During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to 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 Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

The court stated in its order that “The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the name of the        applicant figures at serial no.18 on the list submitted by the Government of Assam of the foreigners who are to be deported. She states that the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal declaring her as a foreign national by filing a writ petition before the High Court. If that be so, it is for the applicant to seek appropriate interim relief from the High Court in that behalf. Therefore, at this stage, we are not passing any order on this Application.”

In the original Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. This directive underscores the need for transparency in the process and ensures that the state accounts for each detainee’s status before proceeding with any deportation.

SG Tushar Mehta had, during the hearing, requested for some time to provide the Court with the decision of the executive in regards to the issue of deportation. The case is now scheduled for a further hearing on March 21, 2025, where the fate of many, including Ajabha Khatun, will be closely examined.

In the order, the Bench stated “Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the issue of deportation of the foreigners which arises in this Petition is being dealt with at the highest executive level and if time is granted, he will place on record the decision taken by the appropriate authority. We grant him time till 21st March, 2025.”

The order of February 25, 2025 may be read here.

Senior counsel Aparna Bhat argued the matter in the Supreme Court assisted by advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Sanjana Thomas. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta leads the CJP’s team in Assam and is arguing the matter in the Gauhati High Court.

Why was this impleadment essential?

The case of Ajabha Khatun exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process, where individuals are arbitrarily declared foreigners and detained without substantive proof. Khatun, a resident of Assam, has been held at the Matia Detention Camp despite a lack of evidence linking her to any foreign country. She is among the 63 detainees the Assam government claims are foreigners and must be deported—a claim that has been challenged for its lack of legal and evidentiary basis.

The state’s affidavit, submitted in court, asserts that 270 persons, including 63 from Bangladesh, are currently detained at Matia. In past hearings, including one on January 22, 2025, Assam has repeatedly argued that none of these detainees are Indian and that deportation is warranted. However, when directly questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about the country of origin of these detainees, the Assam government’s counsel erroneously insisted that all were declared foreigners—a claim that lacks evidence and legal credibility.

Khatun’s case is part of the broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The original petitioner, Rajubala Das, had sought directives preventing Assam authorities from detaining individuals without demonstrating a realistic possibility of deportation. Ajabha Khatun, detained in Matia Detention Camp, has filed both an Impleadment Application and an Application for Directions to challenge the order facilitating her deportation. She argues that she is an Indian citizen and that the Tribunal’s decision was marred by procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

Ajabha Khatun’s case, once again, highlights the systematic denial of fundamental rights to individuals declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). In her case, her denial of rights began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Barpeta Assembly Constituency doubted her citizenship and forwarded her case to SP Barpeta (Competent Authority) under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act, 1983/The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district passed its order declaring her non-Indian on February 8, 2019. She was arrested, however, only in September 2024 after which CJP has assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. It was only after the state filed an affidavit in the original Rajubala case, providing a list of 63 detainees on February 3, 2025, through which the government erroneously informed the Court were foreigners that the CJP team found Ajabha to figure on the list (serial number 18).

Since her citizenship had been doubted and the question of whether the said Ajabha Khatun was a citizen of India or not remained unanswered, her right to cast a vote has been put in abeyance. Notably, while her constitutional rights to vote were snatched away, the ERO inquiry report which does not record any reasons for the arbitrary action in striking her name of the electoral rolls raised more questions than it answers.

From the moment a notice was issued against her, in 2017, she was deprived of procedural fairness—a core component of natural justice. During the FT proceedings despite the proffering of witness testimony and crucial documentary evidence, a misplaced application of burden of proof was applied, her father’s evidence deposing that she was his daughter was disregarded and she was declared non-Indian.

Additionally, it is essential to highlight that an investigation report was submitted by Local Verification Officer Dipankar Baruah to the Election Registration Officer (ERO), 43 No. Barpeta LAC. This report, marked as Annexure-A, formed the basis for the reference made against the Opposing Party. However, points 15 and 16 of Annexure-A expose glaring inconsistencies:

• Point 15 explicitly asks whether the Opposing Party (Ajabha Khatun) migrated to Assam (Yes/No), yet the LVO fails to provide any response.
• Point 16 further inquires that, if the Opposing Party did migrate—about the place of origin (State or Country) and the time frame of migration (before January 1, 1966, between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, or after March 25, 1971). Both these critical fields are left entirely blank in the investigation report.

This omission makes it undeniably clear that the LVO had no basis in fact to substantiate the allegation of migration against the Opposing Party. If the investigating officer himself did not raise any doubts, on what basis did the ERO and Superintendent of Police (SP) initiate this reference?

With no substantive claim or evidence against the Opposing Party, the reference is arbitrary, baseless, and legally unsustainable. Ajabha’s challenge against the order of the Tribunal remains is now pending before the Gauhati High Court.

Beyond these substantive and procedural violations, Khatun’s detention at Matia Detention Camp amounts to an infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Arrested in September 2024, she has been confined for an indefinite period without a criminal charge, in conditions the Supreme Court itself has recognised as deplorable. Furthermore, her right to equality under Article 14 has been denied, as citizenship determination processes disproportionately target marginalised communities, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The denial of her right to reside and settle in India (Article 19) further compounds this injustice, as she faces the possibility of deportation despite having lived in Assam her entire life.

Besides, since 1997, her access to receive the benefit of government schemes has been limited, due to non-issuance of Aadhar cards. Since her unique identity card has not been issued by the government, basic welfare facilities, such as ration, has been out of bounds for her.

This case is further crucial because it exemplifies the larger crisis of wrongful citizenship determinations in Assam. If Khatun were to have been deported despite the absence of substantive evidence, it would have set a dangerous precedent where individuals, particularly the poor and marginalised, can be stripped of their citizenship arbitrarily. The state’s approach in this case—ignoring due process, misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court, and failing to establish any real connection between detainees and a foreign country—exposes the structural failures of the FT system. Ensuring that Khatun’s rights are upheld is not just about her case; it is about holding the state accountable for its unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of individuals declared foreigners.

More broadly, the case underscores why every person under the threat of deportation must be allowed to exhaust all legal remedies before any steps are undertaken. Deportation is an irreversible action with life-altering consequences, often resulting in statelessness, separation from families, and denial of basic human rights. Ensuring access to legal recourse safeguards against wrongful expulsions and upholds the rule of law. Given the well-documented flaws in the FT process, the judiciary must act as a check on executive overreach, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without rigorous scrutiny.

Key issues in the case

1. Arbitrary declaration as a foreigner: The applicant was declared a foreigner without substantive proof.
2. Violation of procedural fairness: The Foreigners Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.
3. Lack of material linking the applicant to another country: The State has failed to establish any connection between the applicant and a foreign country.
4. Impact of wrongful deportation: Deportation could lead to statelessness and irreversible human rights violations.

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

1. Impleadment as a necessary party: Given the direct impact of the Supreme Court’s deportation order, Ajabha Khatun must be impleaded to protect her fundamental rights as her case remains pending in the Gauhati High Court and her legal remedies have not been exhausted.
2. Application for Directions to stay the deportation order: The applicant seeks judicial intervention to halt her deportation, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Since there had been no grant to interim relief by the Gauhati High Court, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to ensure that no action is taken against her till she is heard and her proofs of citizenship are appreciated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): Discriminatory treatment in citizenship determination processes disproportionately affects marginalised communities.
2. Article 19 (Right to Reside and Settle in India): Deportation without due process violates her constitutional right to reside in India.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Arbitrary detention and wrongful deportation violate her right to live with dignity.

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

1. The Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration was based on procedural flaws and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal did not appreciate the voter rolls presented as evidence, containing her father’s name, her husband’s name as well as her own name.
2. The FT ignored her father’s testimony which flies in the face of the primary rules of Evidence under the Evidence Act.
3. The State’s assertion that her nationality is “known” –in one set of documents –while keeping that category “blank” in another —contradicts both the facts and the Tribunal’s failure to identify any foreign connection. While her name figured in the name of the 63 deemed worthy of deportation by the state, her legal remedies have yet to be exhausted and she only has a FT order against her.

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

1. The applicant’s challenge before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 6626/2024) is at the motion stage.
2. Proceeding with deportation while the case is sub judice violates principles of judicial fairness.

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

The Foreigners Tribunal 1^st Barpeta, Assam, in its order dated February 8, 2019, declared Ajabha Khatun a post-1971 foreigner based on alleged failure to prove Indian citizenship. However, it is the argument of the applicant that the order reveals severe procedural and evidentiary flaws:

• No independent investigation appears to have been conducted to verify her citizenship before the notice was served to her and her name struck off the electoral rolls
• Documentary evidence was disregarded without justification.
• The burden of proof was misapplied under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

It is essential to note that the following evidence had been submitted by Ajabha Khatun to prove her citizenship:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 showing her grandfather, father, and herself as registered voters.
• Gaonburah certificates confirming familial relationships.
• Affidavits and cross-examinations corroborating her Indian lineage.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal rejected this evidence based on hyper-technical objections, without addressing the substantive proof of her citizenship. Further issues with the decision of the FT are:

• The inquiry report forming the basis of the allegations was not served on the applicant.
• The report merely stated a “suspicion” of foreign nationality without any concrete evidence.
• The ERO’s report striking her off the electoral rolls has also been from the documents available been the result of a conclusion reached without any investigation or inquiry.
• The Tribunal’s approach was inconsistent with established judicial principles requiring prima facie material before declaring a person a foreigner.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal’s decision stands in direct violation of established precedents, as it fails to establish a prima facie case. In legal proceedings, the necessity of demonstrating an initial case with sufficient evidence is fundamental to ensuring due process. By neglecting this requirement, the Tribunal undermines the legitimacy of its decision-making process. Furthermore, the absence of substantive evidence renders the declaration legally untenable. Without concrete proof to support its conclusions, the decision lacks a firm legal foundation and is susceptible to challenge. Such a deficiency not only weakens the authority of the ruling but also raises concerns about its adherence to principles of justice and fairness. The IA provides the following judicial percent’s that were violated by the FT while declaring its order:

1. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer [(1995) 3 SCC 100] – Due process requires disclosure of reasons before removing a person from voter rolls.
2. State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 1) – Tribunals must ensure prima facie material exists before issuing notices.
3. Haidar Ali v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Gau 683) – Recognised the perfunctory and arbitrary manner of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings.
4. Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695) – Authorities must have substantive grounds for suspecting foreign nationality.

Conclusion and prayer

The case of Ajabha Khatun exemplifies the systemic failures in citizenship determination in Assam. If the Supreme Court proceeds to direct deportation of those “”declared to be foreigners”, without acknowledging that at least 20 of the 63 inmates have cases pending at various Constitutional Courts, and without considering Ajabha Khatun’s case, it will result in violation of constitutional and international human rights norms. The applicant, through her interventions, had requested the Supreme Court to:

1. Implead her as Party Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020.
2. Stay the deportation order until her case before the Gauhati High Court is resolved.
3. Scrutinise Foreigners Tribunal procedures to prevent arbitrary declarations of foreign nationality.

This case underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in citizenship determination to prevent wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised cruelty against married women, has been retained with minor modifications. Now listed as Section 85 of the BNS, the provision continues to address domestic violence and harassment, particularly in cases involving dowry-related cruelty. Despite its crucial role in protecting women, concerns over its alleged misuse have persisted, prompting calls for legal safeguards to prevent false cases while ensuring justice for genuine victims. This necessitates a balanced approach that upholds the law’s intent while incorporating necessary reforms to prevent its exploitation.

The primary criticism levelled against Section 498A is that it has been exploited by some women to file false complaints, leading to wrongful arrests and harassment of innocent individuals. This concern has been echoed in various Supreme Court and high court rulings, which have called for caution in its application. Yet, a crucial question remains largely overlooked: Is the problem rooted in the law itself, or is it the failure of institutions responsible for its implementation? This piece argues that the so-called misuse of Section 498A is not a reflection of the law’s inherent flaws but rather a consequence of systemic failures by law enforcement, the legal fraternity, and district court judges. Their lack of diligence, patriarchal biases, and procedural lapses often result in either wrongful prosecutions or the dismissal of genuine cases, creating an illusion of widespread abuse of the provision.

Understanding section 498A and its intent

Section 498A was specifically designed to protect women from cruelty, which includes acts that endanger their physical or mental well-being, harassment for dowry, and behaviour that could drive them to suicide. The provision is broad in its scope, recognising that cruelty manifests not only in physical violence but also in emotional and psychological abuse. Despite its protective intent, the law has been portrayed as a tool for harassment, with critics arguing that false cases are filed to settle personal scores. However, such claims often fail to acknowledge the larger reality—domestic violence and dowry-related abuse remain rampant in India, as consistently reflected in National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data.

The Supreme Court has addressed concerns regarding the misuse of Section 498A in several key judgments. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the Court held that the demand for dowry itself constitutes cruelty, reaffirming the necessity of stringent legal measures against such practices. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court elaborated on the concept of mental cruelty, recognising that humiliation, emotional neglect, and lack of support could all amount to cruelty in matrimonial cases. The judgment in Savita Bhatnagar v. V.K. Bhatnagar (2014) further underscored that cruelty is not limited to physical violence but also includes psychological harm. More recently, in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013), the Supreme Court acknowledged that filing false criminal complaints could itself amount to mental cruelty, which has often been cited in discussions about alleged misuse of the law. However, these cases highlight the need for better procedural safeguards, not the redundancy of Section 498A itself.

The necessity of Section 498A is further underscored by real-life cases of cruelty. In Ram Kishan Jain & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a woman was unable to meet dowry demands, leading to her being administered sedatives and ultimately attempting suicide by cutting her veins. In Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, a woman was subjected to prolonged ill-treatment, denied food, and harassed to the point of death. Such cases illustrate the horrifying realities that necessitate strong legal protection under Section 498A. The provision does not solely address dowry-related violence but also encompasses any wilful conduct that endangers a woman’s health or safety. Yet, in cases such as Ashok Batra & Ors v. State, where a deceased woman’s letters detailing harassment were disregarded, the judiciary’s failure to treat such evidence seriously highlights the systemic shortcomings in the law’s implementation.

Use of section 498A

Section 498A has been instrumental in providing legal recourse to women who face cruelty and abuse within their matrimonial homes. In numerous cases, it has been a crucial tool in holding perpetrators accountable. For instance, in Ram Kishan Jain & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a woman was subjected to extreme cruelty when she was administered sedatives and later attempted suicide after being unable to meet dowry demands. Similarly, in Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, the victim was ill-treated, denied food, and mentally tortured for days before succumbing to abuse. Cases like these highlight the persistent and grave nature of domestic cruelty, underscoring why Section 498A remains necessary.

The provision not only addresses dowry-related harassment but also extends to broader forms of cruelty, including emotional and mental abuse. In Ashok Batra & Ors v. State, the courts failed to give due weight to letters left behind by the deceased woman detailing her harassment, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of the doubt. Such instances demonstrate how, despite the presence of evidence, judicial reluctance sometimes leads to injustice for victims. Section 498A serves as a legal safeguard against such oversights, ensuring that complaints of cruelty are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.

The real problem: systemic failures, not the law

The discourse on the misuse of Section 498A often fails to scrutinise the role of those responsible for its enforcement. Law enforcement officers frequently act arbitrarily—either making indiscriminate arrests without investigation or, conversely, dismissing genuine complaints due to entrenched biases or corruption. Legal professionals, too, contribute to the problem, with some exploiting procedural loopholes to either misuse the provision for personal gain or to shield accused individuals from accountability. District court judges, who preside over most of these cases, often lack the necessary gender sensitisation, leading to inconsistent verdicts where both wrongful convictions and unjust acquittals occur.

There are key elements to Section 498A that dictate its implementation. For an offence to be recognised under this section, the woman must be married, must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such acts must have been perpetrated by her husband or his relatives. Additionally, situations that warrant immediate legal intervention include medical evidence of abuse, the refusal to return a woman’s assets under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), and threats or coercion that endanger her life. However, rather than conducting thorough investigations, police officers often either act hastily or dismiss complaints altogether, further complicating the issue.

Judicial interventions have sought to regulate the use of Section 498A by setting guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure due process. However, such rulings should not be misinterpreted as evidence that the law itself is flawed; rather, they highlight the need for better enforcement mechanisms to ensure that both victims and the wrongfully accused receive justice.

Recent judgment lamenting “misuse of Section 498A”

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

In October 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC, ruling that there was no substantive evidence against him. The appellant, the brother-in-law of the deceased, had been accused of harassing and torturing her over dowry demands, alongside her husband and sister-in-law. However, he challenged the High Court’s decision upholding his conviction, arguing that the alleged dowry demand took place in January 2010, whereas his marriage to the deceased’s sister-in-law occurred later in October 2010.

The Supreme Court found “no scintilla of evidence” linking him to the alleged cruelty and criticised the indiscriminate implication of family members in Section 498A cases. The bench emphasised that courts must be vigilant in identifying instances of over-implication to prevent innocent individuals from enduring unwarranted legal consequences. The judgment highlighted concerns over exaggerated accusations in 498A cases, cautioning against their misuse.

Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab (2024)

In November 2024, the Supreme Court cautioned lower courts against the unnecessary implication of distant relatives of a husband in Section 498A cases. The case arose after the complainant, the wife’s father, lodged an FIR shortly after the husband-initiated divorce proceedings. The complaint not only named the husband and his parents but also included the husband’s cousin and his cousin’s wife, alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. When the implicated relatives sought to have the case quashed, the High Court rejected their plea, citing the filing of the chargesheet.

On appeal, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s approach, stating that it was obligated to assess whether the inclusion of distant relatives was an instance of over-implication or exaggeration. The Court noted that the accused relatives resided in a different city from the complainant’s daughter, raising questions about the credibility of the allegations. Additionally, the Court clarified that while Section 498A does not explicitly define “relative,” the term should be understood in a common-sense manner, typically referring to immediate family members such as parents, children, siblings, and their spouses. It stressed that if allegations extend to individuals not directly related by blood, marriage, or adoption, courts must carefully scrutinise whether the claims are exaggerated. The judgment reinforced the need for judicial vigilance to prevent unwarranted prosecutions under Section 498A.

Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024)

In the said case, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the potential misuse of Section 498A IPC and its equivalent provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), namely Sections 85 and 86. The Court urged Parliament to reconsider these provisions in light of the “pragmatic realities” surrounding allegations of cruelty in matrimonial disputes. The case involved a husband who had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to quash an FIR filed against him under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 IPC. The FIR had been lodged by his wife following his decision to initiate divorce proceedings on grounds of cruelty.

The Supreme Court held that if an FIR, when read in its entirety, suggests that criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the accused, the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case. The judgment cautioned law enforcement against the mechanical application of Section 498A in every case of marital discord, stating that police authorities should ensure that the provision is not used as a tool to exert undue pressure on husbands. The Court also emphasised that trivial disputes or day-to-day quarrels between spouses should not automatically be classified as cruelty under the law.

Expressing serious apprehensions over the misuse of Section 498A, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra called upon the Legislature to reassess the provisions under the BNS before they took effect. The Court noted that while Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS largely replicate Section 498A IPC, the explanation defining “cruelty” has been structured as a separate provision under Section 86. The ruling reinforced the need for judicial scrutiny in matrimonial disputes and warned against indiscriminate prosecutions under the guise of protecting women’s rights.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others v. state of Telangana & another (2024)

On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court once again cautioned against the indiscriminate use of Section 498A IPC, stressing that it should not be misused as a tool for personal vendetta. While quashing a domestic cruelty case against a husband and his in-laws, the bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh criticised the growing tendency to implicate all members of a husband’s family in cases arising from matrimonial disputes. The Court noted that such misuse of the law distorts its original intent, which was to protect women from cruelty inflicted by their husbands and in-laws.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the wife after her husband sought the dissolution of their marriage. The Telangana High Court had refused to quash the domestic cruelty case, prompting the appellants—comprising the husband and his family—to approach the Supreme Court. Examining the complaint, the Court found that the allegations were vague and generalised, with no clear prima facie case against the accused. The Court observed that while genuine cases of cruelty must be taken seriously, frivolous and retaliatory complaints undermine the law’s credibility and burden the judicial system.

Justice Nagarathna, authoring the judgment, highlighted that while the provision was enacted to curb cruelty and ensure swift state intervention, its misuse has become increasingly common in matrimonial conflicts. The Court reiterated that Section 498A should not be weaponised to coerce or intimidate husbands and their families into submission. It also warned lower courts against mechanically prosecuting accused persons without scrutinising the legitimacy of complaints. In this case, the Court found that the wife had lodged the complaint as a counterblast to the husband’s divorce petition, thereby misusing the provision.

While quashing the proceedings, the Court clarified that its observations should not discourage women from filing genuine complaints under Section 498A when they have actually suffered cruelty. However, it stressed that cases lacking specific allegations should not be entertained, as they undermine the law’s purpose and erode trust in the legal system.

Digambar and another v. the State of Maharashtra and another (2024)

On December 20, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed a domestic cruelty case under Section 498A IPC against a husband’s parents, ruling that the case was filed with an ulterior motive to pressure their son into consenting to a divorce. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, set aside the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench decision, which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that her in-laws forced her to consume adulterated food, causing her miscarriage. She also accused them of mental and physical cruelty for not bearing a male child, leading to charges under Sections 312/313 IPC in addition to Section 498A. However, the Supreme Court noted that the complaint regarding the miscarriage and cruelty was made to the police two years after the alleged incident, with no supporting evidence that the appellants were aware of the complainant’s pregnancy or administered any harmful substances. The Court ruled that a mere allegation of cruelty does not constitute an offence unless it is shown to have been committed with the intent to cause grave injury, drive the victim to suicide, or inflict severe harm.

Justice Gavai, authoring the judgment, observed that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details of cruelty or misconduct. The only injury-related allegation mentioned that the complainant’s husband used to beat her, but no direct accusation was made against the appellants. Additionally, the Court pointed out the complainant’s failure to include these serious allegations in the ongoing divorce proceedings, raising doubts about her intentions. Given the two-year delay in filing the FIR, the Court inferred that the complaint was a retaliatory measure to exert pressure during the divorce case.

By quashing the proceedings, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that matrimonial disputes should not be weaponised through criminal complaints. It stressed that while genuine cases of domestic violence and cruelty must be taken seriously, courts should remain vigilant against attempts to misuse legal provisions for personal advantage.

Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. the State of Telangana & Ors (2025)

On February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court quashed criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand, and domestic violence against certain family members of the accused husband, emphasising the dangers of invoking criminal law in domestic disputes without specific allegations or credible evidence. The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, observed that family relationships are deeply rooted in social and cultural values and should not be disrupted by indiscriminate criminal proceedings. The Court stressed that while it is essential to protect victims of domestic violence, allegations must be scrutinised to prevent misuse of the law.

The case involved a complaint under Section 498A IPC, Section 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed against the husband’s mother, his mother’s younger sister, and her brother-in-law. The appellants had sought to quash the proceedings, but the High Court refused, stating that a prima facie case had been made out against them. Challenging this decision, they approached the Supreme Court, which carefully examined the charge sheet and witness statements. The Court found that the allegations of harassment were based on information provided by the complainant to her parents rather than direct witness accounts. Additionally, claims of physical abuse by the husband and relatives were not mentioned in the complainant’s statement but had been added later by her parents, raising doubts about their credibility.

The Court further noted inconsistencies in the testimony of panchayat elders, who claimed to have attended meetings in Chennai despite residing in Telangana. It underscored that while specific allegations against the husband and mother-in-law existed, the accusations against the present appellants were vague. The Court warned against the tendency to implicate extended family members without clear evidence of their active participation in domestic violence. It clarified that merely failing to intervene in an abusive situation does not equate to perpetrating cruelty unless direct involvement is established.

Striking a balance, the Court reaffirmed that genuine cases of cruelty and violence must be addressed with sensitivity, ensuring that true perpetrators face consequences while preventing an indiscriminate legal dragnet. It held that there was no prima facie case against the appellants, as the evidence relied solely on the complainant’s allegations without specific roles attributed to them. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against them were quashed, with the Court making it clear that its findings would not affect the prosecution of other accused persons in the case.

Section 498A IPC: Addressing misuse without dilution

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted to protect women from cruelty, particularly in the context of dowry-related harassment. However, debates around its alleged misuse have intensified over the years. While some argue that the law is frequently misused for personal vendettas, others assert that this narrative is largely exaggerated and has led to calls for dilution that could harm genuine victims. The reality is that the law is neither inherently flawed nor unnecessary; rather, its misuse stems from systemic weaknesses in enforcement, legal procedures, and societal attitudes.

Misuse of Section 498A does not occur in isolation. It involves various actors, each playing a role in how the law is applied or misapplied. A closer look at these factors reveals the need for reform in its implementation rather than weakening its protective provisions.

1. Complainants: False or exaggerated allegations: While Section 498A is a crucial legal safeguard for women facing domestic abuse, concerns about false or exaggerated complaints cannot be ignored. In some cases, women or their families may misuse the provision to settle personal scores, gain leverage in divorce or custody disputes, or pressure the husband’s family into financial settlements. The law’s stringent nature, which allows immediate arrest without preliminary investigation, can be misused in such situations.
2. Role of legal professionals: Some legal advisors contribute to the misuse of Section 498A by encouraging clients to file fabricated or exaggerated complaints. This is often done to strengthen matrimonial disputes, secure favourable financial settlements, or harass the husband’s family. Lawyers who prioritise winning cases over ethical considerations play a key role in enabling such exploitation.
3. Law enforcement and investigating agencies: The police, as the primary enforcers of the law, play a crucial role in its potential misuse. In some cases, officers arrest accused individuals solely based on complaints, without conducting a proper investigation. This may stem from external pressures, fear of being accused of negligence, or even corruption. Investigating agencies also contribute to wrongful prosecution when they fail to verify allegations thoroughly, sometimes due to inadequate resources or bias. The lack of proper scrutiny at this stage can lead to wrongful arrests, reinforcing the perception that Section 498A is frequently misused.
4. Judicial system and its role: The judiciary has acknowledged the possibility of abuse and issued guidelines to prevent wrongful prosecutions. However, inconsistencies in the application of these safeguards remain a challenge. The cognizable and non-bailable nature of the offence means that accused individuals can be arrested and face social stigma even before their case is heard in court. This reinforces the argument for stricter procedural safeguards while ensuring that genuine victims receive justice.
5. Societal and cultural influences: Deeply entrenched patriarchal norms contribute to the complex dynamics surrounding Section 498A. On one hand, families sometimes use the law as a weapon in dowry disputes or personal conflicts. On the other, societal conditioning discourages women from reporting domestic abuse, fearing social backlash. The stigma associated with marital discord often forces women to endure years of cruelty before seeking legal recourse, making it imperative that Section 498A remains a robust legal protection.
6. Lack of procedural safeguards: The absence of sufficient procedural checks has made Section 498A vulnerable to both misuse and under-enforcement. The law allows for immediate arrest without the need for preliminary verification, which can lead to wrongful detentions. At the same time, genuine victims often struggle to navigate the legal system due to patriarchal biases in law enforcement and the judiciary. Strengthening procedural safeguards—such as mandatory preliminary inquiries before arrest—could help balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect victims.

Strengthening implementation instead of dilution

Justice Dr Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court, speaking at an event on February 8, 2025, asserted that Section 498A is not misused but widely misunderstood. She noted that while some women may misuse the provision, this should not justify treating all cases under it as frivolous.

“I can confidently say that Section 498A is not being misused; rather, it is being misunderstood by everyone. It is now the responsibility of both the Bar and the Bench to rise to the occasion and offer appropriate legal guidance to clients,” she remarked, as per LiveLaw.

Justice Gokhale highlighted how societal attitudes discourage women from reporting domestic violence, citing a 2003 government report that found over 30% of married women in India experience physical, sexual, or emotional abuse at the hands of their husbands or in-laws. However, due to societal pressures, many cases remain unreported. She also addressed concerns regarding over-implication in complaints, where women sometimes name distant relatives to pressure the husband’s family into financial settlements.

Acknowledging this, she cautioned that overuse of Section 498A risks discrediting real victims.

“On the bench, we may see ten cases in a day where the ingredients of Section 498A are not met due to over-implication. But what about the eleventh case, which may be a genuine one? Unfortunately, such overuse affects the credibility of real victims, and this is deeply concerning,” she observed.

Re-orienting the application of Section 498A

Rather than advocating for dilution, efforts should focus on improving the implementation of Section 498A. The following reforms could help strike a balance between preventing misuse and ensuring justice for genuine victims:

• Stronger investigative protocols: Law enforcement agencies should be required to conduct a preliminary inquiry before making arrests in Section 498A cases, as recommended by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017). This would help filter out false complaints while ensuring that genuine victims receive immediate protection.
• Legal accountability: Lawyers who misuse procedural gaps to encourage false cases should face disciplinary action. Legal professionals must prioritise ethical advocacy over strategic litigation tactics.
• Judicial sensitisation: District court judges must receive gender sensitisation training to distinguish between routine marital discord and legally recognised cruelty. This will help ensure fair adjudication without bias against either party.
• Public awareness campaigns: Educating women on their rights and legal options can reduce unnecessary litigation while encouraging victims of genuine abuse to seek justice.

Related:

India’s struggle to end manual scavenging continues

Supreme Court: Calls for legal protections for domestic workers

BNSS empowers law enforcement and judiciary with sweeping authority over property: a mightier state, a meeker citizen

Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary arrests, Supreme Court bars WhatsApp & Email notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS

Noise Pollution Ban: Unequal standards for diverse practices?

The post The Debate around Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Singh was accompanied by BJP’s northeast in-charge Sambit Patra, state party president A Sharda, and 19 MLAs. Patra remained in Imphal to assist in selecting Singh’s successor. His resignation came after a meeting with Union home minister Amit Shah in Delhi on Saturday, amid growing pressure from both BJP legislators and opposition parties. Reports suggested that several BJP MLAs had threatened to sit in the opposition during the no-confidence motion if Singh continued as chief minister.

Supreme Court intervention and allegations of instigating violence

Singh’s resignation followed a Supreme Court directive ordering a central forensic laboratory to investigate leaked audio recordings that purportedly feature the chief minister admitting to having instigated the ethnic violence in Manipur. These tapes, allegedly recorded by a whistle-blower, have been at the centre of fresh legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court, while refusing to draw immediate conclusions, has asked for a forensic report by March 25.

The opposition seized on this development to criticise both Singh and the BJP’s handling of the crisis. Congress leaders accused the BJP of acting only when political survival was at stake rather than addressing the root causes of the ethnic conflict. Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi stated on X (formerly Twitter) that Singh had “instigated division in Manipur” while Prime Minister Narendra Modi allowed him to continue despite the violence and loss of life. Gandhi accused Modi of turning a blind eye to the suffering in Manipur, saying, “The people of Manipur now await a visit by our Frequent Flier PM who is off to France and the USA—he has neither found the time nor the inclination to visit Manipur in the past twenty months.”

Congress MP Udit Raj also criticised the delay in Singh’s removal. “When the Congress was demanding his removal at the right time, he was not removed. Now, after everything has been ruined, it makes no sense,” he said. Manipur Congress chief K Meghachandra Singh called the resignation a “belated decision” and argued that Singh’s failures had led to “anarchy and a crisis of governance” in the state.

The opposition also pointed to the BJP’s political compulsions as the primary reason behind Singh’s resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh noted that the BJP removed Singh not out of concern for Manipur’s people but to avoid embarrassment in the assembly and prevent a government collapse. Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] issued statements condemning the BJP for allowing Singh to remain in power for so long.

Ethnic conflict, polarisation, and Singh’s role

The resignation also deepened divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, both of whom reacted differently to Singh’s exit. Singh, a Meitei leader, was criticised by Kuki groups for his alleged role in the ethnic violence that began on May 3, 2023, and led to over 250 deaths and the displacement of thousands. The Kuki-majority Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF), which had been demanding Singh’s resignation since the violence erupted, said his exit was long overdue. However, the ITLF reiterated that their agitation would continue unless the union government granted a separate administration for the Kuki community. ITLF spokesperson Ginza Vualzong stated, “We believe he knew he would be voted out in the no-confidence motion, and to save his face, he resigned.”

In contrast, Meitei nationalist groups lamented Singh’s resignation. Jeetendra Ningomba, former coordinator of the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (Cocomi), argued that Singh’s exit was ill-timed. “I don’t think it was the right moment for Singh to step down. His resignation will only strengthen Kuki separatist forces in Manipur,” he said.

BJP’s internal rebellion and legislative fallout

Singh’s position within the BJP had been eroding for months, with several MLAs distancing themselves from his leadership. The BJP holds 32 seats in the 59-member Manipur assembly, but it had been losing allies and internal support. Reports suggest that 5-10 BJP MLAs, including ministers, had resolved to switch to the opposition rather than continue backing Singh. Some of the BJP’s own Kuki MLAs, who had withdrawn support for Singh earlier, welcomed his exit. BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip bluntly reacted to the news, saying, “Good riddance.”

Singh’s rigid stance on the conflict had also alienated the BJP’s partners within the North-East Democratic Alliance (NEDA). Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma’s National People’s Party (NPP) withdrew support for Singh’s government in November 2024, citing its “complete failure to restore normalcy.” Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma went further, declaring Singh a “liability” for both Manipur and the BJP, even suggesting that President’s Rule would be preferable.

With the loss of support from its allies and internal rebellion brewing, Singh’s resignation became inevitable. His departure averted what would have been a politically damaging no-confidence motion for the BJP government. Following Singh’s exit, Governor Bhalla issued a notification cancelling the budget session of the assembly.

Manipur’s uncertain future and lingering security concerns

Despite Singh’s resignation, tensions in Manipur remain high. On the night of his departure, unidentified gunmen raided an India Reserve Battalion (IRB) outpost in Thoubal district, looting several SLR and AK rifles. The attack underscored the fragile security situation in the state, where armed groups continue to operate amid the ethnic conflict.

The Supreme Court’s investigation into the leaked tapes adds another layer of uncertainty. If the tapes are authenticated, Singh could face legal consequences, further complicating Manipur’s political landscape. The opposition has vowed to continue pressing for accountability, with Congress leaders reiterating their demand for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into Singh’s alleged role in instigating violence. (Detailed report on Supreme Court’s proceedings may be read here)

While Singh’s resignation marks a turning point, it does not resolve the deep-rooted ethnic tensions and governance failures that have plagued Manipur. The BJP now faces the critical task of appointing a new chief minister who can navigate the complex political and ethnic landscape, restore stability, and prevent further deterioration of law and order. However, with unresolved demands from both the Meitei and Kuki communities and an emboldened opposition, Manipur’s political crisis is far from over.

Related:

2024: Peace, a distant dream for Manipur

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case presented a complex legal challenge at the intersection of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, raising questions about equality, religious freedom, and the right to dignity in death.

With the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench issuing divergent opinions, the matter brought to light the judiciary’s struggle to reconcile competing interests. Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a progressive opinion firmly rooted in constitutional values, calling out the State and local authorities for perpetuating discrimination against Christians and emphasising the secular fabric of India.

In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion prioritised public order and adherence to regulatory norms, reflecting a more conservative approach that arguably overlooked the structural inequities at play.

The court’s eventual compromise, directing the burial at a designated Christian graveyard under Article 142, addressed the immediate dispute but left broader constitutional questions unresolved, raising critical concerns about the judiciary’s handling of systemic discrimination.

Justice BV Nagarathna’s opinion: A strong defence of Constitutional values

Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a strongly worded opinion, criticising the State and the gram panchayat for perpetuating discriminatory practices against Christians and undermining constitutional principles. She described the refusal to allow the burial in the village graveyard as “unfortunate, discriminatory, and unconstitutional,” explicitly highlighting its violation of Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion), and 21 (right to dignity, which includes dignity in death).

As per the report of LiveLaw, Justice Nagarathna noted that the village panchayat’s actions and the affidavit submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), which opposed the burial, “betray the sublime principle of secularism.”

She observed:

“The refusal to bury the deceased in the ancestral village graveyard violates Articles 21 and 14 and furthers discrimination on the grounds of religion. The State cannot deny equality before the law.” 

According to the LiveLaw report, Justice Nagarathna further criticised the State for failing to act against discriminatory attitudes, asserting that it had abdicated its duty to foster fraternity and ensure equality. It was her opinion that the attitude of the village panchayat gave rise to hostile discrimination, and such an approach betrays the secular fabric of our nation and the duty of every citizen to foster fraternity.

“How could ASP Bastar could give such an affidavit and what was the authority? It betrays the sublime principle of secularism. Secularism along with fraternity is a symbol of brotherhood between all faith and essential for the social fabric of our country and duty is to foster fraternity among different sections,” her opinion said as per Bar and Bench.

Justice Nagarathna proposed a pragmatic solution by allowing the burial on the family’s private agricultural land, emphasising that such a decision would not set a precedent for future claims. She directed the State to provide security to ensure that the burial could proceed peacefully and issued an additional directive requiring the State to earmark burial grounds for Christians across all districts within two months.

“The State must act to ensure that designated burial grounds for Christians are available throughout the State to avoid such controversies in the future.”

Justice Nagarathna invoked the Supreme Court’s past observations on secularism and fraternity, quoting Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s iconic statement in the Bijoe Emmanuel case:

“Our tradition teaches tolerance, our Constitution teaches tolerance, let us not dilute it.”

In short, through her opinion, Justice Nagarathna made the following key observations-

• Upholding secularism: Justice Nagarathna invoked the secular ethos of the Constitution, condemning the exclusionary practices of the gram panchayat and the State’s endorsement of such discrimination. She stressed that secularism entails equal treatment of all faiths and criticised the affidavit submitted by the State police, which explicitly denied burial rights to Christians in tribal burial grounds.
• Right to dignity in death: Justice Nagarathna’s recognition of the right to dignity in death as a part of the broader right to life under Article 21 is a crucial highlight. By directing the burial on private land, she sought to balance individual rights with practical considerations, though this move might inadvertently dilute the case’s central question of access to public burial spaces.
• Critique of Gram Panchayat: Her rebuke of the gram panchayat for “taking sides” underscores the growing politicisation of local governance bodies in communal disputes. However, her reliance on the private land solution, while pragmatic, could be criticised for sidestepping the long-term structural issue of discriminatory burial practices.
• Mandating systemic reforms: Justice Nagarathna directed the State to demarcate burial grounds for Christians across all villages within two months, a step that, while commendable, reflects a reactive rather than proactive approach by the judiciary in addressing systemic inequities.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion: Balancing rights and public order, no matter the cost

In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took a more conservative stance, focusing on public order and adherence to existing regulations. He upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to deny burial in the village graveyard and ruled that the deceased should be buried in the designated Christian burial ground located 20–25 kilometres away. Justice Sharma argued that burial rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) must be subject to reasonable restrictions, including public order and State regulations.

“There is no reason why there should be an unqualified right to burial. Sweeping and illusionary rights can lead to public order disruption. Maintenance of public order is in the larger interest of society.”

As per the report of Bar and Bench, Justice Sharma also dismissed the argument that burial in the village graveyard was a constitutional entitlement, stating:

“The right to religious freedom under Article 25 cannot be stretched to claim a blanket right to be buried in grounds earmarked for another religion.”

Justice Sharma, according to LiveLaw, reasoned that the availability of a designated Christian burial ground nearby was sufficient to satisfy the petitioner’s rights, noting that burial grounds are traditionally designated for specific communities to avoid conflicts.

“To claim Article 25 rights to burial in areas designated for another faith would be stretching the right beyond reasonable limits. The State can frame regulations to maintain public order.”

Justice Sharma’s opinion ultimately prioritised regulatory uniformity and social harmony over addressing systemic discrimination, a perspective criticised for lacking sensitivity to the petitioner’s plight and the broader implications for minority rights. In short, through his opinion, Justice Sharma made the following key observations-

• Deference to local practices: Justice Sharma’s reliance on the High Court’s reasoning—that burial grounds are designated for specific communities—risks legitimising exclusionary practices rooted in social prejudice. By framing the dispute as a matter of public order, his judgment arguably prioritised societal biases over constitutional values.
• Regulatory formalism: His rejection of burial on private land and insistence on using the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal highlights a strict adherence to regulatory frameworks. However, it also underscores a reluctance to question systemic discrimination in such frameworks, even when they conflict with fundamental rights.
• Public order vs. individual rights: While public order is a valid constitutional limitation under Article 25, Justice Sharma’s reasoning effectively places an undue burden on minority communities, forcing them to accept segregationist practices. This approach risks emboldening majoritarian pressures, particularly in deeply polarised societies.

Article 142 directions: A compromise that misses the larger picture

The Supreme Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 to direct the immediate burial of the deceased at the designated Christian graveyard in Karkapal reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving the immediate dispute.

While this direction ensured that the petitioner could proceed with the burial without further delay, it falls short of addressing the deeper constitutional and social issues raised by the case. The Court’s reliance on Article 142 to avoid a prolonged legal battle highlights an attempt to balance competing interests, but it also exposes significant gaps in judicial engagement with structural discrimination.

One of the most troubling aspects of this compromise is the Court’s avoidance of the core constitutional issues at stake. Instead of referring the matter to a larger bench to decisively address whether the denial of burial rights in the village graveyard amounted to unconstitutional discrimination, the Court settled for an ad hoc resolution. This avoidance not only leaves the fundamental question of the constitutionality of such practices unanswered but also risks setting a precedent where urgent cases involving marginalised communities are reduced to temporary, case-specific solutions. By failing to engage with the broader principles of equality and secularism, the Court missed an opportunity to lay down a robust precedent that could guide future disputes of a similar nature.

The compromise also reinforces the marginalisation of minority voices. By directing burial at a designated Christian graveyard far from the petitioner’s village, the Court effectively sidelined the petitioner’s plea for equal treatment and dignity. This resolution sends a message that minority communities must navigate systemic biases rather than challenge them outright. The petitioner’s demand for burial in the village graveyard was not just a logistical issue but a symbolic assertion of equality and belonging. The Court’s failure to address this demand perpetuates the notion that minorities must acquiesce to discriminatory practices, thereby entrenching their exclusion from shared communal spaces.

While the invocation of Article 142 served to bring an end to the immediate crisis, the compromise falls short of delivering substantive justice. It highlights a judicial tendency to focus on expediency at the expense of confronting structural inequalities, leaving marginalised communities to grapple with the long-term consequences of systemic discrimination.

Critical reflections: Judicial challenges in addressing discrimination

The Supreme Court’s handling of the burial dispute raises important concerns about the judiciary’s approach to balancing constitutional values against public order, systemic discrimination, and local governance. A closer examination of the case reveals troubling trends that demand critical scrutiny.

First, Justice Sharma’s emphasis on maintaining public order over upholding individual rights reflects a growing judicial inclination to privilege peace and harmony over addressing the legitimate grievances of marginalised communities. While public order is undoubtedly an important consideration, prioritising it in this manner risks reinforcing entrenched biases rather than dismantling them. In cases involving historically marginalised groups, such an approach undermines the transformative potential of the Constitution by legitimising social hierarchies under the guise of pragmatism.

Second, the Court’s avoidance of structural issues highlights a broader hesitation to confront systemic inequities. By focusing on short-term solutions, such as imposing a two-month deadline for demarcating burial grounds for Christians, the Court addressed only the immediate logistical concerns without tackling the underlying issues of social exclusion and prejudice.

The decision stops short of questioning whether the segregation of burial grounds is constitutionally permissible, thereby missing an opportunity to challenge practices that perpetuate discrimination.

Third, the case underscores the politicisation of local governance bodies, which often act as enforcers of communal divides rather than mediators of inclusive policies. Instead of protecting the rights of all citizens, these institutions have increasingly become instruments of exclusion, driven by majoritarian pressures. The judiciary must play a more active role in holding local governance bodies accountable to constitutional principles, ensuring they act as facilitators of inclusion rather than agents of division.

Finally, the intersection of caste, religion, and conversion brought to light by this case reveals the persistent hostility faced by tribal Christians. These individuals often occupy a precarious position, trapped between their ancestral identity and their chosen faith. Conversion to Christianity frequently becomes a basis for denying them access to ancestral land or communal spaces, exacerbating their social exclusion.

The judiciary must ensure that constitutional protections extend to all citizens, irrespective of their faith or choice to convert, and that conversion does not become an excuse for perpetuating discrimination.

Together, these reflections highlight the need for a more proactive and transformative judicial approach to address structural inequalities and protect the rights of marginalised communities.

Broader implications: The judiciary’s role in addressing systemic discrimination

The split verdict in this case underscores the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to reconcile constitutional principles with the realities of an increasingly polarised society. Justice Nagarathna’s dissenting opinion serves as a vital reminder of the judiciary’s fundamental duty to uphold constitutional values and protect the rights of marginalised groups. Her emphasis on equality and non-discrimination reflects the transformative vision of the Constitution, which seeks to dismantle systemic inequities and foster inclusivity.

However, the lack of a decisive resolution on the fundamental issue of discriminatory burial practices reveals the judiciary’s limitations in confronting entrenched societal biases. By failing to refer the matter to a larger bench or deliver a definitive ruling, the Court has missed an opportunity to provide clarity and enforce constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

This case also brings to light the pressing need for legislative reforms aimed at ensuring equal access to public burial grounds for all communities, irrespective of caste, religion, or conversion status. The judiciary’s reliance on public order as a justification for discriminatory practices risks normalising exclusionary behaviour, allowing prejudices to persist under the guise of maintaining peace. Legislative intervention is critical to prevent such misuse of public order and to establish clear, enforceable guidelines that uphold the principles of equality and secularism.

In a country as diverse as India, disputes of this nature challenge the foundational ideals of the Constitution, particularly secularism and equality.

The resolution of such cases serves as a litmus test for the judiciary’s commitment to addressing systemic discrimination and safeguarding the rights of marginalised groups. While pragmatic solutions may provide immediate relief, they fail to address the deeper social and institutional barriers that perpetuate exclusion. To truly uphold constitutional ideals, the judiciary must adopt a more assertive stance, one that not only resolves individual disputes but also challenges the systemic biases that underlie them.

Related:

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Eradicating Stigma: A Landmark Judgment on Manual Scavenging and Justice for Dalits

The post Constitutional ideals vs. public order: SC delivers split verdict on Christian burial rights, fails to confront structural discrimination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A striking feature of the year’s events is the prevalence of moral policing, predominantly by Hindu vigilantes, accounting for 10 incidents, with three others involving unidentified groups. Religious conversion allegations also sparked tensions, though such incidents were limited to one case involving Hindu fundamentalists. The contentious issue of cattle vigilantism saw two reported cases, both allegedly carried out by Hindu vigilante groups.

Hate speech and hate crimes, both online and offline, emerged as a significant concern, with 27 incidents being reported. These included inflammatory remarks by Hindu fundamentalists in 15 cases, and 10 instances of hate speech proliferating via social media platforms. While Muslim fundamentalists were linked to two online hate incidents, the overwhelming majority of such activity was attributed to Hindu fundamentalist groups.

Attacks on places of worship were relatively rare in the coastal district of Karnataka but nonetheless symbolic of the communal fault lines, with one reported incident allegedly involving Hindu fundamentalists. Additionally, four other communal clashes or acts of violence were noted, including three attributed to Hindu fundamentalists and one to Muslim fundamentalists, with an unidentified group implicated in another.

These statistics offer a window into the persistent communal tensions in Karnataka’s coastal districts, underscoring the urgent need for proactive measures to foster harmony and curb the growing influence of vigilante groups. This report seeks to chronicle these incidents, not only to document the events of 2024 but also to highlight the socio-political conditions enabling such divisive activities. Through this report and this analysis, the aim is to contribute to ongoing efforts towards promoting peace and unity in this troubled region.

A comparison of the statistics of the current year with the previous year may be viewed here:

Incidents of moral policing

The report highlights a series of incidents in coastal Karnataka where moral policing and vigilantism were directed primarily against interfaith relationships. In Dharmasthala, an interfaith couple was harassed by locals and taken to the police station, though they were ultimately found to have committed no offence. Similarly, in Mangalore’s Kadri Park, three teenagers attacked a nursing student and his friend, recording and harassing them before being apprehended by the police.

In Puttur, a minor girl attending a local event was reportedly harassed by a youth of another faith, sparking a protest outside the police station by Hindutva activists demanding the youth be handed over. Meanwhile, at Panambur Beach in Mangalore, a woman meeting a friend was accosted by members of a Hindutva group who scolded the duo and filmed the incident.

Other incidents include the assault of a man and his mother in Kadaba for assisting a distressed woman, the repeated framing of consensual interfaith relationships as “love jihad,” and the targeting of couples travelling together, often leading to police involvement after interference by vigilante groups. These incidents underscore the region’s heightened communal tensions and the frequent intrusion of vigilante groups into personal matters.

Meanwhile, the right-wing Hindutva group Sri Ram Sena launched a controversial helpline to address so-called “love jihad” cases, aimed at interfaith relationships, particularly those involving Muslim men and Hindu women. The group claims that Hindu women are lured into relationships by Muslim men who allegedly aim to convert them. This initiative reflects a growing concern among certain segments of society about interfaith unions, and it has already stirred discussions regarding the involvement of law enforcement and whether such actions contribute to rising communal tensions.

In Sullia on January 12, 2024, a young man named Jostin Babu was beaten by a group of youths at a local temple fair after being seen talking to senior girl students from his college. This incident led to a complaint being filed at the Sullia police station. In a separate incident in Puttur on August 20, 2024, a minor girl was stabbed by a youth after she rejected his romantic advances. The assailant, with a history of conflicts, allegedly attacked her with a sharp object, leading to communal tensions as both individuals belonged to different communities. The girl was treated in hospital, and an investigation was launched under the POCSO Act.

Further investigation into the Puttur incident later revealed that the story may have been fabricated. CCTV footage contradicted the girl’s account, leading the police to question the authenticity of the claim. Some students also questioned the involvement of the accused boy, with certain groups offering support to his family, claiming the incident was being framed to stir communal unrest. A student organisation from the same college even demanded the suspension of the girl involved for making a false accusation.

These incidents highlight a complex intersection of personal conflicts, communal sensitivities, and societal divisions. Each case underscores the escalating tensions that are often fuelled by accusations and allegations involving different communities, further polarising the social fabric of India.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

1. Targeting of interfaith relationships: A clear pattern emerges of vigilantism directed against interfaith couples, particularly when one partner is a Muslim. Many of these incidents involve accusations of “love jihad,” with consensual relationships often being misconstrued as coercive or predatory. Such relationships are consistently framed as a threat to communal harmony, leading to harassment, public humiliation, and police involvement.
2. Role of Hindutva organisations: Many incidents are driven or escalated by the involvement of Hindutva groups such as the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad. These organisations frequently gather crowds, stage protests, and exert pressure on law enforcement agencies to act against individuals from minority communities. Their presence and actions often serve to heighten communal tensions.
3. Public and police complicity: There is evidence of public participation in these incidents, where bystanders either inform vigilante groups or directly intervene to question or detain interfaith couples. Police involvement often follows, with authorities typically taking the couples into custody, questioning them, and sometimes returning women to their families. This reflects an implicit validation of the moral policing actions.
4. Violation of individual privacy and rights: The incidents regularly involve breaches of privacy, with photos and videos of couples being taken and shared without consent. Individuals are subjected to public scrutiny and moral judgment, often in violation of their rights as consenting adults. Women, in particular, face heightened surveillance and are frequently returned to their families, disregarding their autonomy.
5. Escalation into communal narratives: What begins as a personal or interpersonal conflict often escalates into communal narratives. Small disputes or interactions are leveraged by vigilante groups to propagate divisive rhetoric, further polarising communities. The term “love jihad” is repeatedly used to stoke fear and mistrust, even in cases where no evidence supports the claim.
6. Police action under pressure: Law enforcement appears to act under pressure from vigilante groups in several cases, treating consensual adult relationships as criminal matters. The swift involvement of the police, often in response to demands from Hindutva groups, reflects the growing influence of these organisations in dictating public and legal responses.

Incidents of religious conversions

In Puttur, seven families from Panja and Pallodi in Kadaba taluk, who had converted to Christianity over 20 years ago, were reconverted to Hinduism in a ceremony organised by the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). These families, primarily from Scheduled Castes, had converted to Christianity with promises of better living conditions, but over time, they remained in poverty as the church stopped providing support. The VHP and Bajrang Dal worked with them for two years, encouraging them to revert to Hinduism by offering material support and religious education. The reconversion ceremony, held at the Sri Panchalingeshwara Temple, involved traditional Hindu rituals and included clothes, groceries, and household items for the families.

This incident highlights how extremist Hindu groups use both religious and material incentives to coerce vulnerable individuals into changing their religious identity, often framing it as a return to their “ancestral” faith. This raises concerns about religious coercion, as such movements exploit socio-economic struggles to further their ideological goals, undermining personal freedom and religious choice.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several patterns emerge from these incidents involving religious vigilantes and the use of religion for coercive purposes:

1. Exploitation of vulnerable communities: Many of the victims in these incidents, including those in both the Hindu vigilante and unidentified segments, belong to marginalised or economically disadvantaged communities. The reconversion ceremonies, for example, targeted Scheduled Caste individuals who had initially converted to Christianity due to promises of material support. This highlights a troubling trend where extremists exploit socio-economic vulnerabilities to gain religious or political allegiance.
2. Religious polarisation: The incidents often involve a clear division between religious communities, which is exacerbated by the actions of vigilante groups. Whether it’s the spread of false accusations in Puttur or the targeting of interfaith relationships under the guise of ‘love jihad’, these incidents feed into the narrative of a growing religious divide. The aggressive defence of religious identities seems to be used to further polarise communities, leading to communal tensions.
3. Use of religion as a political tool: Both the reconversion incident and the ‘love jihad’ helpline reflect the increasing use of religious identity as a political tool. The reconversion was framed as a return to the “ancestral” faith, positioning Hinduism as the authentic faith, and indirectly promoting a narrative that portrays conversions to other religions as unnatural or coercive. Similarly, the ‘love jihad’ helpline seeks to control and manipulate interfaith relationships by framing them as religious violations, thereby politicising personal choices.
4. Coercive religious practices: The reconversion ceremony and vigilante actions such as the harassment of interfaith couples reveal how extremist groups use religious rituals and social pressure to force individuals into conformity. The promise of material benefits, such as housing and financial support, alongside the pressure to convert, showcases the coercive nature of these practices.
5. Media and social media amplification: Many of these incidents have been magnified by social media, where misinformation or unverified claims spread quickly. In the case of the stabbing incident in Puttur, for instance, the communal angle was immediately highlighted by social media users, leading to public outcry and protests. The viral spread of images and accusations often exacerbates communal tensions and fuels public sentiment.
6. State inaction or complicity: Another pattern is the state’s apparent inaction or indirect support of such vigilante activities. While some incidents, such as the stabbing in Puttur, prompt police investigation, the involvement of right-wing groups like the Sri Ram Sena in orchestrating campaigns like the ‘love jihad’ helpline is indicative of the potential complicity of the state in religiously motivated activities. This highlights the need for stronger legal frameworks to curb the influence of extremist groups in shaping societal norms.

Incidents of cattle vigilantism

The cattle vigilantism incidents in coastal Karnataka illustrate an increasing trend of religiously motivated actions by groups such as Bajrang Dal, who take it upon themselves to enforce laws regarding cattle transport. On February 25, 2024, in Sullia, Bajrang Dal activists intercepted a vehicle they suspected was involved in the illegal transport of cattle. They informed the local police, who arrested the driver, Bibin Paulose, and seized the cattle. This was one of the first of a series of such incidents throughout the year.

In Puttur on March 25, 2024, a similar event unfolded when Bajrang Dal activists received information about cattle being transported late at night. They attempted to stop a Swift car, but the driver lost control and crashed into a ditch. The activists managed to alert the police, who took control of the vehicle and the cattle, though the driver managed to escape. This action was part of a wider network of vigilantism, where community members work with local authorities to apprehend suspected violators.

On April 10, 2024, Bajrang Dal’s involvement was again evident when activists tipped off the police about cattle being transported to an illegal slaughterhouse in Mulky. The police managed to intercept the vehicle, arrest the driver, Jaya, and seize two cows, though the prime accused, Ashraf, escaped. This raised concerns about the increasing role of religiously motivated groups in law enforcement.

The most violent incident occurred on May 22, 2024 in Mudubidri, where a group of vigilantes attacked three men who were transporting cattle from Kallamundkur. The attackers, believed to be part of Bajrang Dal, not only assaulted the victims but also caused significant damage to their vehicle, even stabbing one of the men, Muhammed Zian, in the back. The police, after receiving the complaint, filed charges against the attackers and the victims, further highlighting the complex dynamics of these incidents.

On October 16, 2024, in Puttur, Bajrang Dal activists followed an auto-rickshaw carrying a calf and reported it to the police. The calf was rescued, and the authorities arrested the driver and two women involved in the incident. These incidents often blur the line between legal and extrajudicial actions, as vigilantes act outside the law to enforce their interpretations of cow protection.

Furthermore, such vigilantism is not limited to Muslims alone. For example, on June 27, 2024 in Vittal, Bajrang Dal activists intercepted a vehicle carrying a bull and handed over the driver and cattle to the police. Even non-Muslim individuals were caught up in the system, with Hindu activists implicated in cattle transport cases, such as the seizure of cows in Belthangady on October 4, 2024, where two BJP activists were arrested alongside two Muslims. In another case from October 19, 2024 in Belthangady, authorities discovered cattle being transported without the necessary permits, and the individuals involved had attempted to disguise their identities with slogans like “Tatvamasi” and “Jai Sri Ram.”

These incidents demonstrate an increasing pattern of violence, intimidation, and religiously charged actions by vigilante groups, suggesting that the protection of cows has become intertwined with communal agendas, often undermining the rule of law and creating tensions between communities.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several patterns emerge from the series of cattle vigilantism incidents in coastal Karnataka:

1. Religious motivation and community vigilantism: The majority of these incidents involve groups like Bajrang Dal, which is strongly associated with Hindutva ideology. The activists often justify their actions as a form of religious protectionism, particularly regarding cow slaughter. While the law prohibits the illegal slaughter of cattle, these groups have taken on a quasi-policing role, acting outside the formal legal framework.
2. Escalating violence: Many of the incidents involve increasing levels of violence. While early incidents such as the one in Sullia (February 2024) involved non-violent interventions, later incidents became more aggressive, culminating in attacks on individuals. For example, the assault in Mudubidri on 22nd May 2024 resulted in a stabbing, underscoring the dangerous escalation of these confrontations. Vigilantes are no longer just reporting suspected violations but are actively engaging in violence, which raises concerns about law and order in these regions.
3. Involvement of local authorities: Police are often involved, but the level of coordination between vigilantes and local authorities varies. In some cases, like in Puttur (March 2024) and Mulky (April 2024), the police responded quickly, arresting suspects and seizing cattle. However, in other cases, vigilante groups seem to operate with tacit approval or assistance from local police, which raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement and the role of communal politics in policing.
4. Targeting of specific communities: Although non-Muslims are also involved in some cases, such as the incident in Vittal (June 2024), the majority of the incidents disproportionately target Muslims, both in terms of the suspects and the accusations of illegal cattle transport. This points to a pattern of communal polarisation, where Muslims are seen as the primary violators of these laws in the eyes of the vigilant groups.
5. Increasing vigilante acts across the region: The number of incidents appears to be rising, suggesting a coordinated campaign by religious groups to assert control over cattle transport and slaughter. As more reports surface, it is evident that these vigilante groups are operating with growing regularity and confidence, emboldened by the support or inaction of local authorities and the state government.
6. Use of religion to justify illegal actions: In several cases, vigilante groups have invoked religious slogans, such as “Jai Sri Ram,” as part of their actions, often to mask their identity or to assert the religious nature of their activities. This points to a deliberate attempt to politicise cow protection and use it as a vehicle for wider religious and communal agendas.
7. Legal grey areas and extrajudicial actions: The actions of these groups often fall into legal grey areas. While they claim to be enforcing the law, they do so without legal authority, leading to questions about the rule of law in these situations. The vigilantism and resultant violence often complicate the investigation and prosecution of actual legal violations, as both perpetrators and victims are subjected to multiple charges, further muddying the legal landscape.
8. Impact on minority communities: These incidents contribute to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, particularly for Muslim communities, who are frequently accused of violating cattle transport laws. The frequent attacks and assaults on Muslims involved in these incidents exacerbate religious tensions, perpetuating a cycle of mistrust and hostility between different community groups.

Incidents of hate speech/crime

The incidents of hate speech and communal tension in Mangalore highlight a concerning trend of escalating religious intolerance and political exploitation of such issues. On February 12, 2024, Mangalore City North MLA Y. Bharat Shetty made a statement urging parents to avoid sending their children to Christian missionary schools, citing alleged anti-Hindu sentiments, such as derogatory remarks made by a teacher at St. Gerosa School. This sparked widespread controversy, with Shetty’s comments further inflaming communal tensions, leading to protests outside the school by right-wing activists. The protests, led by Shetty, fellow MLA D. Vedavyasa Kamath, and other right-wing leaders, promoted religious intolerance and vilified the Christian community, accusing them of plotting against Hindu sentiments. The police filed a case against these leaders for inciting communal hatred, demonstrating a clear attempt to manipulate religious grievances for political gains.

Another incident, on March 10, 2024, saw Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Sharan Pumpwell urging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to raid madrassas and mosques for clues related to a Bengaluru café blast, based purely on the religion of the suspect, without any concrete evidence. This call for indiscriminate raids reflects a dangerous pattern of associating criminality with religion and exacerbating communal fear and hatred. Pumpwell’s rhetoric feeds into a larger narrative of demonising Muslim institutions and communities, often without due cause or regard for the rule of law.

Furthermore, the May 2024 incident involving a group of Muslims offering Friday prayers on a public road in Kankanady became another flashpoint for communal rhetoric. Right-wing groups, including the VHP, condemned the act and threatened counter-actions such as Hanuman Chalisa recitations on the same public roads. These groups framed the act as a deliberate attempt to provoke Hindu sentiments, despite the fact that the group offering prayers claimed no such intent. The police, however, initiated legal action against the group, while the VHP leader Pumpwell was accused of threatening social harmony and creating fear within the community by promoting vigilante actions. The mosque committee later assured that such incidents would not occur again, emphasising the need to respect public space and prevent future controversies.

In June 2024, communal tensions erupted in Mangalore when BJP MLA Harish Poonja falsely accused mosques of hiding weapons, sparking protests from Muslim leaders. This incident highlighted the growing political use of inflammatory rhetoric to stoke religious discord.

In July, a social media post by Dr. Upadhya, inciting violence against Muslims, went viral, illustrating how hate speech on digital platforms can spread quickly and fuel division. Similarly, in August, the Sullia police investigated an incident where individuals threatened students at a mosque over their attire, reflecting how even personal choices are increasingly politicised in a climate of rising intolerance.

Later in August, a gang-rape case became politically charged when BJP leaders tried to frame it within the “Love Jihad” narrative, further polarising the issue. This incident underscored the risks of politicising crimes, which distracts from justice and fuels communal division.

In September, inflammatory incidents continued, including the arrest of Satish Devadiga for promoting hatred through a derogatory banner, and a letter from a religious organisation demanding Muslims stop distributing food during a Hindu festival. These events demonstrated the persistent role of symbolism and rhetoric in inflaming communal tensions.

In October, Arun Ullal’s video urging Hindus to avoid Muslim-run schools sparked backlash, showing the extent to which hate speech had permeated educational institutions. Similarly, in November, incidents like derogatory messages at a bus stop and calls for Hindu-only vendors at temple events demonstrated the continued use of public spaces for spreading religious division.

These events reflect a growing trend of communal polarisation in Mangalore, where politicians, social media, and local activists increasingly exploit religious sentiments to fuel conflict. These incidents depict a pattern where political and religious leaders manipulate real or fabricated grievances to stoke communal tensions. The rhetoric used by individuals like Shetty, Kamath, and Pumpwell is often inflammatory, framing religious practices and educational institutions as battlegrounds for ideological warfare. The subsequent protests and legal actions against the Muslim community further escalate these divisions, creating an environment where peaceful coexistence is undermined by political calculations. The role of law enforcement is also concerning, as it often appears reactive or complicit, failing to address the communal rhetoric and violence perpetuated by such figures. The overall narrative is one of increasing intolerance, with politicians and right-wing groups using hate speech as a tool to consolidate power and deepen religious divides.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several key patterns emerge from the series of incidents in Mangalore, pointing to a larger trend of communal polarisation and political exploitation. These patterns not only highlight the rising religious intolerance but also underscore the role of politics, social media, and public spaces in amplifying hate and division.

1. Political exploitation of religious sentiments: A clear pattern of politicians using religious issues for political gains emerges throughout the incidents. Figures like Y. Bharat Shetty and Sharan Pumpwell frame religious issues as central to political discourse, amplifying grievances in ways that stoke communal tensions. Shetty’s comments on Christian missionary schools and Pumpwell’s calls for raids on Muslim institutions reflect how political figures exploit religious issues to consolidate their base, creating fear and division within society. This tactic often results in increased polarisation, where the political agenda supersedes the need for social harmony.
2. Demonisation of religious minorities: Another recurring pattern is the consistent demonisation of Muslim institutions and communities. Incidents such as Pumpwell’s call for NIA raids based on the religion of a suspect, Harish Poonja’s false accusations about mosques hiding weapons, and the framing of personal choices (like attire and religious practices) as threats, feed into a narrative that associates criminality and divisiveness with Muslims. This leads to a climate of suspicion and fear where the Muslim community is increasingly viewed with hostility, regardless of the facts. The framing of incidents such as the “Love Jihad” case as part of a larger conspiracy is another example of how religious minorities are vilified.
3. Weaponisation of social media and public spaces: social media and public spaces are increasingly being used as tools for spreading hate and amplifying divisive narratives. Dr. Upadhya’s viral post and the inflammatory videos, such as Arun Ullal’s call to avoid Muslim-run schools, show how quickly hate speech can spread, influencing public opinion and escalating communal tensions. Similarly, public spaces, like the Kankanady road incident or the derogatory banner in September, are increasingly becoming sites of ideological battles, where symbols and actions are used to provoke and exacerbate divisions.
4. Incitement to violence and vigilantism: Several incidents demonstrate a pattern of incitement to violence and calls for vigilante actions. The threats made against students at a mosque in Sullia, the Hanuman Chalisa recitation counter-threat, and the public demonstrations and protests often escalate into direct confrontations. This not only creates a volatile atmosphere but also encourages vigilantism, where groups take justice into their own hands, bypassing legal processes and further contributing to the erosion of law and order.
5. Selective law enforcement and impunity: A troubling pattern in these incidents is the reactive or selective nature of law enforcement. While there are occasional legal actions taken, such as the police case against political leaders like Shetty for inciting communal hatred or investigations into hate speech, there is a perception that enforcement is uneven. Many incidents involving right-wing leaders or activists, particularly those stirring religious hatred, often go unpunished or are handled leniently, fostering a sense of impunity. This selective enforcement undermines trust in the rule of law and fuels the perception of bias.
6. Polarisation of educational and social spaces: Education and social practices increasingly become sites of ideological conflict, with religious identity becoming a point of contention. Arun Ullal’s video against Muslim-run schools and the arrest of Satish Devadiga for promoting hatred through symbols are examples of how educational institutions and social gatherings are politicised, turning them into battlegrounds for ideological warfare. These incidents reflect a growing trend of divisiveness in public life, where even seemingly mundane spaces are appropriated for religious and political purposes.

Incidents of hate speech on social media

The incidents in Mangaluru and surrounding areas between February and December 2024 illustrate a growing trend of communal tensions exacerbated by social media. These incidents reveal how both individuals and groups exploit online platforms to spread provocative and often false content, which stokes religious and political divides.

In February, BJP MLA Harish Poonja stirred controversy by suggesting that taxes paid by Hindus should only benefit Hindus, an inflammatory statement that sparked public backlash and accusations of anti-Constitutional rhetoric. This was followed by a complaint in which a former Mangaluru Corporator accused unknown individuals of spreading fake news about a teacher at St. Gerosa School, further contributing to the growing religious discord. Meanwhile, a pattern of misrepresentation and religious malignment continued into April when false claims about a temple official’s religious identity were circulated online, aiming to stir communal sentiment. These acts of misinformation often exploit people’s beliefs and can quickly escalate tensions, as seen in the case involving a provocative video shared by BJP workers outside a mosque in Bantwal in June.

Social media platforms, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, played a crucial role in spreading such content. A viral video showing BJP workers celebrating an election victory with provocative slogans in front of a mosque in Bantwal raised significant concerns, particularly as it highlighted inconsistent law enforcement responses, which further polarised communities. Similarly, derogatory posts about religious figures and symbols, such as those in September, led to multiple police cases and arrests, underscoring the divisive potential of online hate speech.

The role of inflammatory voice messages and posts did not remain confined to one community. In June, a Muslim man was accused of posting communally provocative content, leading to a police investigation, mirroring the actions of those spreading hate from the other side. Additionally, in September, the contentious issue of a planned Eid procession led to further clashes, as social media posts from both sides’ escalated tensions. This exchange of provocative content highlights how social media platforms have become battlefields for ideological warfare, often spilling over into real-life conflicts.

The Hindu Janajagruti Vedike (HJV) in September also lodged a complaint about the defamation of Hindu gods on a Facebook page, once again demonstrating how online platforms are manipulated to spread vulgar and defamatory material. These incidents underline the vulnerability of social media to being used as a tool for incitement and the dangers of unchecked, inflammatory online discourse in fuelling communal divides.

Overall, the incidents reflect the growing role of social media in communal polarisation, with both religious communities increasingly using these platforms to spread misinformation, provoke reactions, and undermine social harmony. The inconsistency in law enforcement, particularly in dealing with inflammatory content, further exacerbates the situation, leading to a cycle of retaliation and escalating tensions across communities.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

The incidents in Mangalore and surrounding areas reveal several patterns related to communal tensions and the role of social media in exacerbating these divisions:

1. Exploitation of religious sentiments: A key pattern is the deliberate manipulation of religious sentiments by political and community leaders for personal or political gain. Statements by public figures, such as BJP MLA Harish Poonja’s call to restrict tax benefits to Hindus and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding school incidents, are often designed to create divisions and fuel animosity between communities.
2. Social media as a catalyst: Social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram have become central to spreading hate speech, misinformation, and provocative content. From fake voice messages about teachers to derogatory posts about religious figures and institutions, these platforms amplify the reach of harmful narratives, making it easier to ignite communal tensions on a large scale. The speed and anonymity provided by social media make it a particularly potent tool for incitement.
3. Religious polarisation and counter-accusations: A recurring theme is the polarisation of communities, with both Hindus and Muslims being accused of provoking one another through inflammatory posts and messages. For example, complaints about provocative content circulated by both Hindu and Muslim individuals highlight how both sides are contributing to the deepening religious divide. The back-and-forth nature of these accusations intensifies the conflict and creates a cycle of hostility.
4. Law enforcement inconsistencies: There is a noticeable inconsistency in how law enforcement responds to incidents based on the religious affiliation of the parties involved. The police often seem to take action only when the incident involves certain communities, or when it garners significant public attention, leading to accusations of bias. For instance, the lack of action against BJP workers celebrating an election victory in front of a mosque sparked public debate about unequal policing.
5. Provocative actions and public symbolism: Public spaces, including roads and mosques, have become arenas for ideological battles, with symbolic acts like offering prayers on the streets or chanting religious slogans outside religious buildings used to provoke reactions. These actions, often framed as threats or deliberate provocations, escalate tensions and fuel conflict between religious groups.
6. The role of fake news and misrepresentation: The spread of fake news is a critical factor in inflaming tensions. Instances where fake voice messages or false claims are made about religious figures or communities demonstrate how misinformation can be weaponised to damage inter-community relations. This often involves the spread of exaggerated or fabricated allegations that target religious or community identities, further deepening mistrust.

Incidents of desecration of religious places

On September 15, 2024, a stone-pelting incident targeted the Majidulla Hudajumma Mosque in Katipalla, Mangalore, during the Eid Milad celebrations. Six individuals, identified as Bharat Shetty, Chennappa Shivananad Chalavadi, Nitin Hadap, Sujit Shetty, Anappa, and Preetham Shetty, were arrested in connection with the attack, which is believed to have been orchestrated to inflame communal tensions. The attackers arrived on two bikes and threw stones at the mosque, damaging its glass windows, which was seen as an attempt to provoke violence between Hindu and Muslim communities in the area.

The police, under the guidance of senior officials including the police commissioner and deputy commissioners, swiftly formed a special team to investigate the case. The suspects were arrested within hours, highlighting the police’s prompt response in apprehending those responsible. However, the fact that some of the arrested individuals had numerous prior criminal cases raises concerns about the lack of deterrence for repeat offenders and the systemic issues that allow such individuals to continue committing violent acts.

This attack follows a disturbing trend of using religious sites and symbols to incite violence, a tactic that has been increasingly weaponised in Mangalore’s political and social landscape. The fact that the arrested individuals were largely from local areas further points to the deepening communal divide within the community, where local residents may be mobilised to engage in violent acts under the influence of right-wing groups. This raises questions about the role of local political forces in fostering an environment where attacks on places of worship are not just tolerated but may be tacitly encouraged for political gain.

Despite the arrests, the broader context of rising communal tensions in Mangalore, marked by earlier incidents of hate speech and protests, suggests that these actions are part of a larger, coordinated effort to stoke division.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several concerning patterns emerge from the stone-pelting incident at the Majidulla Hudajumma Mosque, as well as the broader communal tensions in Mangalore. These include:

1. Targeting religious spaces: Attacks on religious places, particularly mosques, appear to be a growing method of inciting communal violence. The mosque attack in Katipalla is part of a wider trend of using religious sites as symbols of contention, which serves to inflame tensions between religious communities. The destruction of religious symbols is often used as a tool to provoke responses, creating cycles of violence.
2. Repeat offenders in communal violence: The arrested individuals in this case had multiple prior criminal records, which underscores a troubling pattern where repeat offenders are involved in communal violence. The presence of individuals with established criminal backgrounds reflects the failure of local law enforcement to prevent these individuals from continuing to contribute to escalating tensions. This raises questions about how effectively the law deals with offenders, particularly those with a history of communal violence.
3. Political mobilisation of religious sentiments: The involvement of local figures with affiliations to right-wing groups or political parties, as seen in the case of Bharat Shetty and his associates, illustrates the instrumentalisation of religion for political gain. Inflammatory actions, such as the stone-pelting incident, are often linked to larger political strategies that seek to consolidate power by exacerbating religious divides. This pattern highlights the danger of politicians exploiting religious sentiments to further their own agendas, irrespective of the damage it causes to social harmony.
4. Media and social media amplification: The rise of social media as a platform for spreading communal rhetoric and mobilising people for violent actions is evident in Mangalore. The use of social media to spread hateful narratives or to glorify violent actions contributes to the amplification of communal discord. This is not just limited to traditional media but includes more covert digital spaces that serve as echo chambers for extremist views.
5. Uneven law enforcement: While there was a swift police response in this instance, there is a broader concern about the inconsistency in how law enforcement handles communal incidents. This can be seen in the reaction to similar incidents where legal action may be slow or even absent, depending on the religious or political affiliations of the individuals involved. The arrest and punishment of offenders in some cases, versus leniency or a lack of action in others, shows a concerning pattern of selective enforcement.
6. Escalation of religious intolerance: The attack on the mosque follows a series of incidents, including hate speech, political rhetoric, and symbolic actions (like protests), that reflect an increasing normalisation of religious intolerance. These incidents suggest that the region is witnessing a shift towards more overt communalism, where religious identities are increasingly used to divide communities and foster hostility.

Other communal incidents

The incidents detailed in the report reflect a deeply troubling escalation of communal tensions, particularly in Mangalore and surrounding areas, where religious groups, both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalists, appear to be engaging in provocative actions that exacerbate existing divides. In the case of the teacher’s suspension in Mangalore, a series of protests erupted after allegations were made that she had insulted Hinduism, Lord Ram, and Prime Minister Modi during a class on “Work is Worship.” The situation was further inflamed by the active involvement of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other right-wing groups, who demanded punitive action against the teacher. This incident, where a teacher with years of experience was suspended following a complaint by a parent and the subsequent protests, exposes a disturbing pattern of right-wing organisations pressuring educational institutions to conform to their ideological standards. This pressure to silence dissent not only stifles academic freedom but also undermines the broader principles of secularism and freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution. Political leaders such as MLAs further fuelled the controversy, adding political weight to the protests, which escalated tensions. The actions of these groups, demanding swift action in the name of protecting religious sentiments, reflect an increasing intolerance for any form of critique, even in academic spaces, and raise significant concerns about the erosion of intellectual freedom and pluralism in society.

On the other hand, the incidents allegedly involving Muslim fundamentalists demonstrate a reactive form of communal violence that perpetuates cycles of aggression. In one instance, following the celebration of Prime Minister Modi’s swearing-in ceremony by BJP workers, provocative slogans were allegedly shouted near a mosque in Boliyar. These inflammatory slogans, including “you people belong to Pakistan,” stoked animosity and provoked a violent response from a group of Muslim youths, who followed the BJP workers and, in an altercation, stabbed two individuals. While the stabbing was condemned as an act of violence, the incident itself is indicative of the underlying communal tensions that have been festering for years. The violent reaction was likely fuelled by the provocative nature of the slogans, which targeted Muslims directly, creating a volatile situation that ultimately resulted in physical confrontation. This incident underscores a broader pattern where religious communities retaliate against perceived insults or provocations, further deepening the divide between the groups. The police response to these incidents, though swift in some cases, seems more reactive than preventative. The deployment of police forces and the formation of peace committees after the violence suggests an attempt to manage the fallout, but the failure to prevent these incidents from escalating in the first place raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement in addressing the root causes of communal strife.

Another concerning pattern emerges from the involvement of political figures in many of these incidents. In both the teacher suspension and the Boliyar stabbing case, local MLAs and political activists from both sides of the communal divide seem to have played a role in escalating the situation, either by leading protests or making statements that inflame the public sentiment. The active participation of these political figures suggests that communal violence is being increasingly politicised, with both sides leveraging religious issues for electoral gains. This politicisation of communal conflicts only exacerbates existing divisions and makes it more difficult to de-escalate tensions, as religious issues become intertwined with political agendas. Furthermore, the selective nature of law enforcement in many of these incidents is troubling. While the police appear to act swiftly when right-wing groups are involved, there is often a delay or lack of action when incidents involve Muslim groups, further fueling perceptions of bias and uneven justice. The police’s failure to prevent the inflammatory actions of both Hindu and Muslim groups, including the provocative slogans and public demonstrations, points to a systemic failure in maintaining law and order and fostering communal harmony.

Moreover, the widespread use of social media in these incidents plays a critical role in amplifying communal tensions. In the Mangalore teacher case, a voice message alleging derogatory remarks against Hinduism went viral, and in the case of the BJP workers, social media posts highlighting provocative slogans added fuel to the fire. These viral messages often spread misinformation, creating echo chambers where religious groups are further polarised. The role of social media in the rapid dissemination of potentially harmful content highlights the need for more effective regulation and monitoring to prevent its misuse for communal ends.

Overall, these incidents exemplify a dangerous trend where both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalist groups are using inflammatory rhetoric and actions to provoke and retaliate against each other, often with the involvement of political figures who exacerbate the situation. This cycle of provocation and retaliation not only perpetuates violence but also erodes trust in the rule of law, as the police are seen as either unable or unwilling to effectively prevent communal flare-ups. Furthermore, the growing politicisation of communal violence, selective law enforcement, and the unchecked spread of hate speech on social media are contributing to a volatile and divisive atmosphere. These patterns of communal violence, driven by ideological and political motivations, pose a significant threat to social harmony, national unity, and the secular fabric of Indian society.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

A clear pattern emerges from these incidents, highlighting the cyclical nature of communal violence in India, where both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalist groups engage in provocative actions that deepen societal divides. Key elements of this pattern include:

1. Provocative actions and retaliation: Incidents often begin with provocative actions or inflammatory rhetoric. In the Mangalore teacher case, a statement perceived as offensive to Hindu sentiments led to widespread protests and demands for punitive action. Similarly, the Boliyar stabbing incident was sparked by provocative slogans targeting Muslims, which were followed by violent retaliation from Muslim youths. These provocations often trigger a cycle of retaliation, with each side responding to perceived insults or affronts to their religious identity. This cycle perpetuates violence and escalates tensions, reinforcing communal divisions.
2. Involvement of political leaders: Political figures from both sides of the communal divide play an active role in escalating these incidents, either by leading protests, making incendiary statements, or aligning with religious groups to gain political leverage. The teacher suspension case saw the involvement of local MLAs from the right-wing, while political figures from both communities often take sides in the aftermath of violence. This politicisation of communal conflicts fuels polarisation and makes it harder to de-escalate tensions.
3. Selective law enforcement: A key feature of these incidents is the perceived bias in law enforcement. While police forces may act swiftly when right-wing groups are involved, delays or lack of action occur when incidents involve Muslim groups. This selective enforcement contributes to the perception of uneven justice, which further exacerbates communal tensions and erodes trust in the authorities.
4. Role of social media in amplifying divides: social media plays a central role in spreading provocative content and misinformation. Viral messages, videos, and posts often escalate minor incidents into larger communal flashpoints. In the case of the Mangalore teacher, a viral voice message was enough to spark protests, while the Boliyar incident was amplified by social media posts highlighting provocative slogans. The rapid spread of such content creates echo chambers that reinforce communal identities and fuel hatred.
5. Failure to address root causes: The pattern reveals a systemic failure to address the root causes of communal tensions. While police and political leaders may act after violence erupts, there is little focus on preventative measures or addressing the underlying issues driving communal animosity. Educational institutions, law enforcement, and political leaders seem to focus on damage control rather than on fostering understanding and promoting peaceful coexistence.
6. Escalation through ritualised violence: Violence becomes a repetitive and ritualised response to perceived slights, with each side acting in a manner that mirrors or retaliates against the other. This creates a dangerous feedback loop where the focus shifts from addressing the core issues of intolerance to outdoing each other in acts of violence.

Report for 2022 can be accessed here.

The complete report may be read below:

A comparative table may be viewed here:

Related:

Is Mandya becoming the new right wing capital of Karnataka?

Development project threatens the livelihood of port village in Karnataka

Karnataka: Hindutva groups call for economic boycott of Muslim vendors at Siddheshwar Temple

Hindu Janagaruti Samiti (HJS) & Karnataka links

The post Shadows on Karnataka’s Coast: Report provides the communal flashpoints that defined the region in 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The raids, conducted primarily in Muslim-dominated areas, have been criticised by all as biased and vindictive. Local Muslims describe the operation as a “witch hunt,” accusing the authorities of targeting their community under the guise of law enforcement. So far, the UPPCL claims to have uncovered power theft in numerous households, levying fines amounting to ₹1.3 crore. Several homes have had their power connections severed, leaving families in distress. Danish, a businessman from the area spoke to Maktoob media and voiced the community’s frustration: “Earlier, they used to demolish houses of Muslims. Now they are accusing us of power theft. They don’t want us to live peacefully.” 

Allegations against SP MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq- first rioting, now electricity theft

The most high-profile case involves Samajwadi Party MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq, whose home in Sambhal’s Deepa Sarai locality was raided by UPPCL officials accompanied by police. According to the authorities, Barq’s three-storey house was operating with two electricity meters, each with a capacity of just two kilowatts (kW), despite a load requirement of at least 16.5 kW. The electricity department alleged that the meters were tampered with, showing zero or minimal readings over the past six months. These discrepancies led to the disconnection of power and a hefty fine of ₹1.9 crore imposed on the MP.

Santosh Tripathi, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the electricity department spoke to multiple media houses and said, “A house of this size, equipped with air conditioners, refrigerators, and other electrical appliances, cannot function on such a low load. During inspections, we found that the meters registered zero consumption for six months.” Tripathi also alleged that solar panels installed at Barq’s residence were non-functional, further questioning the family’s explanation of their electricity usage.

However, Barq’s lawyer, Qasim Jamal, has rejected these allegations, asserting that the residence operates on two 4-kW meters, supplemented by a 10-kW solar panel and a 5-kW generator. “We will present all this evidence in court,” Jamal stated. Despite this defence, the authorities maintain their stance, with Additional Superintendent of Police Shrish Chandra affirming that evidence of tampering and unauthorised load has been documented.

Another threat FIR Against MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq- another layer of targeted action

Pursuant to the electricity raid, The Uttar Pradesh police have lodged an FIR against Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq and his father, Mamlook-ur-Rahman, accusing them of threatening and intimidating officials from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). According to the complainants, UPPCL engineers V.K. Gangal and Ajay Sharma, who were inspecting the residence, faced threats from Mamlook-ur-Rahman. They allege that Mamlook told them he was recording their actions and warned that they would face consequences when the government changes. The engineers also claimed that the household was drawing over 16 kilowatts (kW) of power despite only being authorised for a 2-kW connection.

Notably, MP Barq denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated. He stated that the Yogi Adityanath government was targeting him for raising concerns about police violence during a controversial court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24, which had resulted in the deaths of four Muslims. “I was not in Sambhal that day, yet the police booked me for instigating the mob. Now, they have filed another FIR against me. There is no power theft in my house; this is a false and motivated allegation,” Barq told reporters.

The FIR against Barq adds another dimension to the state’s actions against him. Already named in an FIR for allegedly instigating violence during the mosque survey, Barq has denied those charges as well, maintaining that he was not present in Sambhal at the time of the incident. He has challenged the accusations in the Allahabad High Court. However, the state has escalated its actions, first accusing him of power theft and now of threatening public servants.

The Shahi Jama Masjid survey itself has been a flashpoint in Sambhal, as it purportedly sought to determine whether the mosque was built by demolishing a temple during Mughal rule. The survey led to clashes between police and locals, with five Muslims killed and many others injured. Barq has been vocal in demanding justice for the victims, a stance he believes has made him a target for retribution.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

This latest FIR reflects a pattern of suppressing dissent through legal and administrative means. For Barq, it underscores how opposition figures, particularly those raising issues affecting Muslim communities, are increasingly vulnerable to state-backed harassment. As he continues to contest these charges in court, the allegations against him and his family raise broader concerns about the use of legal mechanisms to silence critics and intimidate minorities.

Community concerns and broader implications

For the Muslim community in Sambhal, these allegations come amid heightened tensions following recent police violence. Many residents fear that the power theft crackdown is merely a continuation of the state’s efforts to marginalise them. The timing of these actions has further deepened suspicions. Shortly before the crackdown over electricity theft, a Hindu temple in Sambhal was reopened, with right-wing groups demanding surveys of surrounding areas and the removal of Muslim homes. Many have argued that the power theft raids and the accompanying media narrative serve to vilify Muslims and distract from the systemic targeting of their community.

The impact on residents has been severe. As per the report of the Indian Express, Idreesa, whose son was among those killed in November’s violence, has now been accused of power theft and fined ₹8,000. “They don’t want us to live peacefully,” said Zohaib, another resident, who noted that such actions are unprecedented in the region’s recent history.

The systematic nature of these raids, coupled with heavy police deployment, suggests an orchestrated effort to intimidate and harass the community. As demolitions face judicial oversight, electricity theft allegations are becoming a new weapon in the state’s arsenal, raising critical questions about the abuse of administrative power and the deepening marginalisation of minorities in Uttar Pradesh.

The strategic revival of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal: A questionable timeline

The reopening of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, has raised serious concerns about the government’s intent and the communal implications of its actions. Uncovered during an anti-encroachment drive, the temple had reportedly been locked since 1978 following communal riots that displaced the local Hindu community. Now, decades later, its “rediscovery” has been celebrated by BJP leaders and the state administration as a reclaiming of “heritage,” yet this timeline raises critical questions about its timing and motive.

Notably, following the Supreme Court’s recent stay on surveys of religious places, which was issued to prevent further exacerbation of communal strife, the focus seems to have shifted. Instead of directly targeting contested religious structures, the administration has pivoted to reviving claims over existing sites like the Shiv-Hanuman temple. This new approach suggests an effort to sustain the communal polarisation agenda while adhering to the legal restrictions imposed by the apex court.

The temple’s reopening has been accompanied by heavy security, symbolic gestures, and an intensified narrative of reclaiming lost heritage. Political leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and other BJP figures have positioned the event as a moment of historical justice. Statements about idols being destroyed and houses being built over the temple land are being amplified, with little evidence provided to substantiate these claims. These assertions are deeply polarising and appear designed to pit communities against each other, especially when made in the backdrop of ongoing administrative action against Muslims in the region.

The disturbing cycle of targeted actions continues

This temple revival is not an isolated incident. It coincides with an intensified crackdown on Muslim communities in Sambhal under the pretext of anti-encroachment and electricity theft drives. These actions are not just administrative measures but appear to be a systematic strategy to marginalise and intimidate Muslims in the region. Several houses and mosques in Muslim-majority areas were accused of electricity theft, with officials alleging they found numerous appliances connected to meters that were switched off. Heavy fines have been imposed, and power connections severed, further destabilising these communities.

Residents have called these actions targeted harassment. They argue that the state government is finding new ways to exert pressure after the Supreme Court barred arbitrary demolitions and surveys of religious sites. As provided by a report of Times of India, Muslim residents in the area, fearing the loss of their homes and belongings, have begun demolishing their own houses, which the administration claims were built on “encroached temple property.” Residents have expressed their helplessness, stating that self-demolition allows them to salvage some possessions before inevitable action by the authorities. This grim scenario highlights the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable communities, who are left with no choice but to dismantle their lives under the shadow of state-sanctioned aggression. 

A pattern of marginalisation and state attempts to create division- UP government to revisit 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

The Uttar Pradesh government’s plan to re-open the 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appears to be another instance of selectively reviving historical incidents to fuel contemporary communal narratives. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s statements linking Sambhal’s communal history to a broader pattern of victimisation of Hindus reinforce a polarising narrative that risks deepening existing tensions.

Adityanath’s claim that 209 Hindus were killed in communal riots in Sambhal since independence is framed to underline alleged historical injustices, but it sidesteps the broader and more complex realities of communal violence in the region. His assertion that the opposition has remained silent on Hindu casualties while showing concern over recent events not only politicises communal tragedies but also diverts attention from the need for accountability in handling current conflicts.

The decision to revisit the 1978 riots, while ostensibly aimed at ensuring justice, coincides with a series of administrative and legal measures in Sambhal that disproportionately target the Muslim community. Together, these actions create an atmosphere of communal antagonism rather than reconciliation.

Rather than fostering communal harmony or addressing systemic issues, re-opening the 1978 cases risks becoming a tool for perpetuating divisive narratives. Such a move underscores the need for caution and sensitivity in addressing communal histories to prevent further polarisation and escalation of tensions.

Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The violence erupted as an aftermath of the survey conducted on the Mosque premises based on a petition that was filed in the UP court urging for ASI survey of the mosque, claiming it had been built on the site of a Hindu temple. Tensions had been brewing in the area since the court directed the survey, which was initially conducted on November 19. A second survey, scheduled for November 24, led to protests as rumours spread that the mosque was being desecrated. The protests quickly escalated into violent clashes with the police, who responded with force, resulting in the deaths of the four victims. The police have insisted that the violence was a result of confrontations between the protestors, but the post-mortem reports confirmed that the victims died of gunshot wounds, and the allegations against the police have continued to mount.

In the aftermath of the violence, a slew of arrests has been made, including of political figures and activists. Samajwadi Party MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and the son of a local MLA, Sohail Iqbal, have been named in FIRs, accused of instigating the violence. The administration has deployed extensive efforts to track down and arrest the culprits, including offering rewards for information. Meanwhile, political leaders, including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, have raised serious concerns about the role of the state government in the incident, with some claiming that the violence was orchestrated and that the police were acting under political pressure. Allegations of threats against the families of victims, including the forced thumb impressions taken by police from the relatives of the deceased, have further complicated the situation, drawing calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation.

With conflicting reports from the police, local witnesses, and political figures, the situation in Sambhal has highlighted deepening divisions, questions of police accountability, and concerns over the administration’s handling of communal tensions in the region. As investigations continue, the community and political leaders alike are demanding justice for the victims and transparency in the probe.

Previous report may be read here.

Aggressive measures in Sambhal after violence

The Uttar Pradesh government is taking aggressive measures in response to the violent clashes in Sambhal on November 24, during the second round of the Shahi Mosque survey. The incident resulted in five deaths and many injured, which included a few police personnel’s, exposing deep fissures in the state’s handling of communal and political tensions.

As per media reports, A.K. Singh, Moradabad Divisional Commissioner, has now announced that authorities have identified 75 suspects through CCTV footage and videos, with ongoing efforts to identify more individuals. To aid their search for the suspects, their photographs will be displayed publicly on hoardings to solicit assistance to UP police in tracing and arresting them. Singh added that the administration also plans to recover damages caused to public property from those identified as perpetrators.

Heavy-handed measures: The Uttar Pradesh government’s response, which includes naming individuals in FIRs and publicly displaying photographs of suspected rioters, has raised serious concerns about due process and the implications of public shaming. The deployment of such measures suggests a push for rapid action but risks creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.

At least 25 individuals, including three women, have been arrested, with seven FIRs filed against 25 named individuals and around 3,000 unnamed ones. Among the accused are high-profile figures, including Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal, son of seven-time MLA Iqbal Mehmood. While the state asserts that these measures aim to restore order and accountability, the move is being criticised as politically motivated and disproportionately harsh.

A government spokesperson confirmed that posters of the accused would be displayed in public, adding that rewards might be announced for information leading to their arrests. “The administration is committed to recovering damages and taking strict action against those responsible,” the spokesperson stated. However, critics argue that this approach risks stigmatising entire communities and escalating communal tensions.

Political fallout: The incident has sparked significant political outcry, particularly from the Samajwadi Party (SP). MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq alleged that his inclusion in the FIR was part of a deliberate attempt to silence dissent and deflect from administrative failures. “The police are trying to scapegoat me to hide their incompetence. I will continue to fight for the rights and justice of my people,” Barq declared while speaking to Indian Express.

SP MP Dharmendra Yadav called for a Supreme Court-monitored probe, citing widespread mistrust in the state administration. “This investigation cannot be left to those who are complicit in the violence. Only an independent inquiry under judicial supervision can ensure justice,” he argued to the IE.

The state government’s stance has also drawn criticism from opposition MPs in Parliament. SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the administration of inhumane behaviour and demanded a full discussion on the Sambhal violence. “We will not allow this issue to be swept under the rug,” she said.

Allegations of involvement of political undertones: Adding to the complexity is the narrative pushed by the BJP-led state government, which attributes the violence to long-standing rivalries between two prominent families in Sambhal—the Barqs and the Khans. Minister Nitin Agarwal framed the incident as a “Turk vs Pathan” conflict, claiming that the violence stemmed from political dominance struggles between these communities.

The Barq family, descendants of the Turk community, and the Khan family, representing the Pathans, have been political adversaries for decades, as per the explanation provided by a member of the Yogi government. Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, the current MP, and Iqbal Mehmood, the MLA from Sambhal, represent these rival factions within the Samajwadi Party. This narrative, amplified by sections of the vernacular Hindi media, shifts the focus from administrative failures to communal rivalries, a move critics say is a calculated political distraction.

“The Turk-Pathan dispute has disrupted peace and endangered the safety of ordinary citizens,” Agarwal stated while taking to social media, commending the police for their swift action. However, this framing has been criticised for oversimplifying a complex situation and stoking communal divisions.

A pattern of escalation: The Sambhal violence is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend of communal tensions in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s reliance on aggressive policing, public shaming, and property recovery measures underlines a pattern of punitive action often disproportionately affecting minority communities. While these actions are framed as necessary for maintaining law and order, they also reveal a lack of trust in judicial and investigative processes.

The decision to suspend internet services in affected areas and maintain heavy police deployment underscores the administration’s precarious control over the situation. Despite claims of normalcy, these measures indicate a fragile peace, with tensions simmering beneath the surface.

The violence has exposed critical gaps in governance, including the lack of preventive measures and the failure to address underlying communal and political tensions. Instead of fostering dialogue and trust, the state’s response risks alienating communities further and exacerbating the divide.

The administration’s attempts to portray the incident as a product of local rivalries fail to address broader systemic issues. It also deflects accountability for law enforcement’s role in escalating tensions, a concern highlighted by opposition leaders and local residents alike.

Without a transparent and impartial investigation, the state risks deepening divisions and eroding public confidence in its ability to maintain peace and justice. The crackdown in Sambhal raises pressing questions about the balance between maintaining order and upholding democratic values, questions that the Uttar Pradesh government must confront with urgency and accountability.

Details about the FIRs file by the state police

A total of seven First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal, of which five are in Sambhal Kotwali and two in Nakhasa police station. Among those named in the FIRs are SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal. Both are accused of inciting the mob violence that resulted in the deaths of four individuals and left many others, including police personnel, injured.

Incident and FIR Details: Advocate Qamar Hussain, who is involved in the case, spoke to SabrangIndia and provided them with details regarding the FIRs filed in the case. The FIR filed by Deputy Collector Ramesh Babu (FIR 336 filed in Sambhal PS) on November 24 describes the situation as follows: “Around 9:10 am, while the survey was being conducted in compliance with a directive from the court, a crowd of 800-900 unidentified individuals arrived at the Jama Masjid, reportedly armed with deadly weapons. The police and administrative officials, including Babu, tried to engage with the crowd and informed them that the survey was being conducted under a court order and that the mosque would not be harmed in any way. Despite these assurances, the crowd refused to disperse and continued to escalate the situation. The mob allegedly stole weapons and ammunition from the police, including a 9mm pistol, cartridges, a box of rubber bullets, and plastic pellets, which were reportedly used during the scuffle.”

Inspector Tomar, in FIR 337 filed in Sambhal PS, described the mob as “chanting religious slogans and moving towards the mosque with the intent to disrupt the survey.” Tomar also noted that the police attempted to reason with the crowd, but they were met with aggression and resistance. He further claimed that when the police declared the assembly unlawful and warned of the use of force, the mob began firing at the officers, leading to an intense confrontation. Tomar reported that many police officers were injured in the exchange, and the mob also damaged public and private property, including government vehicles. To control the situation, the police resorted to using water cannons, followed by the deployment of tear gas shells and rubber bullets, in line with orders from the District Magistrate to use “non-lethal force” in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

As provided by Advocate Qamar Hussain, in the two FIRs filed in the Nakhasa PS (FIR 304 and 305), three Muslim women have been identified in one and 6 Muslim men have been identified in the other, with a total of 350 people having been booked unidentified.

In FIR 334 of Sambhal PS, 800 unidentified people have been booked.

When asked by SabrangIndia if any case had been filed by the police against the group of people shouting the slogan of “Jai Shri Ram” while accompanying the survey team, Advocate Hussain said “there is no mention of these people anywhere. What can we even do? All the people accused and arrested are Muslims”.

Arrests and legal charges: As of now, 25 individuals have been arrested in connection with the violence, which includes 3 women and at least 3 minors. with charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) BNS including Section 190 (vandalism), Section 191 (rioting), Section 132 (assaulting a public servant), Section 109 (attempt to murder), and Section 326-f (mischief by fire or explosives). Additionally, charges have been filed under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, for the intentional destruction of property using fire or explosives, and the Arms Act, 1959, for the illegal possession and acquisition of firearms.

The ongoing investigation is being closely monitored, and authorities are considering the invocation of the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against those involved in the violence. Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh confirmed that efforts are being made to identify and arrest all the perpetrators of the violence, with a heightened focus on accountability for those who caused damage to public property.

SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, condemned the survey and claimed that the violence was a premeditated attack against Muslims. He alleged that the survey was part of a broader effort to target the Muslim community, citing the way in which the Places of Worship Act had allegedly been violated. In his statement to the media, Barq argued that such actions were part of a wider pattern of marginalising Muslims in India. “People were stopped from offering Namaz, and the survey was conducted hastily without understanding the community’s concerns,” Barq stated. He also questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey, suggesting that the entire incident was orchestrated to inflame tensions.

Continuing investigation: The FIRs have named Barq and Sohail Iqbal, alongside 2,750 other unnamed individuals. The authorities are currently working to identify and apprehend more individuals involved in the violence. The investigation is still ongoing, and police are conducting further searches to gather evidence and identify additional suspects. The situation remains volatile, and the outcome of the investigation will likely have significant implications for both local governance and communal relations in the region.

Akhilesh Yadav’s criticism of Sambhal violence and police actions

Samajwadi Party (SP) chief and Kannauj MP, Akhilesh Yadav, has strongly criticised both the administration and the petitioners involved in the events that led to the violence in Sambhal on November 24, 2024. Yadav has accused the administration of mishandling the situation, which led to unnecessary bloodshed. As per reports, Yadav alleged that the police responded to stone-pelting by local residents by firing bullets from both their official and private weapons, an incident that he claimed was captured on video. Yadav’s accusations point to a grave misuse of power by the police, further aggravating the already volatile situation in Sambhal.

Political allegations and arrests: The violence has also sparked a political row, with several members of the Samajwadi Party, including MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, being arrested. Despite Barq’s absence from the scene, his name was included in the FIRs, which Yadav described as politically motivated. He questioned the integrity of the investigation, claiming that Barq had not even been in Sambhal during the violence. Yadav’s statement implies that the government is using these arrests as a means of political targeting rather than addressing the root causes of the violence.

Threats to victims’ families: One of the most disturbing allegations made by Yadav concerns the treatment of the families of victims. Yadav urged the Supreme Court to take cognizance of claims that the Uttar Pradesh Police had threatened the family members of Naeem, one of the five victims. According to media reports, around 20 policemen visited the family on the night of November 25, warning them against speaking to the media about the incident.

Naeem’s brother, Tasleem, who spoke to the Quint, claimed that the police had taken his thumb impression on a blank piece of paper. Tasleem, who is illiterate, expressed fear that the authorities might write something incriminating on the blank paper. Yadav condemned this action as a criminal act and called for immediate judicial intervention, urging the Supreme Court to hold those responsible accountable.

Naeem, a sweetmeat shop owner, was out buying groceries when the violence erupted as per the report of the Observer Post. His brother, Tasleem, has stated that Naeem was unaware of the clashes and was simply going about his daily routine when he was shot and killed by the police. Tasleem’s account paints a picture of an innocent man caught in a tragic and unnecessary escalation of violence, further fuelling the claims of police misconduct.

In his statements, Yadav underscored the need for judicial scrutiny of the entire incident, demanding accountability from the authorities and calling for the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served to the victims and their families. He concluded by expressing hope that the court would take cognizance of the situation and prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.

Questioning the survey and role of BJP activists: Yadav further questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey of the mosque, given that the first survey, conducted on November 19, had gone without incident. He argued that if a second survey was deemed necessary, the local administration should have consulted with the community to prevent unnecessary tensions. The lack of dialogue, according to Yadav, contributed to the violence.

Additionally, Yadav speculated that BJP activists may have been involved in the violence, suggesting that they were present during the second survey and were seen raising provocative slogans. He raised concerns about the administration’s failure to address these provocations, which, according to him, led to the escalation of the situation. Yadav’s comments highlight what he believes is a deliberate attempt by the administration to ignore the provocations and prevent the violence from being defused.

Yadav’s statements also carried a veiled criticism of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. He suggested that there is a political rift within the BJP leadership, particularly between the central leadership in Delhi and the state leadership in Lucknow. Yadav implied that this rift is exacerbating tensions in the state, with both factions engaged in a competition for political dominance. He criticized the BJP for using divisive tactics that undermine communal harmony, which he believes directly contributed to the unrest in Sambhal.

Arbitrary arrests

On Sunday night, Uttar Pradesh Police arrested Muslim activist Javed Mohammed for a Facebook post he shared regarding the recent violence in Sambhal, which resulted in the deaths of six Muslims. Mohammed’s post was reportedly critical of the police’s use of force during the protests against the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The authorities accused him of spreading unrest and took action under Sections 126, 135, and 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to various offenses related to public order and incitement.

Mohammed was arrested from his rented residence in Prayagraj, a city in Uttar Pradesh. After his arrest, the police forced him to delete the Facebook post in question. Despite his arrest, he was granted bail on the next day itself, but he spent an additional day in custody due to his failure to meet the bail conditions. Specifically, he was unable to provide the required bail bond and two sureties at the time. Mohammed was then released on November 26, 2024, once he satisfied these bail requirements.

Javed Mohammed, 58, has a history of being a vocal critic of the Uttar Pradesh government, particularly its handling of Muslim issues. Notably, in June 2022, he was accused of being the “mastermind” behind a protest in Prayagraj that was sparked by derogatory remarks made by BJP leaders about Prophet Mohammed. The protest led to widespread unrest, and Mohammed was arrested on June 10, 2022, in connection with the event. He was imprisoned for 21 months before being granted bail in March 2024. In a related development, Mohammed’s family was allegedly subjected to mistreatment during his recent arrest. His wife and daughter were reportedly “illegally detained” by the police on the night he was taken into custody. According to reports, the police released them only after they were coerced into giving assurances that they would not return home or interfere with the demolition of their house, which was scheduled for the following day.

It is essential to note that Mohammed has vehemently denied all the allegations against him, asserting that they are politically motivated. He has also taken legal action against the demolition of his house, challenging it in court, calling the destruction of his property unlawful and an act of retaliation.

Claims of protestors firing at each other false: Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee

On November 25, the administration in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, further found itself embroiled in controversy after Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee, publicly accused the police of firing bullets at the crowd during the violent clash. Ali’s claims directly contradicted the police’s official narrative, which maintained that they had used only non-lethal methods such as tear gas, lathi-charge, and rubber pellet guns to disperse the crowd. Ali’s statements added to the tension, as they suggested the police were responsible for the deaths, not the protestors as the police had suggested.

Zafar Ali’s allegations and police response: Ali, in a press conference on November 25, had claimed that he had witnessed the police firing at the crowd during the chaos that erupted over the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. As per the report of The Wire, Ali had stated, “I saw that the police were firing bullets. It happened right in front of me. There was no bullet fired from the public in my presence.” This assertion directly contradicted the police’s statement, which claimed that the deaths were a result of gunfire from country-made weapons used by members of the mob. The police further suggested that the situation was chaotic, with individuals firing on each other, and assured that a magisterial probe would clarify the circumstances.

Following his public accusations, the police summoned Ali for questioning. The authorities also held their own press briefing, calling his allegations “misleading” and accusing them of being “politically motivated.” Despite the backlash, Ali was allowed to return home after his questioning, with the police clarifying that he had not been detained or arrested.

Police claims vs. Ali’s eyewitness account: The violence resulted in the deaths of four Muslim men, all of whom died from gunshot wounds. The police have suggested that the injuries were caused by bullets from country-made weapons, commonly known as “desi kattas,” which were reportedly in the hands of the protestors. However, Ali maintained that the police were armed with similar weapons and were the ones responsible for firing at the crowd. He further added that the police had also vandalised and set fire to their own vehicles near the mosque, casting doubt on the police’s account of events.

Ali’s account has raised questions about the authenticity of the police’s narrative. He questioned the logic behind the claim that protestors shot at each other, stating, “If they had to fire, they would have fired at the police and not the public. This is something to think about.” This contradiction between Ali’s statement and the police’s version has led to heightened scepticism regarding the actions of law enforcement on that day.

The lead-up to the violence- Rumours and miscommunication: In addition to his claims about the police’s actions during the incident, Ali also provided further context regarding the days leading up to the violence. He revealed that on the night of November 23, he had been informed by Sambhal’s Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Vandana Mishra, and Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Kumar Chaudhary, that a second survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid would take place the next morning. Ali stated that he had not given a “No Objection” to the survey, yet it went ahead regardless the following day.

The morning of the survey saw the area heavily surrounded by police, and Ali claimed that the SDM insisted on draining the water from the Hauz (water tank) even though the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM) had suggested that a simpler measurement could be taken with a stick. Ali’s description of the situation indicated a lack of coordination and communication between the local authorities and raised concerns about the handling of the survey.

Ali also pointed to the spread of a damaging rumour that claimed the Jama Masjid was being dug up without the court’s permission. This rumour caused panic in the community, and soon, large crowds began to gather near the mosque. According to Ali, this rumour sparked the violence and chaos that ultimately led to the deaths and injuries. The misinformation surrounding the mosque’s survey may have been a key factor in escalating the situation from a routine survey to a violent confrontation.

The conflicting statements from Zafar Ali and the police have only added to the tension and confusion surrounding the incident. While the police have promised a thorough investigation, including a magisterial probe, the allegations against them remain unresolved. Ali’s eye-witness testimony, combined with the rumoured causes of the violence, calls into question the transparency and fairness of the police’s actions during the event. As the investigation continues, the community and the wider public await further clarity on the role the police played in the tragic events of November 24.

Addressing the fault lines- Need of the hour

The Sambhal violence serves as a stark reminder of the deep communal, political, and administrative fissures in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s aggressive response—ranging from arrests and FIRs to public shaming and punitive measures—underscores its prioritisation of swift action over due process. However, these tactics risk further alienating communities, exacerbating tensions, and eroding public trust in the justice system.

The framing of the violence as a result of local rivalries, while politically expedient, deflects attention from the systemic failures in governance and law enforcement. Allegations of police misconduct, coupled with the narrative of communal rivalries, reveal a troubling pattern where accountability is side-lined in favour of divisive rhetoric.

Calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation highlight the widespread mistrust in the state administration’s ability to impartially handle the situation. Without a transparent, unbiased inquiry into the events leading up to and during the violence, the cycle of mistrust and division is likely to persist.

The Sambhal incident is not an isolated case but part of a broader trend of escalating communal tensions and heavy-handed responses in Uttar Pradesh. For long-term peace and stability, the state must address the underlying causes of these tensions, foster dialogue, and rebuild trust in democratic institutions. Balancing law and order with the protection of constitutional rights is essential to prevent such incidents from becoming recurring flashpoints in an already polarised environment.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This tragedy is not just about the lives lost but also about the failure of those tasked with protecting lives and maintaining order. The administration insists it used “minor force” to quell the protests, but eyewitness accounts and on-ground visuals tell a different story—one of heavy-handedness, tear gas, pellet guns, and a disregard for measured restraint. Instead of calming tensions, the police’s actions escalated the violence, turning a fragile situation into a full-blown disaster. Families of the deceased, already reeling from grief, are now grappling with the knowledge of the state, which should have protected their loved ones, may have caused to their deaths.

While officials insist that gunfire originated solely from the protesters, autopsy reports indicating deaths caused by .315 bore firearms undermine this assertion and cast doubt on the legitimacy of their account.

गोली चलाओ, मारो-मारो…भो&&& वालों को

सोचिए वर्दी के पीछे छिपी ये मानसिकता कानून या न्याय कैसे कर सकती है?

स़भल म़े एक पुलिस वाले को सुनिए pic.twitter.com/ZbCGa6fDqB

— Nigar Parveen (@NigarNawab) November 24, 2024

The premature and unprovoked lathi charges seen in other videos only added fuel to the fire. Peaceful protesters, raising slogans with no evidence of stone-pelting, were subjected to indiscriminate violence by law enforcement. These actions turned what could have remained a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation, marking a failure of the police to fulfil their primary duty of maintaining order without escalating tensions.

#Sambhal, UP:
Video 1) Sambhal SP Krishan Kumar Bishnoi claims “bheed ke kuch log achanak galiyo me se nikalker aaye aur unhone police per pathrav kiya”.

Video 2) Protestors can be seen raising slogans and not a single stone was pelted yet the police resorted to lathicharge.… pic.twitter.com/4xB06vQYMu

— Saba Khan (@ItsKhan_Saba) November 24, 2024

Sambhal, a district with a long-standing reputation for communal harmony, now stands fractured and traumatised. This devastating episode highlights systemic failures at multiple levels: an administration that rushed into action without adequate preparation, a police force that abandoned the principles of restraint and accountability, and a judicial system whose hasty orders acted as a spark in a tinderbox. As the dust settles, the scars left behind by the violence in Sambhal will serve as a grim reminder of how easily institutional failures can upend lives, disrupt communities, and tarnish the very fabric of democracy.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Visuals from Sambhal where an incident of stone pelting took place when a survey team arrived at the Shahi Jama Masjid to conduct a survey of the mosque. Police used tear gas to control the situation.

Following a petition filed by senior advocate Vishnu… pic.twitter.com/jW6RO6L27Q

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Reacting immediately and sharply to the violence, a day after the results to nine by-polls in the state, including the Sambhal seat were declared, Member of Parliament and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also criticised the Uttar Pradesh state government, alleging that the BJP had orchestrated the violence to divert attention from electoral malpractices and governance failures. Yadav has urged the Supreme Court to take immediate cognisance of the situation, calling for an independent investigation into the incidents. By-polls in UP had taken place on November 20.

“The conspiracy to spread tension in the name of a mosque survey cannot go unchecked. The BJP government and its administration orchestrated this violence to deflect attention from their political manipulations and failures,” Yadav said.

He described the police actions as disproportionate and part of a broader strategy by the BJP to create polarisation for political gain. Yadav emphasised that the BJP had no interest in genuine conflict resolution and instead sought to use communal tension to strengthen its political narrative.

सर्वे के नाम पर तनाव फैलाने की साज़िश का ‘सर्वोच्च न्यायालय’ तुरंत संज्ञान ले और जो अपने साथ सामाजिक सद्भाव बिगाड़ने के उद्देश्य से नारेबाज़ों को ले गये, उनके ख़िलाफ़ शांति और सौहार्द बिगाड़ने का मुक़दमा दर्ज हो और उनके ख़िलाफ़ ‘बार एसोसिएशन’ भी अनुशासनात्मक और दंडात्मक कार्रवाई… pic.twitter.com/9Fj30K4aLm

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

संभल में शांति की अपील के साथ ही ये भी अपील है कि कोई भी इंसाफ़ की उम्मीद न छोड़े। नाइंसाफ़ी का हुक्म ज़्यादा दिन नहीं चलता सरकार बदलेगी और न्याय का युग आएगा। pic.twitter.com/XE99C72zw9

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

Fatalities and injuries raise alarm

The district of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh descended into violence on Sunday, November 24, after a court-ordered survey of the Mughal-era Jama Masjid escalated into violent clashes. By the morning of November 25, the death toll had risen to five, though Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh officially acknowledged only four. He revealed that one family neither informed the police nor submitted the body for autopsy, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in the administration’s handling of the crisis.

Among the deceased were Naeem (Kot Kurvi locality), Bilal (Sarai Tareen), and Numan (Hayat Nagar), their families grieving the loss of loved ones amidst a turmoil that, many argue, could have been avoided. Injuries from the clashes were widespread, with reports indicating that 20 police personnel, including senior officers, sustained injuries. Officials claimed these injuries resulted from “miscreant gunfire,” but widespread public scepticism has arisen due to video evidence showing police firing live ammunition.

A tragic reflection of police mismanagement and deep contradictions

The tragic events in Sambhal, where five individuals lost their lives and scores were injured, expose a troubling pattern of administrative failure and blatant contradictions in the actions and narratives of law enforcement. What should have been a peaceful legal procedure—a court-ordered survey of a mosque—devolved into chaos, violence, and death. The cracks in the police’s official account, highlighted by eyewitness testimony and video evidence, paint a picture of a deeply flawed approach that not only failed to prevent violence but actively exacerbated it.

The spark for the unrest was a sudden petition claiming that the Jama Masjid stood on the site of a Harihar temple, prompting a court to order an immediate survey, without giving a hearing to the other side (Mosque Committee). The survey nevertheless took place with the local community cooperating fully. Tensions had been simmering since the initial survey earlier in the week. On Sunday, as the survey team arrived, flanked by police and other officials, the situation escalated. According to police accounts, crowds of protesters began gathering near the mosque, shouting slogans and allegedly hurling stones. Divisional Commissioner Singh described the scene as a “coordinated attack” on the police and survey team, alleging that three separate groups launched assaults from different directions. Police officials, including Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Vishnoi, claimed to have used only “minor force” to disperse the crowd, including tear gas and lathi charges. However, these claims fall apart under scrutiny when juxtaposed with the evidence emerging from the ground.

The police, has been silent on the questioning and deeply troubling presence of unauthorised individuals accompanying the survey team and chanting the polarising slogan “Jai Shri Ram.” In today’s fraught socio-political climate, this chant, while religious for some, has become a symbol of majoritarian aggression. For it to resound during a legally sensitive survey of a disputed mosque was not only inflammatory but deeply irresponsible. These individuals, unauthorised to participate in the survey process, actively inflamed tensions, turning what should have been a neutral court-directed operation into a spectacle of intimidation. The administration’s failure to restrain them reflects a troubling bias and raises critical questions: Who allowed these individuals to accompany the team, and why was their inflammatory behaviour permitted in an already charged environment?

जब सर्वे करने जा रहे थे तो ये नारेबाज़ी क्यूं हुई?
क्या कोर्ट का आर्डर था कि जय श्रीराम का नारा लगाते हुए जाएं?
साफ़ दिख रहा है कि उद्देश्य भड़काना था। #Sambhalpic.twitter.com/xD4JMD3eBT

— Tarun Gautam (@TARUNspeakss) November 24, 2024

Social media is awash with disturbing videos that directly challenge the police narrative and point to excessive use of force. One particularly harrowing clip shows riot-gear-clad officers cornering individuals in narrow smoke-filled alleys, firing indiscriminately with live rounds, raising serious concerns about the proportionality of the police response. Another video captures officers pulling individuals from a peaceful protest and beating them with batons, despite there being no visible provocation. Such scenes starkly contradict police claims of restraint and raise pressing questions about accountability.

In another video, which is a drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner, a cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse.

Drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner. A cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse. pic.twitter.com/ja45VOqisK

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) November 25, 2024

The videos, eyewitness testimonies, and the administration’s actions expose the glaring disconnect between the police’s claims and the reality on the ground. They paint a damning picture of an institution unprepared and unwilling to uphold its duty of impartiality and restraint. Sambhal’s tragedy is a grim indictment of law enforcement’s failure to protect lives and ensure fairness, leaving deep scars on a community already grappling with distrust and fear. This incident underscores an urgent need for accountability and systemic reform, lest such tragedies continue to erode the very fabric of justice and democracy.

In view of these contradictions, District Magistrate Manish Pensiya’s statements about maintaining “communal harmony” ring hollow when juxtaposed with the state’s heavy-handed approach. The administration’s failure to anticipate the volatile situation, despite clear signs of tension in the days leading up to the survey, reveals a glaring lack of foresight and preparation. 

Jama Masjid in Chandausi: A heritage monument caught in the crossfire

The Jama Masjid in Chandausi, located in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district, is not just a religious edifice but a nationally recognised heritage monument. Declared a “protected monument” under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, it has held this status since December 22, 1920. The mosque, prominently featured on the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) Agra Circle website, represents architectural brilliance and historical significance. Yet, this symbol of India’s shared cultural legacy is now at the centre of a highly contentious legal and communal battle.

Allegations that the mosque was constructed over the ruins of an alleged Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Harihar have placed it under a spotlight fraught with historical revisionism, legal dilemmas, and communal discord. The claim, rooted in assertions that the temple was destroyed by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1529, has been amplified by a petition filed by eight individuals, several of whom have a history of involvement in contentious disputes over religious sites. Their demands range from recognising the mosque as a temple to permitting Hindu worship at the site.

This case raises significant concerns about the preservation of heritage, judicial accountability, and the ethical responsibility of maintaining communal harmony. One can say that the legal proceedings surrounding the Jama Masjid reflect an erosion of procedural fairness, with decisions appearing to prioritise political expediency over historical or legal integrity.

The judicial response and its fallout: The controversy deepened when, on November 19, 2024, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh issued an immediate directive to survey the mosque based on the petitioners’ claims, without serving notice or hearing the other side. Within hours, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and a survey was ordered to include videography and photography. While ostensibly aimed at determining the mosque’s historical foundations, this decision has been criticised for its unprecedented speed and lack of procedural safeguards.

Key issues surrounding the court’s response include:

1. Bypassing procedural norms: The court did not provide adequate time for the mosque committee, ASI, or other stakeholders to respond to the allegations. The hurried survey order—issued on the same day the petition was filed—raises questions about judicial neutrality and accountability, especially in a case involving a monument of national importance.
2. Contravention of monument protection laws: The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, strictly prohibits unauthorised surveys, excavations, or alterations to protected sites. The court’s directive, issued without explicit approval from the ASI, undermines these protections and sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
3. Most questionably, the order defied the basics of natural justice as it did not hear the Mosque Committee before passing the order.
4. Encouraging polarising agendas: By validating the claims of the petitioners without substantial evidence, the judiciary inadvertently bolstered narratives that aim to communalise historical monuments. Such actions risk normalising attempts to reinterpret historical legacies through a divisive lens.
5. Judicial overreach: The judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter appears compromised in this instance. The extraordinary haste with which the survey was ordered has led to widespread scepticism about the court’s motivations, further eroding public trust in its independence.

It is essential to that the individuals behind the petition include figures like Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in controversial and high-profile disputes such as the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath case. Their claims, often rooted in unverified assertions of historical wrongs, form part of a larger pattern aimed at reclaiming purported Hindu heritage sites. The said strategy is less about historical accuracy and more about advancing a communal agenda that deepens societal divides. The broader implications of such cases are profound, the present one can even call it violence as a consequence of judicial haste. They risk transforming judicial processes into tools for majoritarian politics, undermining the secular fabric of the Constitution. In recent times, there have been repeated cautions against using history as a battleground for contemporary disputes, but these warnings seem increasingly unheeded in the current climate.

Opposition criticises UP government over Sambhal violence, alleges conspiracy

The violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the ruling BJP government of orchestrating unrest under the guise of conducting a court-ordered mosque survey. Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders have described the incident as a deliberate attempt to incite communal tensions and destabilise the region’s long-standing harmony.

Congress terms it a “well-planned conspiracy”: Congress leader Pawan Khera condemned the Sambhal violence in unequivocal terms, calling it a “well-planned conspiracy” by the Yogi Adityanath-led government. Khera, Chairman of the Media and Publicity Department of the All India Congress Committee (AICC), accused the state administration of fostering a climate of fear and violence.

“No citizen in Uttar Pradesh is ‘safe’ under CM Adityanath, who gave the reprehensible slogan of ‘Batenge toh Katenge’ (Those who divide will die). This is evident from the deplorable incidents in Sambhal today,” Khera said in a strongly worded statement.

Referring to widely circulated videos of police allegedly firing at protesters, Khera argued that these visuals reveal the “horrifying result of a well-planned conspiracy” by the BJP and RSS. He claimed the violence in Sambhal was orchestrated to fracture the communal harmony of western Uttar Pradesh, a region historically known for its peace and goodwill.

Khera went further, alleging that the BJP government had no intention of resolving the mosque dispute in a just or peaceful manner. “In this entire matter, the BJP neither wanted the survey to proceed nor to stop it; its sole objective was to destroy harmony,” he asserted.

The Congress leader further accused the BJP of perpetuating hatred and systematically targeting minority communities, calling the Modi-Yogi administration a “double-assault government” that considers minorities as second-class citizens.

Khera criticised the judiciary’s role, stating that the court’s order for an immediate survey of the mosque came without giving the mosque committee or local Muslim leaders a fair hearing. He claimed that this rushed decision was a deliberate strategy by the government to provoke unrest.

“It is public knowledge that the court ordered an immediate survey without hearing the other side. No action was taken against the rioters who accompanied the survey team, making it clear that the Yogi government has intensified the politics of violence and hatred post the state by-elections,” Khera remarked.

Khera also invoked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s campaign against divisive politics, urging the people of Sambhal to reject hatred. “Rahul Gandhi has continuously spoken about ‘Nafrat Ke Bazaar Mein Mohabbat Ki Dukaan’ (spreading love in a marketplace of hatred). In this spirit, I appeal to the people of Sambhal to maintain unity, amity, and harmony while legally protecting their rights,” he said.

Our statement on the tragic and avoidable riots in Sambhal:

संभल में हुए दुखद एवं परिहार्य दंगों पर कांग्रेस पार्टी का वक्तव्य: pic.twitter.com/uOpKjYbw8g

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) November 24, 2024

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also took to ‘X’ to share their displeasure on the manner in which the UP government handled the situation.

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में हालिया विवाद पर राज्य सरकार का पक्षपात और जल्दबाज़ी भरा रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। हिंसा और फायरिंग में जिन्होंने अपनों को खोया है उनके प्रति मेरी गहरी संवेदनाएं हैं।

प्रशासन द्वारा बिना सभी पक्षों को सुने और असंवेदनशीलता से की गई कार्रवाई ने माहौल और…

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 25, 2024

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में अचानक उठे विवाद को लेकर राज्य सरकार का रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। इतने संवेदनशील मामले में बिना दूसरा पक्ष सुने, बिना दोनों पक्षों को विश्वास में लिए प्रशासन ने जिस तरह ​हड़बड़ी के साथ कार्रवाई की, वह दिखाता है कि सरकार ने खुद माहौल खराब किया। प्रशासन ने…

— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) November 25, 2024

A broader pattern of state-endorsed violence: Both opposition parties have pointed to a recurring pattern in the BJP’s approach to governance in Uttar Pradesh, accusing the Yogi administration of fostering communal divisions as a political tool. Khera and Yadav highlighted how incidents like the violence in Sambhal have become disturbingly frequent, where minorities bear the brunt of state actions.

Khera stated that the BJP government has intensified its communal agenda following recent by-elections, further eroding trust between communities. “The BJP is guilty of setting fire to the peace and harmony of Sambhal. Their communal politics is a calculated attempt to keep society fractured and polarised,” Khera argued.

The opposition’s critique of the Sambhal violence has raised serious questions about the handling of the incident by the state government. Both Congress and the Samajwadi Party have demanded accountability from the Yogi administration and a fair inquiry into the events leading to the violence.

With videos and eyewitness accounts contradicting police narratives, the demand for an impartial investigation is gaining traction. Meanwhile, the incident has further polarised an already charged political environment, with the opposition accusing the BJP of prioritising its communal agenda over the welfare and safety of the state’s citizens.

Sambhal District under strict restrictions amid post-riot tensions

In the wake of the recent violent clashes during the court-mandated mosque survey, authorities in Sambhal district have implemented stringent measures to restore order and prevent further unrest. The district administration has imposed prohibitory orders, restricted movement of outsiders, suspended internet services, and issued a series of directives to curb potential threats.

As per multiple media news, the Sambhal District Magistrate has issued a formal notification barring the entry of external individuals, social organisations, or public representatives into the district without prior approval. The notification, dated October 1, 2024, and referenced as order number 942/Judicial Assistant/Section-163/2024, aims to contain the volatile situation in the region.

“A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Indian Citizens Security Code, 2023, has been imposed in Sambhal district and will remain effective until November 30,” the circular states. It further specifies, “No external person, social organisation, or public representative will be allowed to enter the district without the explicit permission of the competent authority. Violating this order will be treated as a punishable offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

The directive underscores the urgency of maintaining order and preventing external influences from exacerbating the fragile situation. Officials have emphasised that the order is integral to the overarching prohibitory measures implemented in early October and is to be enforced immediately.

In addition to this, internet services across the district have been suspended for 24 hours. The temporary shutdown is intended to curb the spread of misinformation, inflammatory content, and the organisation of disruptive activities through social media platforms.

In a parallel move, the district administration has issued strict prohibitions on the possession or collection of materials that could be used as projectiles or weapons. A notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) explicitly bans citizens from purchasing or stockpiling stones, soda bottles, or any flammable or explosive substances.

The notice warns of strict action against violators, including legal penalties. To reinforce this measure, local municipal authorities have been directed to confiscate construction materials, such as loose bricks or debris, found lying on roads or in public areas.

Detentions and targeted legal actions: As per the UP police statement, the district police have intensified their operations to identify and detain individuals involved in Sunday’s violent clashes. According to the Superintendent of Police, around 20 individuals have been taken into custody so far. These arrests follow allegations of stone-pelting and acts of violence that occurred during the controversial survey of the mosque. The officials have announced plans to charge those detained under the National Security Act (NSA). While law enforcement claims this is necessary to deter future violence, many view it as an overreach designed to intimidate dissenters. The administration has also issued warnings against spreading rumours, threatening legal action against anyone found inciting unrest through social media.

Law enforcement officials have assured the public that further arrests will follow as investigations progress. The local administration has also deployed additional police forces in sensitive areas to maintain peace and deter further incidents. Yet, these measures fail to address the fundamental questions of police misconduct and administrative failure. By focusing solely on punitive actions against protesters, the state has sidestepped its responsibility to investigate its own role in escalating the violence.

Police defence

The deaths in Sambhal, including that of Naeem, have become a flashpoint of conflicting narratives between law enforcement and the victim’s family. Naeem’s parents have accused the police of fatally shooting their son, arguing that his death was the result of unwarranted police firing. Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, however, vehemently denied the allegations, stating that police injuries sustained during the clashes make it implausible for officers to have been the aggressors. “Police cannot shoot at themselves,” Singh asserted, referencing the injuries suffered by law enforcement, including the SP’s Public Relations Officer, who was shot in the leg, and other officers who sustained pellet wounds and fractures. Singh also attempted to deflect blame onto Naeem’s family, stating, “It was the responsibility of the family members to restrain their son if he was planning to throw stones.”

Superintendent of Police (SP) Krishna Kumar Bishnoi added to the official narrative, maintaining that the police employed only pellet guns for crowd control during the clashes.

In one video of SP Krishan Kumar, he can be seen using a loudspeaker to urge the alleged stone-pelters not to indulge in violence.

“Do not spoil your future for these politicians,” he is heard saying through his megaphone in one of the videos.

“नेताओं के चक्कर में अपना भविष्य बर्बाद मत करो” @sambhalpolice
संभल में पथराव और आंसू गैस छोड़ने के बाद हालात बेकाबू, एक गाड़ी में लगाई आग, शांति व्यवस्था की की जा रही अपील। #SambhalJamaMasjid pic.twitter.com/4wksw3zpN4

— Awanish M Vidyarthi (@awanishvidyarth) November 24, 2024

Despite these official accounts, Singh painted a broader picture of chaos, claiming, “There were three groups who were firing at each other. We have evidence, but our priority right now is to restore peace.” This assertion seeks to shift attention away from the police and onto unidentified groups allegedly involved in the violence. Yet, this explanation does little to address the critical question of how Naeem and others sustained gunshot wounds if the police only used pellet guns and tear gas.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Sambhal DM Rajender Pensiyia says “The survey has been completed. The survey team have been safely taken out. The situation is being brought under control. Strict action will be taken against mischievous elements. No one will be spared.” https://t.co/fsngBQoyfC pic.twitter.com/7RvLNNERKA

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Meanwhile, Singh confirmed to PTI that several police personnel had sustained injuries, including the PRO (Public Relations Officer) of the SP, who had been shot in the leg. Additionally, the police circle officer was struck by pellets, a constable suffered a severe head injury, and the deputy collector sustained a fractured leg. Singh’s emphasis on the injuries to police personnel served to bolster the administration’s stance that the violence originated from the protesters, not the authorities.

The conflicting statements from law enforcement officials, combined with the autopsy findings and eyewitness accounts, create a troubling narrative. The administration’s insistence on the protesters’ culpability is sharply contradicted by emerging evidence, including visual records of officers firing live rounds in smoke-filled streets. Singh’s comments, such as suggesting families “restrain” their loved ones, have been widely criticised as attempts to deflect accountability. These discrepancies, coupled with the police’s refusal to address these contradictions transparently, have only deepened public distrust and magnified calls for an independent investigation to establish the truth behind the tragic events in Sambhal.

An uncertain path ahead

As Sambhal grapples with the aftermath of Sunday’s clashes, the district remains on edge. The closure of schools and markets reflects a community paralysed by fear and uncertainty. While the administration insists it is working to restore normalcy, its actions have done little to inspire confidence. The incident in Sambhal is a stark reminder of the volatile interplay between legal disputes over religious sites and the state’s handling of communal tensions. It also underscores the urgent need for accountability in law enforcement, especially in sensitive situations where lives are at stake. Until these issues are addressed, legally and constitutionally, incidents like these will continue to mar the state’s fragile social fabric.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Educational institutions to remain closed until November 23: As a precautionary measure, the Manipur government has ordered the closure of schools, colleges, and universities in the Imphal Valley until November 23. An official notification issued by Daryal Juli Anal, Joint Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education Department, cited concerns over the safety of students, teachers, and staff amid the ongoing curfew.

The decision was influenced by the widespread violence in several districts, particularly Imphal East and Imphal West, following the recovery of the missing bodies on November 15 and 16. The government decided to prioritise safety, suspending all educational activities in government and government-aided institutions, including state universities, in the affected districts.

The letter by elected MLAs may be read here

Timeline of escalating violence in Manipur following Jiribam attack

The recent cycle of violence that engulfed Manipur from November 7, 2024, began with a harrowing incident in Zairawn village, Jiribam district. A Hmar woman, a schoolteacher and mother of three, was allegedly raped, shot in the leg, killed, and set ablaze by unidentified attackers. The Hmar community, a subgroup of the Kuki-Zo ethnic group, was devastated by this act, and Kuki civil society groups quickly attributed the crime to Meitei militants.

The initial attack and looting: In the aftermath of the incident, the assailants reportedly torched 19 houses, looted cash, stole mobile phones, LPG cylinders, and six two-wheelers, and even killed village dogs. Some residents alleged negligence on the part of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) stationed in Zairawn, accusing them of failing to intervene despite being capable of protecting the village. The violence escalated when suspected Kuki militants retaliated by targeting Meitei individuals in the district.

Retaliatory killings and unrest in Bishnupur: On November 9, the violence intensified as a Meitei woman working in a paddy field in Bishnupur district was allegedly shot dead by suspected Kuki militants. Two days later, on November 11, the CRPF killed 10 suspected Kuki militants in a confrontation in Jiribam. According to police reports, the militants were armed with automatic weapons and a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) and had attacked the Borobekra police station and a CRPF camp in Jakuradhor. These assailants were believed to have travelled from Kuki-dominated districts such as Churachandpur and Pherzawl.

Displacement and missing persons: During the same encounter, three women and three children, including an eight-month-old baby, went missing. These individuals were among 13 displaced Meiteis seeking refuge in a relief camp located near the Borobekra police station and a CRPF post. Their disappearance further fuelled ethnic tensions in the region.

Jiribam, a district with a multi-ethnic population comprising Meitei, Kuki-Zo, Naga, and other communities, had remained relatively peaceful until June 2024. However, tensions erupted earlier this year when the body of a Kuki teenager was discovered in a river, allegedly killed by Meitei armed groups. Shortly after, the body of a Meitei man was found, reportedly in retaliation by Kuki militants.

Discovery of bodies and public outrage: On November 15, three bodies—those of a woman and two children—were discovered floating in the Barak River in Assam’s Cachar district. These were confirmed to belong to the missing family. The discovery triggered widespread protests in Imphal, with enraged mobs ransacking the homes of three legislators, including R.K. Imo, a BJP MLA and son-in-law of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. Protesters also targeted the residences of Y. Khemchand, the Minister of Municipal Administration, and L. Susindro Singh, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, prompting security forces to use tear gas to disperse the crowds.

The unrest escalated further when protesters marched toward Manipur CM Biren Singh’s ancestral home in Luwangshangbam, only to be stopped by security forces.

Continued violence and accusations: On November 17, the bodies of another woman and child from the missing family were recovered in Lakhipur, bringing the total to six victims—all from the same family. The Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, accused Meitei assailants of setting fire to five churches, a school, a petrol pump, and 14 tribal homes in Jiribam.

Meanwhile, in Imphal, a mob targeted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) office in Haraorok, Imphal East, and later attacked the BJP and Congress offices in Jiribam town. Police reportedly opened fire to disperse the mob, resulting in one fatality.

Erosion of public trust: The violent attacks on political offices and leaders underscored deep public disillusionment with the state’s governance and leadership. The widespread violence has not only deepened the ethnic divide but also exposed the fragile state of law and order, leaving a trail of devastation and mistrust in its wake. The authorities face mounting challenges as they attempt to restore peace while addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Manipur administration’s measures to address spiralling violence

In response to escalating violence in Manipur, the state administration has implemented stringent measures, including the suspension of mobile internet and data services across seven districts in the Imphal Valley, the imposition of curfews, and the re-enforcement of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in six police station areas, including the violence-hit Jiribam, Manipur. To strengthen security, the central government deployed 20 additional companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)—comprising 15 from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and five from the Border Security Force (BSF)—bringing an additional 7,000 personnel into the state.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has also taken up investigations into three key cases linked to the recent violence: the murder of a woman in Jiribam, the attack on a CRPF post, and the arson and killings in Borobekra. These steps aim to address the unrest, but significant challenges remain.

Civil society groups express scepticism: Despite these measures, civil society groups have raised concerns about the lack of a unified and effective approach to the crisis. Khuraijam Athouba, spokesperson for the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), a Meitei civil rights organisation, urged state representatives and MLAs to hold comprehensive discussions and take decisive action to resolve the ongoing conflict.

Divergent demands from the warring communities underscore the complexities of the crisis. While Meitei groups have called for the removal of AFSPA, Kuki groups have demanded the withdrawal of CRPF personnel from Kuki-dominated areas, reflecting the deepening rift over security arrangements.

Calls for leadership accountability: Prominent voices have called for accountability from the state government. Rights activist Irom Sharmila urged Chief Minister N. Biren Singh to take moral responsibility for the unrest and step down.

Political fallout- NPP withdraws support: The crisis has also led to political repercussions. The National People’s Party (NPP), the BJP’s second-largest ally in the state, formally withdrew its support for the government, accusing it of failing to restore law and order. In a letter to BJP President J.P. Nadda, NPP leader Conrad Sangma criticised the administration’s inability to resolve the crisis. However, the withdrawal does not pose an immediate threat to Chief Minister Biren Singh’s government, as the ruling NDA coalition holds a strong majority with 46 MLAs in the 60-member Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Curfews, internet bans and relaxation amid ongoing law and order concerns

Internet suspension extended: The Government of Manipur extended the suspension of mobile internet services in seven districts for an additional three days, citing the prevailing law and order situation. According to a state Home Department order issued on November 20, this decision aims to maintain communal harmony and prevent the spread of misinformation through social media platforms.

Initially imposed on November 16 for two days, the suspension was subsequently extended on November 18 and again on November 20. The affected districts include Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Thoubal, Kakching, Kangpokpi, and Churachandpur. Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar stated in the order that the extension would be effective from 5:15 PM on November 20 to 5:15 p.m. on November 23, with exemptions granted only in specific cases, such as government operations. Separately, internet services in Jiribam and Pherzawl districts were also suspended from 11:45 AM on November 19 for two days. However, exceptions were made for leased lines and fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) connections used by government offices or individuals with state-approved exemptions.

The suspension follows heightened tensions after the discovery of six bodies—three women and three children—who had been missing since an encounter on November 11, in which security forces killed ten armed militants. The recovery of the bodies sparked protests, prompting curfews and increased security measures.

Curfew relaxation announced for essential activities: In light of the ongoing curfew imposed in several districts, authorities announced a partial relaxation to allow residents to purchase essentials. The curfew, in effect across Imphal West, Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal districts, was relaxed from 5:00 AM to 12:00 Noon on November 21. On the previous day, November 20, the curfew had been relaxed from 5:00 AM to 10:00 AM.

An order issued by K. Jadumani Singh, Additional District Magistrate of Imphal West, stated that the restriction of movement was temporarily lifted to facilitate the purchase of necessities, including food and medicines. The order also specified that no public gatherings, protests, or rallies would be permitted without prior approval.

Essential services such as healthcare, electricity, water supply, telecom, banking, and media were exempted from the curfew restrictions. Additionally, individuals traveling to and from the airport with valid permits and contractors/workers with airport entry permits were allowed to move freely beyond the relaxation hours.

District magistrates from Imphal East, Bishnupur, Kakching, and Thoubal issued similar directives, ensuring uniformity in the implementation of curfew relaxation across the affected areas.

Union government’s calculated response: The union government has faced consistent criticism for its callous approach to the Manipur crisis. Despite growing calls to either replace Chief Minister Biren Singh or impose President’s Rule, the Modi administration has refrained from taking decisive action. Analysts believe this reluctance stems from political considerations.

As a Meitei leader with considerable influence in the Imphal Valley, Biren Singh is pivotal to the BJP’s electoral strategy. Of the 60 assembly seats, 40 are concentrated in the Meitei-dominated Imphal Valley, making Singh’s leadership crucial for maintaining the BJP’s political base. His removal could destabilise the party’s standing in the region and further polarise the state’s fragile social fabric.

The imposition of President’s Rule is also seen as a politically risky move. In Manipur’s complex socio-political environment, such a step could be interpreted as overreach by New Delhi, potentially alienating local stakeholders. Moreover, it would signal an admission of governance failure, a narrative the Opposition would readily leverage on a national stage. Internationally, instability in Manipur, which borders sensitive regions like Myanmar and China, could have strategic ramifications. Any hasty decision by the Centre risks emboldening insurgent groups or inviting external interference.

A state in crisis: As the conflict in Manipur deepens, the state and central governments face mounting challenges in balancing security, governance, and public sentiment. The unrest has laid bare the complexities of managing ethnic tensions and the consequences of political inertia. While immediate measures like troop deployment and AFSPA enforcement have been implemented, long-term peace and stability will require inclusive dialogue and meaningful reconciliation between the deeply divided communities.

Kuki-Zo MLAs condemn “one-sided” resolutions by Manipur government

On 19 November, a group of 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs in Manipur issued a sharp critique of resolutions adopted during a meeting chaired by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on 18 November. The meeting, attended by 26 National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MLAs, sought to address the recent violence in the state, including the November 11 Jiribam incident, where three women and three children from a Meitei family were abducted and killed. The Kuki-Zo MLAs accused the state government of exploiting the incident to suppress the tribal community and push a one-sided agenda.

Kuki-Zo MLAs: “Government exploiting tribal community”

The 10 MLAs, comprising seven from the BJP, one Independent, and two from the Kuki People’s Alliance, released a joint statement alleging that the state government has consistently acted against the interests of the tribal community.

“Time and again, the one-sided state government has taken undue advantage of the Jiribam incident in suppressing and curtailing the rights of the disadvantaged tribal community,” their statement read.

They criticised the government’s resolution to act decisively if certain demands were not implemented promptly, interpreting it as a veiled threat to the Central NDA government. The resolution had called for reviewing the exemption of AFSPA in six police station areas of the valley. The Kuki-Zo MLAs, however, countered this demand, asserting that AFSPA should be reimposed in all 13 police station areas of the Meitei-majority valley, which currently enjoy exemptions.

Demand for comprehensive mass operations: The BJP MLAs also criticised the state government’s demand for “mass operations” against Kuki militants, labelling it as biased and unfair.

“Mass operations must be conducted all over the state to recover all illegal arms from all militia groups,” the MLAs declared, calling for an impartial crackdown on armed elements across both hill and valley regions.

While the government sought to hand over three specific cases, including the Jiribam killings, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Kuki-Zo legislators demanded a broader scope. They called for all cases of civilian killings in both the valley and the hills to be investigated by the NIA.

Call for balanced accountability: The MLAs criticised the selective labelling of Kuki militants as responsible for the killings, arguing that a fair process should be applied. They urged the government to precede any declarations with the designate on of Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun as Unlawful Organisations under relevant laws. They further alleged that youth volunteers defending their villages against militant attacks were being unfairly targeted.

“Village volunteers are not an organisation, but youth defending their villages from murderous attacks by Arambai Tenggol, the so-called G5 (a conglomerate of five underground Meitei outfits) aided by the state police and, in the case of Jiribam, by the CRPF,” the statement read.

Appeal for peaceful dialogue and condemnation of mob attacks: The Kuki-Zo MLAs also highlighted the need for peaceful dialogue as the path forward, urging the government to prioritise negotiations over escalations. Additionally, they condemned the mob attacks on the homes of Meitei legislators, which occurred following public outrage over the November 11 incident.

The statement underscored the need for balanced governance, expressing concern over the deepening divide and calling on authorities to ensure justice for victims of violence, regardless of their community.

“It is imperative that the state moves towards reconciliation and equitable justice, avoiding actions that could further marginalise the tribal community,” the MLAs asserted.

The Kuki-Zo legislators’ response highlights the continuing ethnic and political tensions in Manipur, as communities and their representatives remain divided over issues of accountability, security, and governance. Their critique underscores the urgent need for inclusive and impartial measures to restore trust and peace in the state.

Congress calls for resignations of Home Minister Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh over Manipur violence

At a press conference held on 19 November 2024, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in New Delhi demanded the resignation of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The party accused them of failing to control the ongoing violence in Manipur and called for immediate intervention by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The press conference was led by Keisham Meghachandra, Congress’s Manipur president, along with Jairam Ramesh, the party’s general secretary in charge of communications, and Girish Chodankar, Congress’s Manipur in-charge.

Addressing the media, Keisham Meghachandra referenced Prime Minister Modi’s 2017 remark that leaders who cannot maintain peace in the state have “no right to govern Manipur.” Meghachandra questioned whether this principle applied to the current BJP-led “double-engine” government in Manipur, given the ongoing ethnic violence and governance failure.

Congress’s five-point charter of demands: During the press meet, Congress outlined a detailed five-point charter of demands aimed at addressing the crisis:

1. Prime Minister Modi must visit Manipur: Congress insisted that Modi visit Manipur before the winter parliamentary session, scheduled to begin on 25 November. The party urged Modi to engage with residents of relief camps, consult local leaders, and assess the ground situation.
2. Engagement with delegates from all parties: The Congress demanded that the Prime Minister meet delegations comprising representatives from all political parties, including the BJP and Congress, as homes of legislators from both sides have come under attack amidst the violence.
3. Appointment of a dedicated governor: Highlighting the absence of a permanent governor, Congress called for the appointment of a full-time governor for Manipur. The post has been held in additional charge by Assam Governor Laksman Acharya since July 2024, after the departure of former governor Anusuiya Uikey.
4. Accountability from HM Amit Shah and CM N. Biren Singh: The party criticised the alleged “jugalbandi” between HM Amit Shah and CM Biren Singh, accusing them of prioritising political survival over public welfare. The Congress further alleged favouritism and questioned the BJP government’s failure to address drug-related cases in the state.
5. Immediate action on Supreme Court concerns: The Congress demanded swift action on the Supreme Court’s observations about the state’s constitutional collapse. The apex court had previously flagged the breakdown of law and order in Manipur, which Congress claimed remains unaddressed.

BJP’s inaction under fire: Congress’s Manipur in-charge, Girish Chodankar, criticised the BJP for focusing on protecting Chief Minister Biren Singh instead of restoring stability in the state. “For the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has done nothing but protect the Chief Minister of Manipur,” Chodankar remarked as per India Today, accusing the BJP of neglecting the state’s welfare.

Chodankar reiterated the Congress’s commitment to restoring peace, asserting that “We have tried every possible way to bring stability, but this government has failed. The Prime Minister must respond immediately.”

Rising violence and administrative inaction: The ethnic conflict in Manipur, which began in May 2023, has intensified recently, with 20 deaths reported in November alone, according to some estimates. The violence is rooted in long-standing tensions between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, which have led to physical segregation enforced by buffer zones patrolled by security forces.

Despite Home Minister Amit Shah’s earlier promise of compensation for victims’ families, the Congress criticised the Union Home Ministry for failing to disburse sufficient funds to cover the 226 lives lost, as per official figures.

Congress urges swift action: The Congress party concluded its press conference by demanding urgent measures to address the crisis and restore normalcy in Manipur. The party emphasised that failure to act decisively risks further destabilising the state, worsening the humanitarian crisis, and eroding public trust in governance.

Manipur CM issues notices to MLAs over absence at key meeting amid political turmoil

On November 18, 2024, the Manipur Chief Minister’s Secretariat issued notices to 11 MLAs, including ministers, for failing to attend a crucial meeting convened by Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The meeting was called to address the worsening law-and-order situation in the state, which has been grappling with persistent ethnic violence.

Among those who did attend the meeting was Manipur’s Rajya Sabha member, Leishemba Sanajaoba, who has been aligned with the ruling BJP. However, seven Kuki-Zo MLAs from the BJP, who have been residing outside the Imphal Valley since the ethnic clashes began on 3 May 2023, were notably absent. This reflects the continuing ethnic divide and the reluctance of Kuki-Zo representatives to participate in valley-centric governance activities.

NPP legislators under scrutiny after party withdraws support: The list of MLAs served notices includes Sheikh Noorul Hassan of the National People’s Party (NPP), representing the Kshetrigao constituency. His absence follows the NPP’s formal withdrawal of support for the BJP-led government on 17 November 2024.

Meanwhile, the NPP has also issued show-cause notices to three of its seven MLAs who defied the party’s decision and attended the meeting. These MLAs are:

• Mayanglambam Rameswhar Singh (Kakching constituency)
• Thongam Shanti Singh (Moirang)
• Irengbam Nalini Devi (Oinam)

An NPP leader based in the Imphal Valley claimed that a signature purportedly belonging to the party’s Tamenglong MLA, Janghemlung Panmei, was forged to suggest his attendance at the meeting. The leader added that the NPP’s State Committee had informed its national president and Meghalaya Chief Minister, Conrad K. Sangma, about the breach, prompting the issuance of show-cause notices.

Most absentees belong to the BJP: Aside from Sheikh Noorul Hassan and Sapam Nishikanta Singh, an independent MLA representing Keishamthong, the remaining MLAs served notices are members of the BJP. Among them are:

• Khumukcham Joykisan (Thangmeiband)
• Md Achab Uddin (Jiribam), both of whom had previously defected from the Janata Dal (United).
• Two other NPP MLAs – N. Kayisii (Tadubi constituency) and Khuraijam Loken Singh (Wangoi) – were notably absent from the meeting but did not receive notices, unlike Mr. Hassan.

Political signals in low attendance: The meeting, attended by only 26 NDA MLAs apart from the Chief Minister, has sparked criticism and raised questions about the BJP’s standing in Manipur. The Manipur Assembly has 60 seats, and the BJP-led NDA coalition held 46 MLAs after the NPP’s withdrawal. However, attendance at the meeting revealed cracks within the ruling coalition.

Prominent Congress leader Jairam Ramesh commented on the development, posting on social media platform X:

“The Manipur Assembly has 60 MLAs. Last night, the CM of Manipur called a meeting in Imphal of all MLAs belonging to the NDA. Other than him, only 26 showed up. Of these 26, 4 belong to the NPP whose National President has already written to the BJP National President withdrawing support to the present CM.”

Ramesh suggested the low turnout was a clear indication of the BJP’s dwindling support in the state.

A fractured coalition amidst a state in crisis: The political situation in Manipur remains volatile, with the BJP-led government facing increasing challenges from within its coalition. The ethnic violence, coupled with growing dissatisfaction among allies and legislators, has left the government struggling to maintain cohesion. The absence of MLAs from critical meetings highlights the deep divisions within the ruling coalition, further exacerbating the challenges of governance in a state already wracked by communal tensions.

Former Manipur Governor questions PM Modi’s absence amid ongoing violence

Anusuiya Uikey, former Governor of Manipur, has expressed her surprise and disappointment over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s failure to visit the violence-stricken state despite multiple appeals from civil society and her own repeated requests.

Speaking to ThePrint in an interview on 20 November 2024, Uikey emphasised the importance of restoring trust in the state, which has been plagued by ethnic violence between the majority Meitei community and the Kuki-Zo tribal population since May 2023.

Appeals to the Prime Minister ignored: Reflecting on her tenure, Uikey revealed that during her time as Governor, from February 2023 to July 2024, she regularly relayed the demands of the people to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). These included fervent calls for the Prime Minister to visit Manipur to address the escalating crisis.

“People of the state wanted the PM to visit, and they kept making requests, which I sent to the PMO. But I don’t know why he has not visited,” Uikey said, expressing her bewilderment at the lack of response. Her comments highlight a growing sentiment of alienation among Manipur’s population, who feel their concerns have been overlooked by the central leadership.

Renewed violence a setback to peace efforts: Uikey also shared her distress over the recent resurgence of violence in November 2024, following a brief lull in hostilities. She described the fresh outbreak as deeply disheartening, particularly given the fragile stability that had been achieved in the preceding months.

“Traditionally, Manipur has been a state of rich culture and art. It is a beautiful state, but the recent violence has disrupted the peace that was established. I am deeply shocked by the brutality of events, like the killing and burning of a Hmar woman in Jiribam district on 7 November, which is a stark reminder of the ongoing turmoil,” she said.

A call for trust-building and mutual peace: Uikey believes that the restoration of mutual trust between the two communities, facilitated by the central government, is the only path to lasting peace.

“The central government needs to take concrete steps to build confidence and mutual trust among the communities. Without this, enduring peace will remain elusive,” she asserted while speaking to The Print.Her tenure as governor during the conflict’s peak provided her with firsthand insight into the complexity of the crisis. Despite her efforts to mediate between communities and defuse tensions, the violence persisted, underscoring the deep-seated mistrust and ethnic divide.

An ‘international hand’ behind the conflict? Adding another layer to the discourse, Uikey suggested the possibility of an international influence exacerbating the conflict.
“There is an international hand behind the conflict, which is why the violence cannot be stopped despite the Centre’s efforts,” she alleged. While she refrained from elaborating on this claim, her comments suggest the presence of external actors who might be exploiting local tensions for geopolitical gains, particularly given Manipur’s strategic location near the borders with Myanmar and China.

A plea for peace amidst chaos: Amid growing calls for Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation over his handling of the crisis, Uikey defended his leadership. She implied that external factors, rather than Singh’s governance, were responsible for the prolonged unrest in the state.

“How it has unfolded, I don’t know, but I appeal to all people in Manipur to build confidence and mutual trust for enduring peace,” she said, reiterating the need for unity and reconciliation.

In her closing remarks, Uikey issued an earnest appeal to the people of Manipur to prioritise confidence-building and mutual understanding. She expressed hope that these efforts, combined with decisive action by the Centre, could pave the way for stability in the region.

The former governor’s candid reflections highlight the depth of the crisis in Manipur and the urgent need for both local and central leadership to take meaningful steps toward resolving the conflict and addressing the grievances of the affected communities.

Licypriya Kangujam claims censorship of Facebook account amidst activism

Licypriya Kangujam, a 13-year-old climate activist from Manipur, has alleged that her official Facebook account has been restricted in India following her outspoken comments on the recent abduction and killing of six Meitei women and children in Jiribam.

Taking to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, Kangujam directly addressed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of being fearful of her activism.

“Mr @narendramodi, scared of me? That’s why you work on his behest?” she questioned, insinuating that her account was restricted under the government’s directive as an attempt to suppress her voice.

Hello @Meta @facebook,
Why you restricted my official Facebook account? Mr @narendramodi scared of me that’s why you work on his behest? I didn’t violate any policy or community standards of Facebook. Kindly unrestricted it asap. Never ever think to attempt to silence my voice.… pic.twitter.com/Ex0l3Jmfs9

— Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) November 20, 2024

You mess with a wrong guy!

Unrestrict my Facebook Account immediately! Sharing a screenshot of a news published in Indian Express is not a crime. pic.twitter.com/HNkrR0eDpp

— Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) November 20, 2024

Criticism of Meta and claims of injustice: Kangujam did not mince words in her criticism of Meta, Facebook’s parent company, for what she described as an unjust action. She shared a notification from Facebook explaining that her profile had been restricted within India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which permits the government to block access to digital content deemed harmful to public order or national security.

“I didn’t violate any policy or community standards of Facebook,” she wrote in her post. “Kindly unrestrict it ASAP. Never ever think to attempt to silence my voice,” she added, emphasising her commitment to continuing her activism despite attempts to suppress her.

The teenager’s frustration was evident as she accused the authorities and Meta of targeting her for speaking out about the tragic Jiribam killings.

Activism and alleged silencing: Kangujam has been vocal about the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur, which has sharply divided the state along communal lines. Her comments on the Jiribam incident—in which six individuals from the Meitei community were abducted and killed—have brought renewed attention to the issue. Her social media activism has often placed her at the forefront of raising awareness about human rights and environmental issues in the region. However, her outspokenness has also made her a target for criticism and, now, alleged censorship.

Government’s use of Section 69A of the IT Act: The restriction of Kangujam’s Facebook account under Section 69A of the IT Act has sparked questions about the application of this provision. While the government can use this law to block digital content that it considers a threat to national security, public order, or sovereignty, critics argue that it is sometimes employed to stifle dissent and suppress voices critical of the administration. Kangujam’s case has reignited debates about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding freedom of expression in a democracy.

A voice for change: Despite the challenges, Kangujam remains resolute in her activism. Her stance reflects the resilience of a young generation unafraid to confront authority and raise awareness about critical social and environmental issues. The incident underscores the growing role of digital platforms in enabling activism while also highlighting the risks of censorship and the contentious intersection of government policies with online freedoms. As Kangujam’s allegations gain traction, they add another layer to the already complex and volatile situation in Manipur.

No end in sight: Manipur’s spiralling crisis deepens

‘Coffin Rally’ announced by Kuki organisations: Manipur’s volatile situation shows no signs of abating, with Kuki organisations planning a ‘coffin rally’ in Churachandpur on Tuesday, November 21, to commemorate 10 Kuki-Zo youths allegedly killed in a gunfight with security forces in Jiribam district on November 11.

The rally, organised by the Zomi Students’ Federation (ZSF), Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), and Hmar Students’ Association (HSA), calls on schools and colleges to send students from Class 10 onwards, clad in black shirts, to participate in the procession. A notice issued by the groups on Monday stated that 10 symbolic coffins would be carried during the rally to honour the deceased. The actual bodies remain in the mortuary of a local hospital.

The bodies, initially sent to Assam’s Silchar for postmortems, arrived in Churachandpur—a Kuki-majority district—on Saturday afternoon. However, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF), a prominent Kuki-Zo organisation, announced on Sunday that the funerals would be delayed until the families receive postmortem reports.

Allegations against security forces: Manipur Police have reported that the deceased were suspected militants killed in an encounter with security forces. The alleged insurgents, dressed in camouflage gear and wielding sophisticated weapons, reportedly attacked the Borobekra Police Station and a nearby CRPF camp in Jakuradhor, Jiribam district, on November 11. The attack included the abduction of six civilians, comprising three women and three children, according to police accounts.

The incident has drawn criticism over the handling of the situation by security forces. The CRPF, tasked with restoring peace in the region, has faced allegations of bias and inaction from both sides of the conflict. Meitei organisations claim that the previously deployed Assam Rifles were too lenient with Kuki militants, while Kuki groups have expressed distrust in the CRPF’s ability to safeguard their communities.

Growing discontent with central leadership: Adding to the frustration is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence from Manipur, despite 16 months of continuous ethnic violence. Civil society and opposition groups have repeatedly urged the Prime Minister to visit the state, but he has remained silent on the crisis. Similarly, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has faced criticism for failing to take decisive action, especially as over 6,500 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition have been looted, with disarmament efforts remaining insufficient.

Polarised demands and escalating divisions: The ethnic conflict has polarised the demands of the Meitei and Kuki communities. Meitei organisations like the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) have called for immediate military action against Kuki militants, along with the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which they argue has exacerbated the conflict. In contrast, Kuki groups continue to push for a separate administration, asserting that coexistence with the Meitei majority is no longer feasible.

Critics have pointed to a broader political conspiracy behind the violence. Some Meitei groups link the escalation to remarks made by Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma in the United States. Lalduhoma advocated for a “Christian nation” uniting Kuki-Zo populations across India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Meitei leaders argue that such declarations have emboldened cross-border Kuki groups to seize land, allegedly to further the goal of a larger Kuki-dominated region.

Security forces under scrutiny: The role of security forces remains contentious, with both communities accusing them of partiality. Meitei groups distrust the Assam Rifles, while Kuki organisations criticise the CRPF’s ability to protect their interests. This breakdown in faith towards security agencies has left many civilians vulnerable, exacerbating the crisis in a state where law and order appears non-existent.

A humanitarian crisis without resolution: As the violence continues, the human toll mounts. The state remains deeply fractured, with buffer zones patrolled by security forces separating Kuki and Meitei areas. Amidst the chaos, the fundamental need for restoration of trust between communities and decisive action from the central government has never been more urgent. The ‘coffin rally’ symbolises not just the grief of the Kuki community but also the enduring wounds of a conflict that shows no signs of resolution. Without meaningful intervention, the cycle of violence in Manipur risks deepening an already tragic humanitarian crisis.

Manipur Tribal MLAs plan joint protest in Delhi, demand CM’s removal and separate administration

Unified protest by tribal legislators: In a significant development, ten tribal legislators from Manipur, including seven from the ruling BJP and three Independents, have announced plans for a joint protest in Delhi during the first week of December. Their primary demands include the removal of CM N. Biren Singh and the establishment of a separate administration for tribal communities. This will mark the first time these MLAs, who have previously raised these demands individually, are uniting on a common platform.

The decision to hold the protest at Jantar Mantar was finalised during a meeting in Churachandpur involving three of the ten MLAs, representatives of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and members from 25 Kuki groups that have signed the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement.

One of the legislators, speaking on condition of anonymity with The Wire, said, “We have previously written or spoken about the need for the Chief Minister’s removal and other issues, but the recent events have compelled us to come together and present a unified voice.”

Route to Delhi- circumventing Imphal: Security concerns have forced most of the MLAs to avoid Imphal, the Meitei-majority state capital. Instead, they will travel to Aizawl before flying to Delhi. This reluctance stems from perceived threats in Imphal, despite the state government’s assurances of their safety. These MLAs, who represent tribal constituencies, have not attended any assembly sessions or recent government meetings, including a key one held by CM Biren Singh earlier this week.

Renewed ethnic clashes worsen crisis: Manipur has been embroiled in ethnic violence for nearly 18 months, with over 240 people killed and tens of thousands displaced. The state is deeply divided along ethnic lines, with Meiteis predominantly in the plains of the Imphal Valley and Kuki-Zo communities concentrated in the hills. Despite deploying additional troops and reimposing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in conflict-hit areas, the Centre has struggled to contain the escalating tensions.

Suspension of operation agreement- a contentious issue: Representatives of the SoO groups—comprising 25 Kuki militant organisations—also participated in the Churachandpur meeting. The SoO agreement, a tripartite pact signed in 2008 between the Centre, the Manipur government, and Kuki militant groups, has been annually renewed to maintain peace. However, the agreement expired earlier this year, leaving its future uncertain.

In February, the Manipur Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Centre to abrogate the agreement, accusing militant groups of violating its terms. The CM has since demanded its termination, while tribal groups argue for its continuation as a safeguard for their communities. Although the SoO representatives will not participate in the Delhi protest, their presence at preparatory meetings underscores their vested interest in the ongoing conflict and its resolution.

Protest agenda- amplifying tribal voices: The tribal MLAs plan to present a detailed account of the October 15 meeting between 15 state legislators from Meitei, Kuki-Zo-Hmar, and Naga communities and central government representatives. This meeting, convened by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was an attempt to broker peace.

The MLAs have been advised to clarify their stance on critical issues, including their demands for a separate administration, the ongoing ethnic strife, and the central government’s role in facilitating dialogue. Additionally, they are expected to share updates with their constituencies if the MHA initiates another round of talks.

A political and humanitarian impasse: Manipur’s society remains fractured, with communities retreating into ethnic strongholds. Meiteis dominate the Imphal Valley, while the Kukis control the surrounding hills. This geographic and ethnic segregation has only worsened amid escalating violence and reprisal attacks.

The planned protest highlights not only the discontent within the tribal community but also the failure of administrative and political mechanisms to address the root causes of the conflict. The unified front of the ten MLAs signals a turning point in their strategy to press for political and administrative changes, potentially increasing pressure on the central government to intervene decisively in Manipur’s prolonged crisis.

Without effective dialogue and resolution, the state risks further descent into instability, with ethnic hostilities threatening to undermine Manipur’s social fabric.

Related:

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

Manipur plunges into deeper turmoil amid fresh violence and drone attacks since early September

Manipur on Edge: Violent Clashes Erupt on the day following Kuki-Zo Protests Demanding Separate Administration, action against state CM based on leaked tapes

The post Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of the present pleas before the Bench:

The judgment emerged from a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, wherein various individuals sought relief against the summary demolition of their properties. The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications, moved by the victims of these targeted petitions, along with separate pleas filed by Jamiat and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted.

One of the applications was filed by the Rashid Khan, a 60-years old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur. In Udaipur the District Administration demolished the house of Rashid as one of his tenant’s boy, allegedly stabbed his classmate. An order was issued by the district forest authority and Municipal Corporation on Friday, August 16, 2024 and gave the family time till Tuesday i.e. August 20 to vacate their home, but the authorities demolished the house a little later on August 17.

The other plea was filed by Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh who has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.

Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a detailed analysis of several foundational principles and addresses each issue comprehensively:

1. Upholding the rule of law: The Supreme Court underscored that the rule of law is a fundamental tenet of the constitutional framework and must guide all state actions. Referencing A.V. Dicey, the Court emphasised that the rule of law requires that every individual is subject to the same laws and that state actions should always align with legal principles. Any actions taken outside of these laws are arbitrary and undermine democracy. In the demolition cases, the Court highlighted that state authorities appeared to have bypassed legal frameworks, breaching the rule of law.

“There can be no doubt with the principle that, no one is above the law of the land; that everybody is equal before the law.” (Para 15)

2. Principle of separation of powers: The Court emphasised the importance of the separation of powers, stating that while the executive has broad administrative authority, punitive actions with serious consequences fall under the judiciary’s exclusive purview. The judgment argued that punitive measures without judicial oversight infringe upon judicial authority and weaken the justice system. By acting as both accuser and judge, the executive undermined legal safeguards designed to protect individuals from arbitrary punishment.

“If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’. If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’. We are of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions.” (Para 53)

3. Presumption of innocence: The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is central to criminal justice and must not be disregarded for expediency. Citing landmark cases, the Court underscored that imposing punishment prior to judicial determination contradicts principles of fairness and justice. It acknowledged that while demolitions might deter unlawful behaviour, they cannot substitute for due process and judicial oversight.

“The principle, that “an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to any legal system. It reflects the presumption of innocence, which means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. This principle ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished or stigmatized based solely on accusations or suspicions.” (Para 63)

4. Right to shelter: The Court held that the right to shelter is fundamental and integral to human dignity, protected under Article 21. The judgment noted that arbitrary demolition of one’s home severely infringes on the right to life. Drawing from international human rights conventions, the Court argued that shelter provides physical and psychological security essential for a stable life, emphasising that arbitrary actions against shelter are unconstitutional.

“The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.” (Para 78)

“Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.” (Para 76)

5. Public accountability and trust: Referring to the doctrine of public trust, the Court stated that state officials are entrusted by the public and must conduct actions transparently, with accountability for abuses of power. It found that demolitions without legal grounds breached public trust, requiring accountability measures. Officials responsible for such demolitions were deemed to have acted in bad faith, warranting punitive consequences.

“This Court held that the well-established precepts of public trust and public accountability are fully applicable to the functions which emerge from the public servants or even the persons holding public office. It has been held that the doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies to the acts done by the officers in the hierarchy of the State. They have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate public purpose.” (Para 47)

6. Potential abuse of power in demolitions: The Supreme Court critical assessed the arbitrary demolition of properties belonging to accused individuals, describing such actions as a potential “abuse of power” that contradicts constitutional principles. Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed that selective demolition, where certain structures were demolished while others remained untouched, suggested state malice.

“…when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition and the rest of the similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large. In such cases, where the authorities indulge into arbitrary pick and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even trying him before the court of law. No doubt, such a presumption could be rebuttable. The authorities will have to satisfy the court that it did not intend to penalize a person accused by demolishing the structure.” (Para 82) 

7. Limits of executive authority: The judgment asserted that the executive cannot bypass judicial processes to punish an accused by demolishing property, as this oversteps executive powers and undermines the rule of law. The Court described these arbitrary demolitions as “high-handed” and deemed demolitions without the authorities following the basic principles of natural justice and acting without due process to be a “chilling sight”.

“The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might was right”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of ‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law.” (Para 72)

8. Due process for the accused and convicted: The Court underscored that due process is essential not only for those accused of crimes but also for individuals who have been convicted. It highlighted that, even in cases of conviction, property cannot be demolished without following the procedures established by law. The Court further stressed that any executive action assuming guilt and enacting punishment, like demolition, without a fair trial, infringes on the principle of separation of powers.

“As we have already said, such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. 74. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law.” (Para 73 and 74)

9. Rights of the accused: The judgment stated that individuals accused of crimes are entitled to fundamental constitutional protections, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to dignity, and protection from cruel or inhumane treatment. The Court affirmed that both accused and convicted individuals have specific rights enshrined in constitutional and criminal law, which the state must respect. It further stressed that arbitrary or excessive actions against accused persons or convicts are impermissible without adhering to lawful procedures. The Court called for institutional accountability in cases where an accused person’s rights are compromised due to state overreach, reinforcing the foundational legal principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty.

“It is to be noted that even in the cases consisting of imposition of a death sentence, it is always a discretion available 74 to the courts as to whether to award such an extreme punishment or not. There is even an institutional safeguard in the cases of such punishment to the effect that the decision of the trial court inflicting death penalty cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. Even in the cases of convicts for the commission of most extreme and heinous offences, the punishment cannot be imposed without following the mandatory requirements under the statute. In that light, can it be said that a person who is only accused of committing some crime or even convicted can be inflicted the punishment of demolition of his property/properties? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’.” (Para 75)

10. Accountability for public officials in arbitrary demolitions: The Court emphasised that public officials involved in carrying out such demolitions must be held accountable for their actions. It stressed that those who act beyond the law in such an arbitrary and forceful manner should be made responsible for their actions, underscoring the importance of restitution in such cases.

“We are of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions. 54. For the executive to act in a transparent manner so as to avoid the vice of arbitrariness, we are of the view that certain binding directives need to be formulated. This will ensure that public officials do not act in a high-handed, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. Further, if they indulge in such acts, accountability must be fastened upon them.” (Para 53 and 54)

11. Reinforcing Constitutional ethos: In summary, the Court highlighted that executive authorities are not permitted to bypass judicial processes or assume judicial functions by deciding guilt and administering punishment. The Court emphasised that determining guilt is the exclusive domain of the judiciary. This judgment reinforces India’s commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that executive actions, regardless of the seriousness of the accusations, adhere to constitutional limits and uphold procedural justice.

“It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty. In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.” (Para 88)

Power of Article 142

To prevent arbitrary demolitions, the Court exercised its authority under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, establishing guidelines to curb “bulldozer actions” as punitive measures against those accused or convicted of crimes. It mandated that individuals facing demolition should be granted time to contest the orders, ensuring they have a fair chance to challenge the demolition in an appropriate forum. The Court also advised that authorities should delay action, especially when vulnerable groups—such as women, children, and elderly persons—are required to vacate, suggesting that a brief postponement would not compromise the state’s interests.

“In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to 87 be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.” (Para 90)

The Court specified that these protections do not apply to unauthorised structures in public spaces, including roads, footpaths, railway tracks, or areas near water bodies, nor to demolitions ordered by a court. This exception aims to balance individual rights with the need to prevent unauthorised occupation of public spaces.

Directions issued by the Court

The court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions and to reinforce procedural fairness by establishing the following:

1. Time to challenge demolition orders: After a demolition order is issued, the affected individuals must be allowed sufficient time to contest the order before the appropriate forum.
2. Time for voluntary vacating: Even for those who do not intend to challenge the demolition, adequate time should be provided to vacate the premises.
3. Mandatory show-cause notice: No demolition should occur without a prior show-cause notice, served either within the time specified by local municipal laws or within 15 days of service, whichever is later.
4. Notice delivery and documentation: Notices must be sent by registered mail to the property owner and posted visibly on the property. A digital notification should also be sent to the office of the Collector or District Magistrate, which must acknowledge receipt to ensure transparency.
5. Designation of nodal officer: District Magistrates should designate a nodal officer and assign an official email for demolition communications within one month.
6. Detailed notice content: The notice should outline the nature of the unauthorised construction, specific violations, demolition grounds, personal hearing dates, and the authority handling the matter.
7. Digital portal requirement: Municipal authorities must set up a digital portal within three months where details about notices, responses, show-cause orders, and final decisions are accessible.
8. Opportunity for personal hearing: The designated authority must allow a personal hearing for the affected party, recording the hearing minutes and providing a reasoned final order. This order should address the party’s arguments, the authority’s findings, and whether partial or full demolition is justified.
9. Judicial review: If an appeal mechanism exists, the demolition order must be on hold for 15 days from receipt to allow the owner a chance to appeal. The order should also be posted on the digital portal.
10. Opportunity for voluntary removal: The property owner should be given the chance to remove unauthorised construction voluntarily within the 15-day period. If they do not comply, and no stay is granted by an appellate authority, demolition may proceed.
11. Limit to non-compoundable structures: Only parts of the structure that are non-compoundable under local laws may be demolished.
12. Inspection and videographic documentation: Before demolition, the authority must prepare an inspection report, videograph the process, and preserve records. The final report, including a list of personnel involved, must be submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and uploaded to the digital portal.
13. Contempt and accountability: Any breach of these guidelines may lead to contempt proceedings and prosecution. If demolitions violate Court orders, responsible officers may be liable for restoring the property at personal cost, including payment of damages.
14. Dissemination of judgment: The judgment was ordered to be distributed to Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs and Registrar Generals of High Courts. States must circulate guidance on the ruling to relevant authorities.

Petitioners’ contentions

The petitions collectively contended that state authorities were engaging in a disturbing pattern of demolishing homes and businesses of individuals accused in criminal cases without following due process of law. This trend, referred to colloquially as “bulldozer justice,” involved allegations that these demolitions were targeted actions against certain communities and political dissenters, carried out in the absence of formal judicial determinations of guilt or proper legal protocols.

The petitioners pointed out specific instances in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where several demolitions had taken place following allegations of involvement in criminal activities or political protests. In such cases, state machinery reportedly moved swiftly to demolish the homes of accused individuals, often with little to no prior notice, minimal opportunity for appeals, and a lack of legal proceedings establishing their guilt. These actions, according to the petitioners, not only violated the fundamental rights to shelter, equality, and due process but also reflected a breakdown of the rule of law in favour of executive overreach.

The court’s task was therefore to examine whether these demolition actions were legally defensible or whether they constituted a misuse of state power in breach of constitutional protections. The case brought into focus several interwoven principles: the rule of law, separation of powers, and the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to property and shelter.

Central issues highlighted in the case

The judgment identifies and dissects several key issues that had been brought up by the petitioners:

1. Violation of due process of law: The petitions emphasised that the demolitions were conducted without procedural fairness, including notice and the opportunity for a hearing, which are foundational to the principle of natural justice. This issue questioned whether the state could deprive individuals of property without any formal adjudication or adherence to legal procedures.
2. Presumption of innocence: The petitions highlighted a troubling presumption of guilt that appeared inherent in the state’s actions, with demolitions proceeding on the basis of allegations or accusations being raised by the state police against the targeted individuals alone. This aspect raised concerns over the use of administrative powers to punish individuals in lieu of judicially sanctioned penalties, undermining the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. Arbitrariness and erosion of rule of law: The judgment had to consider whether these demolitions represented a breach of the rule of law. The principle of rule of law, foundational to a democratic society, requires that all state actions be predictable, transparent, and consistent. Arbitrary demolitions carried out without proper legal authorisation or transparent procedures brought into question the very fabric of rule-based governance.
4. Separation of powers: The case addressed the overstepping of executive powers into areas traditionally reserved for the judiciary. Punitive actions, such as passing convictions and sentencing the demolition of property, typically fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, ensuring a fair trial and proportional punishment. The court’s role was to determine if the executive had bypassed the judiciary’s role by unilaterally deciding to punish individuals outside of the formal legal system.
5. Accountability and public trust: The principle of accountability emerged as a critical concern, examining whether state officials could be held accountable for demolitions conducted in violation of legal procedures. The doctrine of public trust mandates that public officials exercise power as custodians of the people’s trust, acting transparently and responsibly.

Arguments raised by the parties

Submissions made by the petitioners: The petitioners had argued that the demolitions were in clear violation of constitutional rights and represented an abuse of state power. They asserted the following:

• Lack of adherence to due process: The demolitions were carried out without prior notice or an opportunity for the accused to present their case. This disregard for procedural safeguards contravened the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. By bypassing established procedures, the state not only deprived the accused of their property but also of their dignity and sense of security.
• Punitive in nature: The petitioners contended that the demolitions were punitive measures disguised as administrative actions. They argued that demolishing homes of those accused of crimes, without any judicial pronouncement of guilt, amounted to a pre-emptive punishment that violated the principle of presumption of innocence. This, they argued, created a dangerous precedent where the executive assumed the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
• Infringement of fundamental rights: The right to shelter, enshrined as a fundamental right, was argued to be inalienable and non-derogable. The petitioners highlighted that the Constitution protects individuals from state actions that threaten basic human needs, such as a home. They pointed to the jurisprudence that recognises shelter as integral to human dignity and a necessary condition for the exercise of other rights.
• Discriminatory and arbitrary actions: The petitioners argued that the demolitions were disproportionately aimed at certain communities and individuals, indicating a selective and discriminatory application of administrative power. This arbitrary use of state machinery not only undermined the rule of law but also created a perception of bias and prejudice in state actions.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate C.U. Singh, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, advocate Prashant Bhushan, advocate Mohd. Nizammudin Pasha, advocate Fauzia Shakil and advocate Rashmi Singh had appeared for the petitioners/applicants.

Submissions made by the respondents:

The state governments and the Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the demolitions on several grounds, such as:

• Lawfulness of demolitions: The respondents argued that all demolitions were conducted in accordance with municipal laws and regulations that allow for the removal of unauthorised constructions. They contended that these actions were administrative in nature and were necessary for enforcing urban planning and public order. Demolitions, they argued, were within the executive’s purview and did not require judicial sanction in cases of unauthorised structures.
• Protection of public order: The respondents maintained that the demolitions were legitimate actions to maintain public order and enforce laws regarding land use and property management. They argued that individuals accused of crimes often built or occupied unauthorised structures, and removing these structures was part of a broader strategy to uphold lawful land use.
• Statutory authority and exceptions: The respondents cited specific provisions under municipal laws that permitted immediate demolitions without notice in cases of unauthorised encroachments on public land, roads, or water bodies. They argued that under such statutes, the state had a statutory mandate to act swiftly in the removal of unlawful structures to prevent public nuisances and ensure public safety.

Reaffirming the rule of law: A landmark judgment safeguarding fundamental rights, human rights and judicial oversight

This judgment firmly establishes that no citizen in India can be deprived of their property or shelter without lawful process and judicial oversight, underscoring the commitment to constitutional principles that protect individual rights against overreach. The ruling reinforces democratic safeguards by placing stringent checks on executive powers, mandating that actions affecting private property and shelter must follow clear procedural protections. In doing so, it highlights the judiciary’s role as a defender of individual rights, ensuring that the state cannot exercise arbitrary authority that undermines citizens’ trust in the rule of law. This foundational stance is a crucial reminder that state power, while necessary, must operate within the bounds of fairness and legal accountability.

At the heart of the judgment is a reaffirmation of the rule of law, emphasising that democratic governance must adhere to principles of justice and non-selective enforcement of laws. It reinforces that no arm of the state, including the executive, can bypass established legal processes to impose punishment, a critical safeguard against abuse of power. By reiterating that punitive actions, such as demolitions, cannot be decided or enacted by the executive without judicial endorsement, the judgment underlines the importance of a system that values transparency, fairness, and predictability in state actions. This ruling is timely in a period of increasing concern over unchecked executive power and serves to uphold the idea that the judiciary is the sole authority on matters of guilt and punishment.

The judgment also extends robust protections to fundamental rights, especially those of vulnerable communities who are often at risk of unjust state actions. In recognising the right to shelter as an extension of the right to life and dignity, it underscores the societal importance of a stable home, affirming that housing is more than mere property—it is security, identity, and foundation. The ruling’s procedural safeguards and accountability measures are particularly impactful for marginalised communities, who are disproportionately affected by evictions and demolitions. These protections are crucial in a landscape where informal housing is common and where rapid state actions can push vulnerable populations into severe socio-economic hardship. The judgment, therefore, reinforces the judiciary’s role as a champion of inclusive protection, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of socio-economic status, are shielded from arbitrary actions.

The judgment’s emphasis on accountability and transparency is another key takeaway, introducing procedural requirements that mandate prior notice, digital records, and opportunities for affected individuals to respond before any state-led demolition. This push for transparency, with directives for a public digital portal to document each demolition, is a step toward increased public oversight, which in turn builds citizens’ confidence in government processes. The emphasis on personal accountability, where officials can face consequences for violations, serves as a significant deterrent to potential abuses of power. By setting these standards, the judgment promotes responsible governance that aligns with democratic principles, ensuring that public officials act as guardians of, rather than threats to, citizens’ rights.

Ultimately, this ruling is a powerful legacy for Indian governance and the judiciary’s role as a custodian of democracy and civil liberties. It sends a message both domestically and internationally that India’s democratic system, rooted in respect for human rights and the rule of law, stands firm against authoritarian tendencies. As a landmark decision, it will likely be a touchstone for future cases involving executive overreach, setting a precedent that demands due process, accountability, and judicial oversight as essential elements of governance. This judgment is not just a procedural mandate; it is a robust assertion of democratic values, a testament to the judiciary’s responsibility in upholding the Constitution, and a commitment to safeguarding citizens from the misuse of state power.

The complete judgment may be read below.

(Details of the previous orders can be read here, here and here.)

Related:

Demolitions: SC orders status quo on Sonapur demolitions, issues notice to Assam Government Uttarakhand, UP, Gujarat also ignore Sept 17 order

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

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

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.