According to the allegations, she was confined within his residence in Dehradun while he was away on official duty, with the house locked from the outside and a spare key given to his neighbour, Ashok Kumar, who was tasked with overseeing the premises.

The complainant, having no means of escape, eventually managed to contact the police, leading to her rescue on 29.03.2017. An FIR was registered against four individuals under Sections 343 (wrongful confinement) and 370 (trafficking) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigation led to separate legal proceedings against Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar. While Malik sought to have the case against him quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, Kumar challenged his inclusion in the charge sheet, claiming he was falsely implicated. The High Court refused to quash the charges against Malik but discharged Kumar, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues considered

1. Whether the High Court rightly rejected Ajay Malik’s plea for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the compounding of charges.
3. Whether Ashok Kumar’s discharge by the High Court was legally sustainable.
4. Whether India’s legal framework sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers. 

Observations on domestic workers’ rights

• The Court recognized that despite the growing demand for domestic workers, they remain one of the most vulnerable and exploited workforces, often subjected to low wages, unsafe environments, and lack of legal protection.

“The simple reason for this harassment and rampant abuse, which seems to be prevalent throughout the country, is the legal vacuum which exists vis-à-vis the rights and protection of domestic workers. Indeed, domestic workers in India remain largely unprotected and without any comprehensive legal recognition. As a result, they frequently endure low wages, unsafe environments, and extended hours without effective recourse.” (Para 41 of the judgment)

• It highlighted the absence of comprehensive national legislation regulating domestic work, pointing out that previous legislative attempts, such as the Domestic Workers (Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1959, and subsequent similar bills, never materialized into concrete laws.

“It, thus, seems to us that no effective legislative or executive action in furtherance of enacting a statute, which could prove to be a boon to millions of vulnerable domestic workers across the country, has been undertaken as of now.” (Para 50 of the judgment)

• Domestic workers remain excluded from major labour laws such as the Payment of. Wages Act, 1936, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

“Over and above the absence of any legislation protecting their interests, domestic labourers also find themselves excluded from existing labour laws as well. These, inter alia, include statutes such as the Payment of Wages Act 1936, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, etc.” (Para 50 of the judgment)

• The unregulated nature of placement agencies has led to widespread trafficking and forced labour, making domestic workers particularly susceptible to exploitation.

“At this juncture, we must fairly note that there have already been several attempts to bring domestic workers under legal protection. However, for a plethora of reasons that are beyond the scope of the present discussion, these Bills have never materialized into tangible laws or policies…… The Domestic Workers (Regulation of Work and Social Security) Bill, 2017 sought to regulate the work of domestic workers, prescribe duties for employers and placement agencies, establish Boards for their registration, address issues related to the marginalisation caused by migration, and provide for the inclusion of domestic workers in significant labour laws. However, the Bill was never enacted.” (Para 49 of the judgment) 

• The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to constitute an Expert Committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Ministry of Women & Child Development, and Ministry of Law & Justice.

“As regard to the larger issue of the protection of rights of domestic workers, we direct the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers.” (Para 55 of the judgment)

• The Committee was tasked with examining the feasibility of incorporating domestic workers under existing labour laws, recommending measures for their regularization, ensuring fair wages, providing social security benefits, and establishing a framework to regulate placement agencies.

“It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers.” (Para 55 of the judgment)

• Additionally, the Court underscored the need for India to align with international labor standards, referring to the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), which sets out guidelines for fair labour practices and protections.

“In the international spectrum, over the course of many decades, the ILO has provided various guidelines and conventions for the betterment of labour laws across the world. It is noteworthy that it has also extensively sought to protect the rights of domestic workers, which it recognises as a uniquely disadvantaged and marginalised class.” (Para 43 of the judgment) 

• The Court reiterated the doctrine of parens patriae, affirming the State’s duty to safeguard vulnerable and marginalized workers.

“Amidst this backdrop, which motions the lack of specific protections covering domestic workers in India, it becomes this Court’s solemn duty and responsibility to intervene, exercise the doctrine of parens patriae and forge the path leading to their proper welfare.” (Para 53 of the judgment)

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the urgent need for legislative intervention to protect domestic workers’ rights, addressing a longstanding legal vacuum that has left them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The ruling not only calls for legal recognition of domestic workers but also highlights the necessity of including them within the broader framework of labour protections, social security, and wage regulations. Insights from the UN Women report further emphasize the gendered vulnerabilities of domestic workers, particularly women, who face workplace discrimination, harassment, and precarious employment conditions. Programs such as capacity-building initiatives and advocacy efforts led by organizations like the Martha Farrell Foundation demonstrate the potential impact of legal literacy and collective action in securing workplace safety and dignity for domestic workers. The Supreme Court’s directive to constitute an Expert Committee reflects a broader call for systemic reforms, aligning India’s domestic labour policies with international standards such as the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011. By urging Parliament to enact a dedicated Domestic Workers’ Protection Act and recommending awareness campaigns to empower domestic workers, the Court reinforces the need for a holistic approach that combines legislative measures with enforcement mechanisms and grassroots activism. This judgment marks a significant step toward ensuring fairness, security, and legal accountability in a sector that has long been overlooked, setting a precedent for future labour law reforms in India.

The judgment in the case Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand delivered by Surya Kant. J on 29/01/2025 may be read here

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

‘We are considered servants, not humans’: Women of Jai Bhim Nagar reveal the violence of domestic work

The post Supreme Court: Calls for legal protections for domestic workers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The amicus also brought to attention the Standing Order passed by the Office of Director General of Police Haryana published on January 26, 2024, which authorises the Police to serve notice to an accused in person or via WhatsApp, email, SMS or any other electronic mode. The order of the Haryana Police is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI.

Section 41A of the CrPC was introduced to prevent unnecessary arrests in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. As per this section, instead of arresting the accused immediately, the police must first issue a notice of appearance in a prescribed mode. Section 35 of the BNSS is the corresponding section for Section 41A of the CrPC.

Background

To gain a comprehensive understanding of the Supreme Court’s stance on the procedure regarding the service of notice under Section 41A CrPC, it is essential to examine the circumstances that necessitated such a judicial interpretation.

In 2014, the Supreme Court laid down a landmark judgement in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. The Court deliberated upon the issue of unwarranted arrests and laid down guidelines for arrests to be made under Section 41, regarding all the offences punishable with imprisonment up to a period of 7 years. The guidelines were laid down for preventing arbitrary arrests and to protect individual liberties protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

While emphasizing the importance of following the due procedure laid down in the CrPC, the Court noted that “Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.” 

The primary objective of the Court was to protect the rights of the accused persons and to prevent them from being arbitrarily arrested. The landmark case laid down the ground for rights of arrested persons.

In 2018, in the case of Amandeep Singh Johar vs State of NCT of Delhi, [2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448], the Delhi High Court laid down the procedure to be strictly followed by the Police while issuing notice under Section 41A CrPC. This judgement came as a result of a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by an aggrieved person who had been summoned multiple times by the Police without issuing a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC. The writ petition highlighted how the Delhi Police had been functioning without strictly adhering to the procedure laid down under the CrPC regarding the issuance of notice to a person.

Further, in the case of Rakesh Kumar v Vijayanata Arya, [2021 SCC OnLine Del 5629], the Delhi High Court categorically mentioned that service of notice via WhatsApp, email, or any other electronic mode of communication would not be considered as valid as the same has not been provided in the provisions laid down in the CrPC. The petitioner in the case was taken into custody after notice was served upon him via Whatsapp and Email. The Court not only laid down the guidelines to be followed with regards to service of notice, but also provided for consequences for non-abidance of the same.

The Court held the arresting officer liable for contempt of court and noted that “Admittedly, the so-called ‘intimation’ through WhatsApp was not in the aforesaid format. Therefore, the intimation cannot be treated as a notice under Section 41A of the Cr. P.C. or of it having been served, as per the procedure laid down. Certainly, the IO (R-3) is in breach of the prescribed procedure as well as the Supreme Court’s direction in Arnesh Kumar. Personal liberty is a natural right of every human being. In India, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The liberty of an individual cannot be trifled with. It can be curtailed by the State only through the procedure prescribed by law. The police officer has acted in clear breach of the constitutional guarantee and the specific orders of the Supreme Court.”

Satendar Kumar Antil vs CBI

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, [(2022) 10 SCC 51], the Court noted that there was an absence of specific guidelines with respect to the mandatory compliance of Section 41-A of the Code. The Court took a note of the endeavour made by the Delhi Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar v Vijayanata Arya where not only the need for guidelines but also the effect of non-compliance towards taking action against the officers concerned was discussed. The Court also took a note of the Standing Order 109 of 2020 passed by the Delhi Police which provided for a set of guidelines in the form of procedure for issuance of notices or orders by the police officers.

The court ordered all State Governments and Union Territories to facilitate Standing Orders in accordance with procedural requirements under Section 41A of the CrPC, noting the Delhi Police’s Standing Order 109 of 2020.

Further, the bench noted that “We also expect the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41-A. We express our hope that the investigating agencies would keep in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar, the discretion to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance.” 

In this case the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar v Vijayanata Arya and recognized the importance of following due procedure laid down under the CrPC while serving notice to an accused. Furthermore, the Court directed state governments and union territories to issue standing orders regarding the procedural requirements under Section 41A of the CrPC referring to the Standing Order 109 of 2020 of the Delhi Police.

Recent developments

While hearing the recent plea in the case of Satendar Kumar Antil vs CBI, the amicus mentioned that “the police machinery must not circumvent the mandate of Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 by serving notices through WhatsApp or other electronic modes, instead of following the normal mode of service.” 

He further mentioned that while the new criminal code, BNSS, permitted the use of electronic means for conducting trials or enquiries, the service of e–notice under Section 35 was not permitted.

In accordance with Section 41-A of the CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, the Court ordered all States and UTs to issue a Standing Order to their respective police machinery directing them to exclusively serve notices via the procedure specified by the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that “It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.” 

The Court further stated that the Delhi High Court’s guidelines in the cases of Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, must be strictly followed by all States/UTs when issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery pertaining to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023.

Conclusion 

Protecting individual freedoms is crucial, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of procedural compliance in serving notices under Sections 41A of the CrPC and 35 of the BNSS, 2023. Due process and constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrests have been strengthened by the Court’s clear rejection of electronic notice service. This decision is consistent with important rulings that highlight the presumption of innocence and the need for judicial scrutiny, such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The rights of the accused are safeguarded and the rule of law is upheld in India’s criminal justice system by ensuring that the prescribed procedures are strictly followed.

Related:

Erratic arrests by police and the Arnesh Kumar Judgement

Arrests: a prudent exception in cases with lesser sentence

Delhi HC sends police officer to prison for a day for violating Arnesh Kumar guidelines

The post Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary arrests, Supreme Court bars WhatsApp & Email notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.