By the end of April 2025, the total number of farmer suicides had risen to 869, according to divisional-level reports from the relief and rehabilitation department, report Scroll. Amravati division topped the list with 327 deaths, followed by Marathwada with 269, Nagpur with 135, Nashik with 106, and Pune division with 32.

Marathwada, historically one of India’s most drought-prone and underserved regions, is reeling under an escalating crisis. From just January to March 2025, 269 suicides were reported in its eight districts- Beed (71), Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (50), Nanded (37), Parbhani (33), Dharashiv (31), Latur (18), Hingoli (16), and Jalna (13). This marked a steep rise from 204 suicides during the same period in 2024 (TOI, April 2025).

These are not just numbers, they are lost lives, shattered families, and communities pushed beyond endurance. Yet, Maharashtra’s response has been chillingly procedural: of the 767 suicide cases reported between January and March, just 373 were deemed “eligible” for compensation. The families of only 327 farmers received the state’s standard ex gratia of ₹1 lakh. The remaining 200 cases were rejected. The fate of 194 others remains suspended in bureaucratic inquiry limbo, according to a report in the PTI.

A vicious spiral of loss

Each suicide is a family shattered. Families like that of 43-year-old Kailash Arjun Nagare in Buldhana, once honoured with the Maharashtra government’s Young Farmer Award, who died by suicide on Holi by consuming poison in his field, as reported by PTI in March 2025. His suicide note blamed the acute water crisis and government apathy. Nagare had recently led a five-day hunger strike demanding irrigation water for 14 villages from the Khadakpurna reservoir. His body was not allowed to be moved for hours as protesting farmers demanded accountability. “This is not a suicide; it is state-sanctioned murder,” said farmer leader Ravikant Tupkar, according to the Indian Express report.

Or take the case of Sonia Uikey, a 17-year-old from Wardha, who hanged herself on July 4, 2025 because her family couldn’t afford her Class 12 school fees. “We’ve moved from farmers killing themselves to their children ending their lives too,” said NCP (SP) MP Amar Kale after visiting her home, as reported by PTI.

The math of misery

At the heart of the crisis lies an economic model stacked against the farmer. As veteran farmer activist Vijay Jawandhiya explained to Rediff, the government celebrates low inflation, 3.5% as per the RBI, while ignoring the price farmers have paid for it. “Inflation fell because vegetable and crop prices collapsed, not because life became cheaper for farmers,” he said while speaking with Rediff. While input costs like fertiliser, health, and education remained high, prices for crops plummeted due to imports and policy neglect. Soya bean was sold at ₹4,000 per quintal against an MSP of ₹4,892. Cotton fetched ₹7,000 against an MSP of ₹7,500. Tur dal prices dropped disastrously from ₹12,000 to ₹6,000 per quintal.

“Farmers are losing money on every harvest,” said food policy expert Devinder Sharma, according to a report of The Hindu. “It’s not that agriculture is unproductive, it’s that we have made it unviable.” He cited the NSSO’s most recent Situation Assessment Survey, which found that average monthly income from farming stands at just ₹10,218. This boils down to a daily income of ₹27 from agriculture alone, barely enough to buy a meal, let alone repay debts, as reported by The Hindu.

Government Aid: A leaky pipe

Out of the 767 suicides recorded between January and March 2025, only 373 cases were deemed eligible for compensation; 200 were rejected, and 194 were still under inquiry, according to Indian Express. Of the eligible cases, just 327 families received the ₹1 lakh financial aid promised under government policy.

Worse, large sections of vulnerable farmers are excluded from this count altogether. “Women farmers, Dalits, Adivasis, and tenant cultivators are systematically excluded,” says journalist P. Sainath, as per The Hindu. “If a deceased farmer doesn’t have a 7/12 land deed, their death is simply not counted.” After 2014, changes in suicide data methodology, like classifying tenant farmers as agricultural labourers, further diluted the real scale of the crisis, according to People’s Archive of Rural India.

Seeds of Exploitation: The HTBT cotton crisis

Even Maharashtra’s cotton sector is now undermined by an unregulated seed market. Speaking to The Hindu, Jawandhia warned that nearly 1 crore of the 2 crore cotton seed packets in use this year are unauthorized F2 (second-generation) seeds. These genetically inferior, unofficial hybrids are being sold for ₹2,000/kg despite production costs of just ₹40/kg, creating a grey market that exploits desperate farmers. He urged the government to introduce pureline cotton varieties, allowing farmers to replant without buying from private firms every season.

Uneven burdens across regions

The reasons suicides are higher in Vidarbha and Marathwada, compared to Konkan or western Maharashtra, lie in systemic neglect. Vidarbha’s agriculture is largely rain-fed and high-risk. Landholdings have shrunk drastically, families now farm barely five acres each. In contrast, western Maharashtra enjoys access to horticulture, subsidies, and better irrigation. Konkan’s rural economy is cushioned by remittances from Mumbai (Rediff, July 2025).

The state government continues to announce schemes like the ₹1,500 per month Laadki Bahin Yojana for women and ₹6,000 PM-Kisan aid. But when compared to the ₹45,000 monthly salary a peon is expected to draw under the 8th Pay Commission, these figures seem paltry. “There are two Indias,” Jawandhia says. “A peon in the government earns ₹45,000 per month, while a farmer gets ₹1,500 under Laadki Bahin Yojana. What’s ₹1,500 for a woman managing an entire farm household?”

Forgotten families, drowning in debt

The effects ripple across generations. In Pali, Beed, Meena Dhere works in onion fields for ₹250 a day while her elderly mother-in-law watches over her children. Her husband Ashok died by suicide in January 2025 after accumulating a ₹3 lakh debt. In Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, 45-year-old Sadhana Kalaskar lives under a tin roof, trying to pay off a ₹6 lakh wedding loan after her husband’s suicide in November 2024, as reported by The Hindu.

“Government policies speak of relief, but the ground reality is abandonment,” said social worker Nitnaware. “After a suicide, the family is left with not just grief but also loans, unpaid school fees, and hungry mouths.”

A Political Hotbed, But No Long-Term Solutions

Farmer suicides became a central issue during the 2024–25 election cycle. PM Modi promised MSP of ₹6,000 per quintal for soya bean, while Congress’s Rahul Gandhi vowed ₹7,000. But beyond these headlines, little changed. On July 3, opposition parties staged a walkout in the Maharashtra assembly, accusing the state of ignoring the non-payment crisis for soybean farmers, as reported by PTI.

Rahul Gandhi’s reaction to the suicide figures summed up public frustration: “767 families shattered in three months. Is this just a statistic? Or a stain on our collective conscience?”

सोचिए.. सिर्फ 3 महीनों में महाराष्ट्र में 767 किसानों ने आत्महत्या कर ली।

क्या ये सिर्फ एक आंकड़ा है? नहीं। ये 767 उजड़े हुए घर हैं। 767 परिवार जो कभी नहीं संभल पाएंगे।

और सरकार? चुप है। बेरुख़ी से देख रही है।

किसान हर दिन कर्ज़ में और गहराई तक डूब रहा है – बीज महंगे हैं, खाद… pic.twitter.com/uDzFpYoMrG

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) July 3, 2025

A death every few hours

Farmer rights groups like Kisan Putra Andolan estimate that Maharashtra now loses 7–8 farmers every single day. These are not mere economic failures—they are policy murders, born of wilful neglect, rising input costs, collapsed MSPs, and mounting debt. In over two decades, Maharashtra has recorded 39,825 farmer suicides. Of these, 22,193 were confirmed to be due to agrarian distress. The government has paid ₹220 crore as compensation, an average of just ₹55,000 per suicide.

The numbers are terrifying, but they only tell part of the story. Behind each death is a voice that went unheard, a protest ignored, a loan unpaid, a dream deferred. Maharashtra’s farmer crisis is not seasonal, it is structural. Until that is acknowledged, the state will continue to bury its farmers and their futures, one suicide at a time.

Related:

As 30 crore workers, farmers join July 9 strike against govt.’s policies, will there be media coverage of the shut down?

TN: Sugarcane Farmers Protest, Demand Better FRP, Reintroduction of SAP

Farmers’ leader detained forcefully on Constitution Day as protests for delivering guarantee on legal MSP intensify

The post A Silent Emergency: Farmer suicides surge in Maharashtra amid apathy, debt, and systemic collapse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to sources in The Indian Express, the operation began following a nationwide verification exercise and has seen immigrants rounded up from states as far apart as Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa. Most of them are then flown by Indian Air Force aircraft to border states such as Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam — where they are held in makeshift camps, handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), and “pushed back” across the border into Bangladesh, often within hours.

A senior government official confirmed to The Indian Express that Gujarat initiated the first round of detentions and currently accounts for nearly half of all deportations. “All states with major economic hubs are identifying such illegal immigrants after document verification. The instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs are clear — the states are complying,” the official said, noting that the crackdown accelerated after the April Pahalgam attacks.

But the scale and method of these deportations suggest clear departures from legal norms. Under Indian law and international obligations, deportation must follow due process — including formal orders, access to legal aid, and verification by Foreigners Tribunals or equivalent mechanisms. None of this appears to be happening in these pushbacks.

The BSF, according to reports in The Hindu, has pushed back over 1,200 people from just one sector of the West Bengal-Bangladesh border. Delhi Police alone has deported at least 120 people since January, followed by Maharashtra (110), Haryana (80), Rajasthan (70), Uttar Pradesh (65), Gujarat (65), and Goa (10). Many of these individuals were transported in secrecy and denied access to legal representation.

Several were reportedly handed some Bangladeshi currency and food before being left at the border, a practice that not only flouts legal protections for non-citizens but also risks statelessness and chain deportations. Alarmingly, a significant number of people, fearing arrest, are voluntarily approaching border regions in panic, indicating the deep fear triggered by the nationwide campaign.

These coordinated actions across states, in the absence of transparent procedures, point to a disturbing trend: a pan-India, informal deportation regime operating outside the bounds of the law, with little accountability or oversight.

1. Uttar Pradesh: 90 alleged Bangladeshi Nationals detained from Mathura kilns amid state-wide deportation drive

On May 17, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district detained 90 individuals—suspected Bangladeshi nationals—including 35 men, 27 women, and 28 children, from Khajpur village under the Nauhjheel police station. The detentions were part of an identity verification drive targeting migrant labourers working in the area’s brick kilns.

According to Mathura SSP Shlok Kumar, the detainees claimed they had been living in Mathura for the past 3–4 months and had migrated there from a neighbouring state. “All of them are being interrogated, and other investigative agencies have also been roped in,” he told ANI, suggesting that legal proceedings may follow. However, no clarity has been provided on whether these individuals were produced before a magistrate or allowed access to legal aid, raising due process concerns.

The detentions align with a larger, intensified campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh government to identify and deport what it calls “infiltrators” — targeting primarily Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities residing in the state. Officials have also indicated that action had earlier been taken against Pakistani nationals, and similar efforts are now directed at undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya residents.

According to the report of Indian Express, state-wide directive from the Chief Minister’s Office has instructed all District Magistrates, SSPs, and Police Commissioners to accelerate the identification and removal of undocumented migrants, particularly in areas where many are believed to be living under changed or forged identities. Simultaneously, authorities have begun operations against so-called illegal settlements and unauthorised structures, especially in districts bordering Nepal.

The Uttar Pradesh government has publicly claimed to be the first in the country to achieve the deportation of all undocumented Pakistani nationals. “The Chief Minister himself oversees the process,” said a CMO statement, as per the ANI report.

While the state presents this as a national security achievement, rights advocates warn that such sweeping actions, especially those involving families with children, may sidestep critical legal safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, protections under the Foreigners Act, and India’s obligations under international human rights law.

Uttar Pradesh’s operation is just one piece in a growing national trend that appears to be functioning as a shadow deportation regime, with opaque procedures, little to no judicial oversight, and significant risk of wrongful or arbitrary expulsions.

2. Delhi: 700 alleged undocumented migrants deported under ‘pushback’ drive

In the last six months, nearly 700 undocumented migrants have been deported from Delhi to Bangladesh as part of the Union government’s intensified “pushback” strategy, according to a report by The Indian Express. The pace of deportations notably accelerated in the wake of the April Pahalgam terror attack, triggering a capital-wide verification and detention campaign.

Following the attack, the Delhi Police launched a coordinated drive and identified around 470 individuals as undocumented Bangladeshi nationals, along with 50 foreigners who had overstayed their visas, The Indian Express reported. These individuals were then flown from the Hindon Air Base in Ghaziabad to Agartala in Tripura, from where they were deported via land routes across the Bangladesh border.

Police sources revealed that 3–4 special flights were used over the past month for transporting the detainees. According to The Indian Express, Delhi Police also set up around five makeshift detention centres, coordinated with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and arranged the transfers with the Border Security Force (BSF).

On May 16, thirteen Bangladeshi nationals, including five minors, were detained in Auchandi village in outer Delhi for allegedly living without valid documents, according to an ANI report. They were apprehended during a targeted operation following intelligence inputs, said Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aditya Gautam. On interrogation, the detainees reportedly admitted to being Bangladeshi citizens without any legal documentation permitting them to stay in India.

A week later, on May 23, the Delhi Police detained 121 Bangladeshi nationals suspected of unlawful residence in the capital and initiated deportation proceedings through the FRRO, according to The Hindu. In the same operation, five Indian nationals were questioned for allegedly facilitating the illegal entry and stay of these foreign nationals. A case was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed to probe a suspected syndicate that is believed to have assisted in providing accommodation, jobs, and forged Indian identity documents to the immigrants. Authorities are now examining suspected fabrication of Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and electricity meter connections, and have issued notices to relevant departments. Legal action has been promised against any official found complicit.

These developments mark a sharp escalation in Delhi’s deportation efforts and reflect the broader national push under Operation Sindoor to track, detain, and remove undocumented migrants, often through processes lacking judicial oversight.

3. Delhi-Ghaziabad: Mass deportations continue as government allegedly sidesteps due process

On Sunday, May 25, around 160 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants, including women and children detained from outer Delhi, were airlifted from Ghaziabad’s Hindon Air Base to Agartala in Tripura to be deported to Bangladesh, according to a report by The Hindu.

Officials told the newspaper that the transfer was in line with the Indian government’s directive to expedite deportations without waiting for formal processes, which are often “lengthy.” This reflects a growing trend of informal and accelerated removals, especially following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Since the attack, more than 500 individuals have reportedly been sent back through India’s eastern border. Across the country, police forces have been conducting verification drives to identify alleged undocumented immigrants. Once detained, the migrants’ biometrics are recorded, and any Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar cards, are cancelled. These biometrics are reportedly used to prevent re-entry and re-enrolment in Indian systems.

After biometric capture, the migrants are handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and pushed back across the border. The Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter sent on May 8, raised concerns over these forced entries and called on India to respect formal repatriation mechanisms.

Earlier, on May 4, two Air India planes transported around 300 undocumented migrants, including 200 women and children who had been detained in Gujarat, to Agartala. They were subsequently sent across the border to Bangladesh.

At a press conference on May 26 in Dhaka, Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula of the Bangladesh Army condemned these deportations as unacceptable “push-ins.”

In just one month since the Pahalgam incident, Delhi Police identified and deported 470 undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and 50 foreign overstayers, flying them from Hindon to Tripura before pushing them across the land border.

An officer from Delhi Police told The Hindu that the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed city police as early as late 2024 to begin verification drives targeting Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. Between November 15, 2024, and April 20, 2025, about 220 undocumented migrants and 30 overstayers were identified, taken by train and road to eastern states, and deported via land borders through the FRRO.

However, after the Pahalgam attack, the process intensified. “Over the last one month, around 3–4 special flights went from Hindon air base to Agartala,” a senior officer said. In total, about 700 individuals have been deported from Delhi over the past six months, he added.

Initially, Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) from all 15 districts were tasked with identifying undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. A first battalion of Delhi Police, along with FRRO officials, would accompany detainees via rail and road to West Bengal, from where the BSF completed the deportation process, according to a government source cited by The Hindu.

4. Gujarat: Over 1,000 detained in state’s largest crackdown, hundreds airlifted and pushed back across border

On April 26, Gujarat Police executed what officials described as the state’s largest-ever operation targeting undocumented migrants, detaining 1,024 suspected Bangladeshi nationals, 890 in Ahmedabad and 134 in Surat, amid allegations of fake documents and criminal activity, as per Deccan Herald. The state Home Minister hailed the operation as a “historic victory,” warning that those harbouring such individuals would face strict action, and confirming plans to swiftly deport the detainees, as per the report of Hindustan Times.

Just over a week later, on May 4, two Air India flights carried some 300 of the detained migrants, including around 200 women and children, to Agartala in Tripura. From there, they were “pushed back” across the land border into Bangladesh, bypassing lengthy legal deportation procedures, as per the HT report.

These actions followed a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs after the Pahalgam terror attack, streamlining mass deportations with rapid airlifts and border pushbacks, according to Times of India report. Authorities have flagged concerns about detainees’ alleged links to drug and human trafficking ring, and even extremist sleeper cells, as justification for the sweeping operation, as per the New Indian Express.

The Gujarat operation, which involved specialized units from Ahmedabad Crime Branch, SOG, EOW, and local police divisions, also uncovered widespread use of forged IDs sourced from West Bengal, a network that is now under investigation as per the Indian Express report.

These developments underscore a troubling trend: a coordinated and expedient deportation campaign that circumvents due process, with authorities opting for air-bridge removals and cross-border pushbacks in lieu of formal court procedures.

5. Rajasthan: 1,000 marked for deportation as Indian migrant workers from Bengal detained for “Speaking Bengali”

On May 14, 2025, Rajasthan’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel announced that around 1,000 suspected Bangladeshi nationals had been identified across the state. Speaking in Jaipur, he confirmed that the first group of 148 detainees had been moved to Jodhpur and then flown to Kolkata, from where they would be deported to Bangladesh. According to The Hindu, most of these individuals were originally detained in Sikar district, and the Village Development Officers’ Training Centre in Jodhpur had been temporarily converted into a holding facility for the deportation process.

As per the report, Patel further stated that the state would continue similar operations in the coming days to facilitate further removals.

However, the state’s aggressive crackdown also resulted in wrongful detentions. On May 13, Rajasthan Police released 13 migrant workers, including children and two families from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, who had been held for nine days on suspicion of being Bangladeshi infiltrators, solely because they spoke Bengali. The group had been picked up by personnel from the Patan Police Station in Sikar district, and were detained in a guest house under police watch, despite being Indian citizens.

According to The Telegraph, their release came only after sustained communication from West Bengal government officials, who intervened when alerted by concerned families and local leaders. Samirul Islam, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and head of the Bengal government’s migrant worker welfare board, confirmed that state officials had been in touch with their counterparts in Rajasthan to secure the workers’ release. A senior Cooch Behar official reportedly called Rajasthan Police directly, following which the detainees were let go.

Obaydul Khandakar, a resident of Purba Jaigir Balabari village in Cooch Behar’s Dinhata-II block, who had been detained along with his wife Beauty Bibi, told the newspaper: “Despite being Indian citizens, we were detained for nine days just because we spoke Bengali.” The families had been working at a brick kiln near Sikar and returned there after their release. Khandakar said he planned to settle his dues and was now uncertain about returning to Rajasthan for work, shaken by the experience.

6. Tripura: Over 2,800 arrested for illegal entry since 2022 amid ongoing crackdown

On June 9, the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Tripura arrested one Bangladeshi national and one Indian tout during separate operations at Agartala railway station, according to a report by EastMojo. In the first incident, Pranajit Ray (35), a resident of Sylhet district in Bangladesh, was intercepted during a joint operation conducted by the GRP, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and other agencies. Police said he had illegally crossed the border and was planning to travel to Kolkata. “We seized some documents and Indian currency. We are examining these,” an officer told the outlet.

In a separate case, an Indian trafficker from Chanipur in West Tripura district was also arrested as part of a similar joint operation.

The arrests come amid a growing number of detentions in the state. Between January 1 and February 28, 2024, a total of 816 Bangladeshi nationals, 79 Rohingya, and two Nigerians were arrested in Tripura, according to the Tripura Police’s own data cited by EastMojo.

Additionally, Chief Minister Dr. Manik Saha, who also holds the Home portfolio, recently informed the Assembly that 2,815 Bangladeshi nationals were arrested for illegally entering Tripura between 2022 and October 31, 2024. Out of these, 1,746 were “pushed back” across the border, while 1,069 remained either in jail, temporary detention centres, shelter homes, or out on bail, as per a report by The Indian Express.

7. Maharashtra: Four alleged Bangladeshi nationals held in Pune following military intelligence tip-off

In Maharashtra, four suspected Bangladeshi nationals were detained from a labour camp in Pune’s Khondwa area on June 13 in a joint operation conducted by the police and Military Intelligence, according to a report by The Hindu. The arrests were made following a tip-off from the Southern Command of Military Intelligence, which led authorities to intercept the individuals as they were allegedly attempting to flee the area.

Upon preliminary verification, the four men were identified as Swapan Mandal, Mithun Kumar, Ranodhir Mandal, and Dilip Mondal, and were found to be citizens of Bangladesh. Defence sources cited in the report confirmed that the individuals will undergo joint interrogation by multiple agencies.

8. West Bengal: Seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals caught trying to return home after years in India

On Saturday, seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, were apprehended by police in Nadia district of West Bengal while attempting to cross back into Bangladesh after reportedly spending four years working in various Indian cities, according to a report by Hindustan Times.

“These individuals had entered India illegally through the North 24 Parganas border around four years ago and have since worked in Mumbai, Delhi, and several cities in Gujarat,” said Somnath Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Ranaghat Divisionm as per the HT report. They were caught in the Hanskhali police station area, the same location where another Bangladeshi woman was arrested earlier last week. She had reportedly entered India in 2024 and also worked in Mumbai.

The arrested individuals are said to be from Khulna, Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, and Kushtia districts in Bangladesh. According to officials, the group was attempting to return to Bangladesh with the help of an agent who is currently absconding.

With these arrests, the total number of alleged Bangladeshi nationals detained in various districts of West Bengal since December 2023 has reached approximately 100, as per police estimates. The Border Security Force (BSF) and other agencies have stepped up surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border since 2024 in response to the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh.

State Pushback: When governments step in to stop unlawful deportations

While the Union government’s crackdown on undocumented migrants has unfolded across states with unprecedented coordination and speed, a few state governments have pushed back, not against migrants, but against what they allege are unlawful deportations of Indian citizens. In rare but telling instances, state authorities have intervened to halt or reverse deportations, particularly where those detained turned out to be bona fide Indian nationals. Most notably, the West Bengal government has led efforts to trace, verify, and bring back its residents who were mistakenly or illegally pushed into Bangladesh, raising urgent questions about due process, documentation, and the risks of communal or linguistic profiling in the ongoing campaign.

1. West Bengal Government brings back seven men wrongly deported to Bangladesh

In a striking instance of state-level intervention against what is being called unlawful deportation, the West Bengal government has successfully facilitated the return of at least seven Indian citizens who were allegedly picked up by Maharashtra Police during anti-immigration drives and pushed across the Bangladesh border, despite holding valid Indian documents.

The men, most of whom are residents of Murshidabad district, were working as daily wage labourers or masons in Mumbai and Thane. They were detained between June 9 and 11, and within days, without due legal process, transported across the border and abandoned in Bangladesh, according to The Indian Express.

One of the deportees, 36-year-old Mehbub Sheikh, who worked as a mason in Thane, was detained on June 11 and pushed into Bangladesh from a BSF camp in Siliguri by the early hours of June 14, despite his family and local police submitting documentation, including Aadhaar, voter ID, and land records, to prove his Indian citizenship. Another youth, Shamim Khan, also from Murshidabad, was picked up around the same time and met the same fate.

Following urgent appeals from families and local authorities, the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, under instructions from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, intervened. The Board’s chairman and TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam told The Indian Express that the state government had taken the matter up directly with the Union government and the BSF. “Our government coordinated with central agencies and ensured five individuals were brought back by Sunday, and two more by Monday. We are continuing efforts to identify if others from Bengal have also been wrongfully deported,” he said.

According to a statement by Murshidabad SP Kumar Sunny Raj, upon receiving alerts from families, district police initiated local verification and coordinated with the BSF. Once the individuals’ Indian nationality was confirmed through supporting documents, the BSF held a flag meeting with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and repatriated the youths. “They were handed over to Raiganj police station by the BSF and will be taken back to their respective villages,” added SP Md Sana Akhtar of Uttar Dinajpur as per the report.

The deported men include Mehbub Sheikh (Bhagwangola), Shamim Khan (Hariharpara), Minarul Sheikh (Beldanga), Nazimuddin Mondal (Hariharpara), and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh (Monteswar, Purba Bardhaman). Additionally, Fazer Sheikh and his wife Taslima from Bagda in North 24 Parganas were also returned. All were among the over 130 people transported by BSF aircraft from Pune to Agartala, and then dropped off at the border with minimal belongings, a packet of food, and 300 Bangladeshi Taka, according to multiple returnees.

Speaking to The Hindu, Nazimuddin Mondal, 34, recalled: “We were herded like cattle. At 3 am, the BSF jawans drove us toward the border, told us not to return. We walked into complete darkness.” After being chased away by Bangladeshi locals and beaten by BGB personnel, the group wandered for hours in paddy fields with mud up to their knees, before the BSF called them back the following evening and took them to Kokrajhar.

Nazimuddin’s brother Musarraf Mondal said the family had frantically submitted documentation to both local police in Murshidabad and the authorities in Mumbai, but were ignored. “Only after my brother managed to call from Bangladesh did, we know what had happened,” he said.

According to Samirul Islam, this is not an isolated event. “There is growing concern that Bengali-speaking Indian citizens, especially migrant workers, are being wrongly profiled and deported in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra,” he told The Telegraph. “This is illegal, and our Chief Minister has written to the Centre about this.”

The return of these individuals was made possible through urgent coordination between state police, BSF, and BGB, as confirmed by Mekhliganj Police Station OC Mani Bhusan Sarkar, who received prior alerts from Murshidabad and Bardhaman police about missing residents. After verifying identities, a flag meeting at the Mekhliganj border enabled their return on Sunday afternoon.

As The Hindu reports, these cases come amid a wider trend of the Indian government “pushing back” undocumented migrants across the Bangladesh border, especially following Operation Sindoor, launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack in April. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has officially raised objections, stating such pushbacks violate diplomatic protocols.

For the seven men from Bengal, the ordeal has left lasting scars. “We were taken from one police station to another in Mumbai. We had no phones, no belongings. No one listened to us,” said Nazimuddin, still shaken after returning to his village in Taratipur, Murshidabad. “Only the state government listened.”

Here is a detailed and paraphrased version of the UP detention and Bengal police intervention story, rewritten with improved flow and source attribution:

2. West Bengal police intervene to secure release of six detainees from UP, wrongly suspected as Bangladeshis

In yet another instance that underscores growing concerns around the profiling of Bengali-speaking migrant workers, six residents of West Bengal, including two drivers, were detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 5 in Deoria district, allegedly on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. The detainees, five from Beldanga in Murshidabad and one from Krishnaganj in Nadia, were travelling by bus when they were stopped and taken to Lar police station, according to a report in The Telegraph.

The situation was resolved only after swift intervention by Murshidabad Superintendent of Police Kumar Sunny Raj, who contacted senior UP officials and facilitated the release of the group. A police officer in Bengal, speaking to the media, confirmed that local authorities had been alerted to the detentions around noon. “As soon as we were informed, our SP reached out to his counterparts in Uttar Pradesh. The issue was resolved the same day,” the officer stated.

Family members of the detainees said they were advised to keep their local police stations informed while travelling outside the state, especially in light of recent incidents of wrongful detention. “We had notified the Beldanga Inspector-in-Charge as a precaution. The prompt response of our local police ensured the group was not subjected to further harassment,” said Din Muhammad, a relative of one of the men, while speaking to The Telegraph.

Samirul Islam, Trinamool MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, condemned the incident, calling it part of a worrying trend of systemic suspicion and profiling of Bengali-speaking Indians in BJP-ruled states. “This has to stop. Speaking Bengali does not make someone a Bangladeshi,” Islam said. He further noted that despite the six men producing valid photo ID cards, they were still detained, an act he described as “deeply discriminatory.” He added that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had already written to the Centre raising concern about the growing frequency of such incidents.

Police confirmed that the group was released by the evening of May 5 and arrangements were made for them to return to their homes in Bengal the following day. (Detailed report may be read here.)

When the Courts Intervene: Stays and interim protection

Amid a wave of detentions and swift deportations, many allegedly carried out without due process, constitutional courts across India have intervened to halt or question such actions. In several instances, the Supreme Court and High Courts have granted interim protection or stay orders, preventing the deportation of individuals flagged as “illegal migrants” or declared foreigners under the Foreigners Act. These judicial interventions have not only delayed state action but have, in some cases, forced authorities to re-examine the legality and fairness of their deportation processes.

1. Supreme Court grants interim protection to woman declared ‘foreigner’ amid concerns over opaque deportation processes in Assam

Amid growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary deportation practices in Assam, the Supreme Court on June 24, 2025, granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s two-page 2017 order had summarily dismissed her extensive documentary evidence, including the 1951 NRC, multiple electoral rolls, land records, and local certificates, on grounds of minor inconsistencies in names and testimonies. The Gauhati High Court upheld this finding in February 2025 and revoked her interim protection, but the Supreme Court has now stayed all coercive steps against her, including deportation, while issuing notice in her special leave petition. The case is next listed for August 25.

Represented by Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai, Jaynab’s petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s own observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (July 2024), where the Court cautioned against opaque and suspicion-based declarations under the Foreigners Act. Jaynab, who claims Indian citizenship by birth and residence in Nagaon district, contends that her identity was rejected without due process. The Court’s intervention, though interim, sends a strong signal against mechanical adjudications and underscores the central role of constitutional safeguards in proceedings that could result in loss of nationality and expulsion. (Detailed report may be read here.)

2. Bombay High Court grants bail over custodial rights violation

In a significant judicial intervention affirming procedural safeguards even in cases involving alleged undocumented immigrants, the Bombay High Court on May 7, 2025, granted bail to 34-year-old Sabnam Suleman Ansari, accused of entering India illegally, after finding that she was produced before a magistrate well beyond the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window following her arrest. Justice Milind Jadhav, while granting her bail on a surety of ₹5,000, observed that Ansari was arrested on January 28 at 12:30 PM and produced only on January 29 at 4:30 PM. The delay, the judge ruled, constituted a prima facie breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. According to the order, “It is the duty of the Bail Court to step in,” when such violations are apparent.

The prosecution alleged Ansari had entered India through an unauthorised route from Bangladesh and lacked valid travel documents. However, Justice Jadhav rejected the State’s reliance on an earlier division bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing the facts and affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to grant bail in cases of illegal detention. The Court also noted the indifference of police authorities toward elementary but statutory safeguards under Section 50 of the CrPC and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscoring that constitutional protections remain non-negotiable, even in immigration-related prosecutions.

3. Bombay High Court intervenes in detention of Indian teen following father’s deportation

In another crucial instance of judicial scrutiny over policing under the Foreigners Act, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, ordered the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by Mumbai’s Mankhurd police following her father’s deportation to Bangladesh on allegations of illegal migration. Despite being born in India and possessing valid Indian documents, Ruksar was held in custody without any independent proceedings initiated against her. A vacation bench comprising Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking protection from coercive state action and possible deportation.

According to the petition, while the younger siblings were released to their mother soon after it was filed, Ruksar remained confined at the Nirbhaya Cell in Mankhurd, prompting the Court’s urgent intervention. The bench observed that her continued detention was unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, especially when she was not the subject of any conclusive or independent inquiry under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with, particularly in cases involving minors or Indian-born individuals whose rights risk being subsumed by broad and indiscriminate enforcement drives.

4. Gauhati High Court orders immediate release of bail-compliant man detained as ‘Foreigner’

In a forceful assertion of constitutional liberty, the Gauhati High Court on June 16, 2025, ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Goalpara, who had been unlawfully detained by the Assam Border Police despite being out on High Court–granted bail since 2021. The Court declared his detention “expressly illegal,” noting that no bail cancellation had been obtained and the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration against him remained sub judice. Rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment due to lack of instructions, the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stated, “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and reminded the State that liberty cannot wait for bureaucratic coordination. The order came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s mother, Mozida Begum, which documented the detainee’s weekly police reporting and absence of any new judicial order justifying re-arrest.

The Court had earlier stayed any deportation and verified that Hachinur was held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. His arrest on May 25, 2025, triggered widespread concern, especially as he had regularly reported to Goalpara Police Station per the conditions of his 2021 bail, granted under the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 guidelines. During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar emphasised that no fresh legal proceedings had been initiated, and the arrest was both unconstitutional and unjustified. The Court agreed, holding that the State should have sought a judicial order if it believed fresh grounds existed. “Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout,” Justice Surana said. With that, the Court directed immediate release, reinforcing that executive action cannot override existing judicial protections or suspend liberty at will. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Deported in Silence: India’s mass expulsions of alleged Bangladeshis without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Demolition drives

1. Ashok Vihar demolitions, Delhi: Bulldozers arrive at dawn

In a sweeping demolition drive, a special task force accompanied by a heavy police and paramilitary presence razed over 300 jhuggis (slum dwellings) in the Ashok Vihar area of North Delhi on a Monday morning. The operation, led by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on June 16, targeted more than 200 structures in the densely populated Jailorwala Bagh slum cluster.

The demolition began early in the day, with authorities barricading access roads and deploying multiple bulldozers and personnel from various departments. According to the DDA, the operation exclusively targeted jhuggis whose occupants had already been allocated flats under the in-situ Jailorwala Bagh rehabilitation project or were deemed ineligible under the housing policy. Officials claimed that slums protected by court orders were left untouched.

The official line: The DDA defended the demolition as a lawful and necessary step, claiming that 1,078 families had already been resettled in newly constructed 1BHK flats on the same site. These apartments, developed at a cost of ₹421 crore and valued at ₹25 lakh each, were made available to the rehabilitated families for a highly subsidised rate of ₹1.4 lakh. Another 567 households were declared ineligible based on policy guidelines.

Eligibility, according to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), depended on two criteria: inclusion in the 2012–2015 voter rolls and possession of at least one of twelve identity documents — such as a ration card, electricity bill, passport, or bank passbook. Disqualified families included those residing on upper floors without separate documentation, minors, and individuals who used their jhuggis for commercial purposes before January 1, 2015.

Authorities also pointed out that nine families successfully contested their rejection and were subsequently allotted homes via a lottery system. As per Times of India, DDA spokesperson asserted, “Due process was followed. We respected all High Court stay orders. The demolitions were confined to those already rehabilitated or found ineligible.”

Hundreds still without shelter: Despite these assurances, ground reports and testimonies from affected residents painted a more distressing picture. Multiple media reports, including The Indian Express, alleged they had been left out of the allotment process despite decades of residence and valid documentation. Rama Devi, a relative of one of the evicted residents, said, “Only about 1,000 families got flats. More than 500 families are still shelterless. We’ve been here for decades, working as street vendors and domestic workers. Now we are evicted without compensation or alternative housing.” Others voiced concerns about the conditions in the newly allotted apartments.

Simultaneous demolitions in Wazirpur: While Ashok Vihar was in the headlines, another anti-encroachment drive was underway in Wazirpur, where the Indian Railways removed hundreds of dwellings built along the tracks. Officials cited safety concerns, such as children playing dangerously close to railway lines and reduced visibility for train drivers. The operation marked the second major clearance in the area within a month.

Security was tight, with police and two companies of paramilitary personnel deployed to prevent any unrest. Officials reported that around 308 illegal dwellings were cleared during the operation.

A pattern emerges: The demolition at Ashok Vihar is only one instance in a broader series of evictions taking place across Delhi. In recent weeks, similar drives were carried out in Bhoomiheen Camp, Madrasi Camp, and most recently in Patel Nagar — where nearly 450 jhuggis were razed on June 11. These actions point to what housing rights activists call an escalating city-wide campaign to remove informal settlements under the guise of “urban renewal.”

The demolitions have sparked sharp political reactions. Former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal took to social media to accuse the BJP-led DDA of reneging on its promise of “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan” (where there’s a slum, there’ll be a home). “What does the BJP want — to erase every slum in Delhi? Why did the Prime Minister lie during elections?” former CM Kejriwal posted on X.

आख़िर बीजेपी चाहती क्या है? क्या दिल्ली की सभी झुग्गियाँ तोड़ना चाहती है? तो फिर मोदी जी ने क्या चुनाव के वक्त झूठ बोला था – जहाँ झुग्गी, वहाँ मकान? https://t.co/kE6CLFVwiJ

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) June 16, 2025

AAP’s Delhi unit chief Saurabh Bharadwaj echoed the criticism, alleging betrayal and mass displacement.

भाजपा की सरकार जबसे आई है दिल्ली में गरीबों के घर और रोज़गार दोनों उजाड़े जा रहे है ।

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता पंजाब भ्रमण में लगी हुई हैं और यहाँ दिल्ली में रोज़ बुलडोज़र चलाया जा रहा हैं।

रेखा गुप्ता जी बतायें कि इन ग़रीब लोगों को उजाड़ने से पहले घर कहाँ दिए गए हैं ?

केंद्र… pic.twitter.com/ySJzhSXtXl

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Former AAP MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi was detained by police while protesting against the Wazirpur demolition, further fuelling the political controversy.

भाजपा सरकार के बुलडोज़र का विरोध करने पर पूर्व विधायक अखिलेश पति त्रिपाठी पुलिस की हिरासत में लिए गए

भाजपा सरकार लगातार गरीबों के घरों पर बुलडोज़र चला रही है । pic.twitter.com/y9m3HpWZF1

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Congress calls for ordinance, cites precedent: As per the Hindustan Times, the Delhi Congress had called on the city’s BJP administration to bring in an ordinance to immediately halt all demolition of slum clusters. Drawing a parallel with a similar move by the Sheila Dikshit-led Congress government in 2011, party leaders said such a step is necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

“Just as the 2011 ordinance saved lakhs of homes, the current BJP government should pass one urgently to protect the poor from becoming homeless,” said Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav, after visiting displaced families in Govindpuri — where nearly 350 homes were bulldozed.

Yadav further alleged that widespread corruption and administrative apathy had excluded long-time residents from the eligibility survey. “People who’ve lived here for 30–40 years were left out deliberately. This, despite court orders in their favour,” he said, as per the HT report. “The BJP doesn’t want to end poverty — it wants to eliminate the poor from the city.”

2. Jamnagar, Gujarat: 7.74 lakh sq. ft. of government land cleared; structure under probe

In Jamnagar, Gujarat, authorities carried out an extensive demolition drive in the Bacchunagar area on June 15, clearing nearly 7.74 lakh square feet of what they described as illegally occupied government land. The cleared land, estimated to be worth approximately ₹193 crore, was reclaimed by a joint operation involving the Jamnagar district administration and police, amid tight security and logistical coordination.

During the course of the operation, as per the report of India Today, officials came across a large structure concealed from public view. Spread over 11,000 square feet, the structure bore the features of a religious site (dargah), and was built with marble flooring, several rooms, and a specially equipped bathing facility. The high-value construction, reportedly erected without authorisation, immediately drew the attention of the district authorities.

The Superintendent of Police, Premsukh Delu, stated that while there were signboards prohibiting donations and access to outsiders, the source of funding for the construction remains unclear. “The nature of the building and its lack of transparency regarding access or finance has raised suspicion. We are currently investigating whether the structure was being used for activities beyond religious purposes,” Delu said, as per Times of India.

A formal inquiry has been initiated to determine ownership, the legality of the construction, and potential links to unlawful activities, if any. Authorities have stated that the building was not listed in official land use records and had no apparent legal sanction for occupation of public land.

This operation is part of a wider effort by the Gujarat administration to remove what it categorises as unauthorised encroachments on state-owned land. The Jamnagar district collectorate has said that further reviews of government land titles in the region are underway, and additional demolitions may follow if more violations are identified.

3. Govindpuri, Delhi: 300+ jhuggis demolished amid heatwave

In the early hours of June 11, 2025, bulldozers rolled into Bhoomiheen Camp, a longstanding informal settlement in Govindpuri, South-East Delhi, as part of a demolition operation conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The drive began around 5:00 a.m., catching many residents off guard. By noon, under a red alert heatwave with temperatures exceeding 45°C, hundreds of families were left out in the open, their homes razed to the ground.

DDA cites court orders, says most structures were ‘uninhabited’: As per the report of The Hindu, the DDA claimed that the demolition was carried out strictly on government land encroached by 344 jhuggi structures. In its statement, the authority said that notices were issued on June 9, giving a three-day window for residents to vacate. The DDA further stated that no court stay order was in effect, and that many of the demolished structures were “uninhabited.”

However, visuals from the ground and testimonies from residents contradicted these assertions, with dozens of families scrambling to retrieve belongings as their homes were torn down. Many affected families are migrant workers and daily-wage earners who have been living in the camp for years, some for decades.

AAP questions BJP-led government’s credibility: The demolition triggered immediate political backlash. Atishi, senior AAP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, directly called out Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, questioning her credibility. In a pointed post on X (formerly Twitter), she wrote:

“BJP’s bulldozer started running in the Bhoomiheen camp from 5 a.m. this morning. Rekha Gupta — you said three days ago that not even a single slum would be demolished. Then why are bulldozers running here?”

ग़रीब विरोधी पार्टी है बीजेपी

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता जी ने कहा था, दिल्ली में एक भी झुग्गी को छुआ तक नहीं जाएगा लेकिन आज यहां भूमिहीन कैंप पर सुबह 5 बजे से बुलडोजर चल रहा है।

बीजेपी की DDA और दिल्ली सरकार ने कोर्ट में अपने बड़े-बड़े वकील इन गरीबों के ख़िलाफ़ खड़े किए और कहा… pic.twitter.com/ob2PNKrGcj

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 11, 2025

ये है भाजपा का असली चेहरा।

गरीबों से वोट लेकर फिर उन्हें ही बेघर कर देना। सुबह 5 बजे बुलडोज़र लेकर भूमिहीन कैंप पहुँची बीजेपी सरकार ने हज़ारों गरीबों के आशियाने उजाड़ दिए। बीजेपी को न गरीबों की परवाह है, न इंसानियत की।

बीजेपी का ‘जहां झुग्गी-वहां मकान’ का वादा अब ‘जहां… pic.twitter.com/GseSRgiz2H

— Atishi (@AtishiAAP) June 11, 2025

Former CM Atishi had visited the Bhoomiheen Camp the previous day and was reportedly detained by police while meeting residents, though police later denied the detention.

In response, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta reiterated that the state government could not defy court-directed demolitions, and maintained that alternative accommodation had been provided. However, no data was shared about how many residents had actually been rehabilitated before the eviction.

The timing of the demolition — amid a red alert heatwave issued by the India Meteorological Department — had drawn condemnation. The IMD’s red alert for Delhi explicitly warned of potential “heat illness and heatstroke in all age groups”, particularly for people without access to adequate shelter.

4. Jangpura, Delhi: 50-Year-Old Madrasi camp demolished, over 150 families left without homes

On June 1, 2025, authorities demolished the decades-old Madrasi Camp settlement in Jangpura, South Delhi, displacing hundreds of Tamil-origin residents who had lived there for over five decades. The demolition was carried out in compliance with a Delhi High Court order citing flood risk concerns ahead of the monsoon, as the settlement was situated along the Barapullah drain.

The cluster had become a well-established working-class neighbourhood, housing 370 families, many of whom worked in the informal economy and public services. But as bulldozers flattened the area, questions have emerged over the legality, adequacy, and humanity of the rehabilitation process — and whether the state’s actions respected the displaced community’s rights.

Government claims vs ground reality: In the immediate aftermath of the demolition, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta defended the operation, stating to the media that, “No one can defy court orders. Residents of that camp have been allotted houses and shifted.”

However, examination of the figures contradicts the government’s blanket assurance of rehabilitation. As per the report of The Wire, while the state claimed that all affected households were relocated to EWS (Economically Weaker Section) flats in Narela, only 189 of the 370 families were initially allotted flats. A further 26 families were later given accommodations. That leaves at least 155 families — over 40% of the entire community — without any alternative shelter.

These residents have been rendered homeless despite having lived in the settlement for decades, raising serious questions about the eligibility criteria, the documentation required, and whether the state fulfilled its legal obligation to ensure prior resettlement before demolition, as per judicial precedents and guidelines laid down in various Supreme Court judgments.

Historical and social context ignored: Madrasi Camp had been one of Delhi’s oldest informal settlements, inhabited primarily by Tamil-speaking Dalit and working-class communities, many of whom had migrated during the 1970s and 1980s for employment in the city. Despite their long-standing presence, residents alleged that they were not given sufficient prior notice, and that the verification process for rehabilitation was flawed and opaque, leaving hundreds ineligible due to technicalities.

The lack of transparency, participation, and timely redressal in these drives has raised serious concerns about the urban poor’s right to housing, especially in a city where informal settlements often fill the vacuum left by inadequate public housing policies.

5. Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh: GNIDA plans demolition of over 20 alleged informal colonies

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has announced a major demolition campaign targeting more than 20 alleged informal settlements and unauthorised constructions across its jurisdiction. The clearance drive, expected to begin in late June or early July 2025, will be carried out jointly with the district administration and police, and will involve heavy machinery and on-ground security deployment.

While officials describe the campaign as a necessary step to “bring discipline and fairness in land use”, local activists and housing rights groups have raised concerns over the absence of rehabilitation guarantees or transparency in verifying whether affected residents were knowingly complicit in the alleged violations.

According to GNIDA’s Additional CEO, Sumit Yadav, the authority has prepared a ward-wise list of all areas marked for action. “Despite regular advisories and warnings, illegal colonies have continued to proliferate,” Yadav said as per a HT report, adding that earthmovers will be used to clear structures built without formal approval.

Many of the settlements now facing demolition were established after agricultural land was illegally sold and converted into residential plots by private colonisers — often without informing buyers that the land was not approved for habitation under the city’s master plan. Residents, many of whom have invested their life savings, now face eviction without clarity on alternative arrangements or accountability for the fraudulent transactions.

GNIDA claims that it acquires land from farmers under planned urban development schemes, in accordance with a notified master plan that demarcates zones for roads, utilities, and various types of land use. “Plots are meant to be allocated for approved residential, industrial, institutional, and commercial purposes. But certain colonisers have been subverting this by carving out unauthorised colonies and misleading buyers,” a senior official said, according to the HT report.

The authority said the decision to launch this campaign was taken after a recent inter-departmental strategy meeting, and that strict action would be taken not only against settlers but also against land mafias and intermediaries involved in the unauthorised conversion and sale of land.

In response to anticipated backlash, the authority has urged citizens to verify land status before purchasing plots, pointing them to the GNIDA website and land records department for ownership and land use verification. However, critics argue that such post-facto advisories offer little solace to low-income buyers now facing homelessness.

The upcoming clearance operation forms part of a wider pattern of urban land enforcement seen across Indian cities, where rapid development pressures and speculative real estate markets have frequently clashed with housing rights and the reality of widespread informal urbanisation.

Cases concerning demolitions before Courts:

1. Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC’s demolition order in case involving land mafia and illegal construction

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on June 17, 2025, upheld the Bombay High Court’s interim order directing the demolition of 17 illegally constructed buildings in Thane, Maharashtra—structures alleged to have been built by builders with links to the underworld, and without any sanction or ownership over the land.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan dismissed a special leave petition filed by a flat purchaser who contended that she and other innocent buyers—over 400 families—were being rendered homeless despite no wrongdoing on their part. The petitioner also highlighted that she was a senior citizen who had made representations to multiple state authorities, including the Chief Minister, but had received no redressal.

However, the Court declined to intervene, observing that the buildings were constructed on third-party land without any approvals, and backed the Bombay High Court’s strong stance against what it described as a “land mafia” operation that had flourished due to state inaction and complicity.

As per LiveLaw, Justice Manmohan had remarked: “Kudos to the High Court for taking a right decision… there is no rule of law when such massive illegal constructions come up with underworld backing. Unless action is taken against these unscrupulous builders, this will continue — people will keep fighting gorilla battles using the shoulders of innocent buyers. That must stop.”

Justice Bhuyan questioned how individuals were able to purchase flats in such projects without proper documentation, suggesting buyers must seek redress against the builders in appropriate forums.

Notably, the Bombay High Court, in its June 12 order, had acknowledged the plight of the petitioner but noted that: “Such construction could not have come up except with the blessings of the government and municipal officers… It is shocking that such brazen illegalities were allowed to persist, ultimately defrauding innocent flat purchasers.”

The High Court had empowered the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) to proceed with the demolition without waiting for further orders, given the scale of illegality and the urgency of reclaiming the encroached land. The original writ petition in the High Court was filed by a woman who claimed ownership over the encroached land, and alleged that unauthorised five-storey structures had been erected by the land mafia in violation of planning laws. Although the petitioner before the Supreme Court was allowed to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the High Court, the interim demolition order continues to stand, signalling a tough judicial posture against illegal construction and official collusion.

2. Supreme Court stays Dargah demolition for 7 days, allows trust to seek recall of Bombay HC order

In a significant intervention on June 17, the Supreme Court stayed the demolition of a disputed dargah structure in Thane for a period of seven days, offering a limited but crucial window of relief to the Pardeshi Baba Trust, which has been locked in a long-standing legal battle over the structure’s legality. A vacation bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s recent demolition directive.

The case centres on a shrine in Thane, which, according to official records and court proceedings, originally occupied just 160 square feet. Over the years, the structure is alleged to have expanded without necessary municipal approvals, eventually occupying a built-up area of over 17,610 square feet. The land itself is private, and the expansion has been challenged by the original landowner, setting off a prolonged legal conflict that has played out across multiple forums over the last two decades.

In its recent order, the Bombay High Court had strongly rebuked both the Trust and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC). Asper LiveLaw, the High Court labelled the Trust’s actions as “unscrupulous” and accused the civic body of filing “evasive affidavits.” The court directed the demolition of all unauthorised portions of the structure, expressing frustration at what it viewed as blatant land encroachment under the pretext of religious activity. The TMC had earlier filed reports confirming that the expansion had taken place without planning permission and that certain parts of the structure had been rebuilt even after prior demolition action was initiated.

Pardeshi Baba Trust contests order, cites omitted Civil Suit dismissal: Appearing for the Pardeshi Baba Trust, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the Bombay High Court had failed to consider a crucial fact—the dismissal of a related civil suit in April 2025. According to Ahmadi, the Trust had informed the High Court about the suit in its pleadings, but the High Court neither referred to it nor addressed its implications in the demolition order. He argued that the High Court’s failure to engage with this material development severely undermined the fairness of the demolition directive.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Ahmadi also challenged the extent of the alleged encroachment. He contended that the High Court had mistakenly assumed the entire 17,610 sq. ft. to be illegal construction, while in fact, the dispute pertained to only 3,600 sq. ft. He further accused the landowner of exaggerating the extent of the unauthorised area and argued that the demolition order went well beyond the scope of the writ petition.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the private landowner, strongly defended the High Court’s conclusions. She said the Trust had engaged in a deliberate and systematic land grab under the guise of religion and that the High Court’s remarks were justified. She pointed to municipal inspection reports and photographic evidence showing that the illegal portions had not only been constructed without approval, but some had also been rebuilt in contempt of earlier orders. Divan also accused the Trust of playing procedural games to delay enforcement and shield the encroachment.

Supreme Court criticises omission, offers limited relief: After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court bench expressed concern about procedural irregularities, particularly the Trust’s claim that the High Court had failed to consider the dismissal of the civil suit. Justice Sandeep Mehta called this omission “embarrassing” and noted that had the High Court been made fully aware of the civil proceedings’ outcome, its decision might have been different.

“We propose to give them permission to file a recall in view of the fact that the High Court seems to have omitted to consider the fact of the disposal of the suit,” the bench observed orally during the hearing, as reported by LiveLaw.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Trust to approach the Bombay High Court with a recall application and ordered that the demolition be paused for a period of seven days to allow this process to unfold. The Court clarified that it was not deciding on the legality of the construction but only intervening on procedural grounds. It also left open the possibility for the Trust to return to the Supreme Court if the High Court declines to entertain the recall application. The Court made it clear that no further demolition would take place during this interim window. The legal status of the structure, the extent of unauthorised construction, and the validity of past permissions, if any, remain to be conclusively decided.

3. Bombay High Court slaps ₹1 lakh cost on journalist for PIL against SRA Project

On June 17, 2025, the Bombay High Court imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on petitioner Ankush Jaiswal, a self-proclaimed electronic media journalist, for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the demolition of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project in Kandivali (East), Mumbai, which the court deemed to be a gross abuse of the legal process.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the PIL lacked any genuine public interest and was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since a similar plea filed by the same petitioner had already been dismissed by another bench in September 2022.

The impugned building—comprising six wings—is part of the Bandongri Ekta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., developed under the SRA scheme. Jaiswal alleged multiple regulatory violations, including failure to maintain statutory distance from the National Highway and non-obtaining of requisite No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) prior to construction.

However, as per LiveLaw, the bench took serious note of the fact that:

• The petitioner approached the court 22 years after the project’s completion,
• He himself resides in the same SRA building that he claimed was “dangerous to life”,
• And that the rehabilitated slum dwellers would be rendered homeless if the court were to entertain such a plea.

The Court remarked that the PIL amounted to a “serious violation of the constitutional guarantee of shelter” for those already rehabilitated and questioned whether Jaiswal sought to push residents back onto the streets under the guise of public interest.

According to LiveLaw, dismissing the petition, the bench observed:

“The petition is an abuse of process. The plea is devoid of public interest and suffers from the bar of res judicata. It is not the function of the court to unsettle rehabilitation that has been completed decades ago, especially at the instance of one who continues to reside in the very building he attacks.”

The Court directed that the cost be recovered from the ₹1 lakh deposit previously made by the petitioner to demonstrate his bona fides, and the sum be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA).

4. Telangana High Court stays demolition of shopping complex adjacent to Peddapalli Government Hospital

On June 17, 2025, the Telangana High Court passed an interim order suspending the proposed demolition of a shopping complex adjacent to the Peddapalli Government Hospital, offering relief to the petitioner, Kishan Prakash Jhawer, who had filed a writ petition challenging the notice of eviction issued to him by state authorities.

Justice K. Sarath granted the stay after hearing arguments that the demolition was arbitrary, politically motivated, and unsupported by legal justification.

Background of the case

• The petitioner entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement with the Medical Department in 2007, granting him rights to operate the shopping complex for 25 years.
• On May 22, 2025, authorities issued a notice asking the petitioner to vacate the premises.
• The petitioner’s counsel, Deepak Misra, argued that this notice was based on oral instructions from the local MLA, with no legal basis.
• He also highlighted that separate proceedings were initiated in July 2024 for demolition and reconstruction of the dilapidated hospital building, not the shopping complex.

Petitioner’s arguments

• The notice lacked legal authority and cited no formal decision or government order mandating the shopping complex’s demolition.
• The shopping complex was an independent structure, not part of the old hospital building slated for reconstruction.
• The impugned action was arbitrary, motivated by political influence, and violative of contractual rights under the BOT lease.

Court’s order: Justice K. Sarath observed that a prima facie case was made out by the petitioner and stayed the proposed demolition until further hearing.

The Court emphasised that demolition of a separate, lawfully leased structure under the pretext of hospital redevelopment requires proper legal procedure, and politically driven oral instructions cannot override statutory contracts.

5. Delhi High Court grants interim relief against demolition in Batla House

On June 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection against demolition to six properties in the Batla House locality of Okhla, South East Delhi, in response to petitions filed by residents challenging the legality of notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Justice Tejas Karia directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing and issued notice to the DDA, requiring a response within four weeks. The matter is scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2025, before the roster bench.

Background of the Dispute: The petitioners — Heena Parveen, Jinat Kausar, Rukhsana Begam, Nihal Fatima, Sufiyan Ahmed, Sajid Fakhar, among others — approached the Court after receiving generic demolition notices from DDA in May 2025, targeting properties allegedly situated within Khasra Number 279.

Their core arguments included:

• Lack of demarcation: Petitioners argued that not all properties within Khasra No. 279 are illegal, and some lie outside its boundary. The DDA had failed to provide precise demarcation or individualised assessment in the notices.
• PM-UDAY scheme coverage: Several petitioners claimed their properties were covered under the PM-UDAY scheme, which provides a framework for legalising unauthorized colonies in Delhi.
• Historic occupancy: Some petitioners, such as Nihal Fatima, claimed residence in the area since 1980–82, asserting that the structures were purchased from builders and were supported by documents — albeit some in Urdu and Farsi, which were later translated.

DDA’s stand and Supreme Court reference: The DDA’s standing counsel opposed the plea, arguing that the demarcation report had already been submitted before the Supreme Court, and a demolition order dated June 4, 2025, was passed based on that.

However, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order of May 7, which clarified that occupants were free to seek appropriate legal remedies, thereby legitimising the High Court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the present petitions.

The Court also referenced a June 4 order in Ishrat Jahan’s case, where it had directed the DDA to file a detailed affidavit on demarcation and proposed action, due within three weeks.

Related:

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

The post Razed to the ground, taken to Court: The legal and social fallout of India’s demolition drives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What makes the judgment significant—but also contentious—is not merely its procedural holding, but the manner in which the Court treated the petitioner’s evidence. While the ruling rests on established precedents such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), it marks a notable shift from earlier Supreme Court positions that accepted minor discrepancies in names, dates, or residence as tolerable when weighed against the totality of credible documentary evidence.

As citizenship in Assam continues to be adjudicated through overlapping forums—FTs, NRC processes, and constitutional courts—this judgment bears important implications for legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and the fate of thousands accused of being ‘illegal immigrants.’ The case becomes a useful lens through which we may compare evolving judicial approaches to documentary evidence and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India

Factual matrix

Rofiqul Hoque, the appellant, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (FT), Jorhat, Assam, on March 4, 2017 under a reference by the Border Police. The basis: he had allegedly entered India illegally after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. He contested this decision before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the FT’s findings. In 2018, however, the petitioner’s name appeared in the draft NRC. He filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, arguing that such inclusion rebutted the FT’s conclusion.

Submissions by the parties

Appellant’s contentions:

• Inclusion in the draft NRC should have overriding effect and demonstrate that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
• The FT and High Court adopted a “pedantic” approach, rejecting evidence on grounds of minor discrepancies in age, name spellings, and address.
• Change in village domicile does not imply change in citizenship.

Respondents (Union of India and Assam government):

• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof is on the proceedee.
• NRC inclusion is neither determinative nor binding upon the FT or the State.
• Discrepancies in documentary evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioner’s claimed lineage.

Legal issues framed by the SC

1. Whether the findings of the FT and the High Court suffered from legal infirmity or ignored credible evidence?
2. Whether inclusion of the appellant’s name in the draft NRC can nullify a prior declaration by an FT?

Court’s Findings: Scrutinising evidence, procedure, and statutory framework

The Court’s reasoning rests on two central legal foundations:

• The burden of proof placed on the alleged foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The non-binding nature of NRC inclusion for persons already declared foreigners, as per the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India.

On the merits of evidence and the burden under Section 9: The appellant relied on a combination of official records to establish his Indian citizenship through ancestry:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016 purportedly featuring his grandfather (Joynal Abdin), father (Majut Ali), and mother (Sopia Bibi).
• A duplicate school certificate issued in 2014, showing his date of birth as 20.07.1996 and naming his parents.
• An income tax PAN card issued post-2017, and inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC.

Despite this, both the Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court held the petitioner failed to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 9. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stressing that the proceedee must prove:

1. Presence of ancestors in India before March 25, 1971, and
2. His linkage to those ancestors through credible, consistent documents.

The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s case wanting on the following counts:

1. Village discrepancy:

• • The appellant claimed descent from Joynal Abdin of Daobhangi village, Dhubri district.
  • Voter records showed Joynal Abdin in Kekurchar village, Sivasagar district, with no affidavit or evidence explaining this change.
  • There was no plea or corroborative document to establish a migration history, which would have reconciled the apparent inconsistency.

“The Tribunal as well as the High Court have considered these documents and have found that those earlier voter lists relate to a person located in some other village than the one of which the appellant claimed to be a resident. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries.” (Para 15)

2. Name and lineage doubts:

• • The Court questioned whether Joynal Abdin in 1966 and 1993 voter lists was the same person. Ages did not align; e.g., he was listed as 38 in 1966 and 70 in 1993 (should have been ~65).
  • The father’s name appeared inconsistently, and the mother’s name (Sopia Bibi) was absent in crucial documents.
  • The voter lists also showed unnatural age jumps, e.g., Majut Ali’s age was 30 in 1993 but 45 in 2010—missing consistency.

“Additionally, the High Court noticed that as per the affidavit of the appellant, Joynal Abdin Seikh was a resident of Daobhangi village whereas in the voter list of 1993, Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar village, which is altogether different from the village of which the appellant claims to be a resident. Further, the High Court noticed that in the 1993 voters list, the name of the mother of the appellant, namely, Sopia Bibi, is conspicuous by its absence.” [Para 5 (vi)]

“As regards the voters list of 2010, the High Court observed that here Majut Ali’s age is shown as 45 years whereas in 1993 list it was 30 years therefore, in the 2010 voters list, it ought to have been 47 years. Besides above, there was a noticeable change in respect of the place of residence because in 1993 list, the village of domicile is shown as Kekurchar whereas in 2010 voter list it is Daobhangi.” [Para 5 (vii)]

3. School certificate deficiency:

• • The certificate was a duplicate, issued ten years after the appellant allegedly left school.
  • No explanation for delay in issuance or production.
  • Crucially, the headmaster was not called to prove its contents, failing the test under the Evidence Act.
  • Hence, the document’s probative value was discounted.

“Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.” (Para 15)

The Court emphasised that these deficiencies went beyond mere clerical errors. They showed a lack of effort by the appellant to resolve material inconsistencies through affidavit, oral evidence, or additional linkage documents.

On NRC inclusion and its legal consequence: On the question of whether the appellant’s inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the earlier FT declaration, the Court delivered an unequivocal “No.”

It relied heavily on:

• Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and
• The three-judge bench decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604.

As noted by the SC in its order, the Citizenship Rules clearly state that:

“…the names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list.” (Para 23)

In para 25–27, the Court emphasised:

• The Registering Authority under NRC has no power to override a quasi-judicial order of a Foreigners Tribunal.
• Even if a person’s name is erroneously included, that inclusion is legally ineffective unless the FT order is reversed by a higher court.
• The “competent authority” under the Citizenship Rules refers specifically to the Foreigners Tribunal, not administrative officers.

Therefore, even though the appellant’s name appeared in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court held that:

“In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” (Para 27)

This closed the door on the appellant’s attempt to claim citizenship via NRC inclusion.

4. Final holding and consequences

After a detailed evaluation of both factual inconsistencies and legal standards, the Supreme Court held as follows:

• The FT’s findings, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, were not legally flawed, arbitrary, or perverse.
• The appellant’s inclusion in the draft NRC had no legal effect, given his prior declaration as a foreigner.
• The appellant had failed to prove his Indian citizenship, either by establishing consistent lineage or through rebutting the FT declaration.
• The interim release order granted in 2019 (based on NRC inclusion) was vacated.

“In light of the discussion above, and our conclusions on the issues referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The release order which was passed at an interim stage stands discharged. Consequently, the appellant shall be treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” (Para 30)

Notably, it is imperative to highlight here that the Court refrained from commenting on whether the NRC itself was legally flawed or reliable. Its approach was purely technical: an FT order, once passed, takes precedence unless overturned by a superior court—not by administrative inclusion.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Previous judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies

While the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque adopted a stringent approach, other judgments have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of documentary discrepancies, recognising the challenges faced by individuals in rural and marginalized communities.

1. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2014)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in his father’s name across various documents. The Tribunal noted variations such as “Samed Ali,” “Abdul Samed,” and “Samed.” The Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that such variations are common in rural areas, particularly among the Muslim community, and held that these discrepancies were not significant enough to draw an adverse inference regarding the petitioner’s citizenship.

“In so far discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father is concerned, it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly among people of Muslim community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name such as in the name of the petitioner’s father. The discrepancy in the name as noticed- Samed Ali, Abdul Samed and Samed, is not so great as to draw adverse inference regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. On the ground of there being such discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father, petitioner could not have been declared as a foreigner.” (Para 11)

The Court also addressed discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, noting that minor differences in age declarations are expected in rural settings and should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

2. Mamata Bhowmik v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2019)

The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, which rejected a certified copy of the 1966 voter list on the grounds that it lacked a physical signature and did not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Gauhati High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment, noting that the document was digitally signed and legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

“The certified copy also contains a further note that the certificate is digitally signed and, therefore, needs no physical signature… the certificate is legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.” (Para 3)

The Court emphasized the need for Tribunals to consider the authenticity and legal validity of documents, even when presented in digital form, and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

3. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (Supreme Court of India, 2019)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in the spelling of his grandfather’s name and differences in the villages listed in various documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran, however, found that the appellant had successfully established his lineage through consistent documentation of his father’s and grandfather’s identities, despite minor spelling variations. The Court held that such minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the appellant’s claim to citizenship.

“Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather’s identity, father’s identity etc. has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” (Para 4)

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Foreigners Tribunal, thereby affirming the appellant’s Indian citizenship.

4. Mohammad Iddrish Ali v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2020)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner despite submitting multiple documents, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970 bearing his father’s and uncle’s names. The Tribunal disregarded these documents, citing the absence of the petitioner’s name in the 1975 voter list. The Gauhati High Court bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia found that the Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence and emphasized that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in Tribunal proceedings.

“Reverting to the case in hand, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a tribunal. Nothing is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed a fresh opinion, highlighting the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence in such cases.

5. Jagat Bahadur Chetri v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2023)

An 85-year-old resident of Assam was declared a foreigner based on a reference by an election official, despite evidence of his birth in Assam in 1937 and decades of service as a civilian employee in the military. The Gauhati High Court criticised the “non-application of mind” by the election official and set aside the Tribunal’s ruling, ordering compensation for the petitioner.

“If Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth is Dibrugarh and there is no material that subsequent to his birth, he migrated to the specified territory and thereafter re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971, we are of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to have referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner Jagat Bahadur Chetri is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.” (Para 4)

“It appears that the enquiring officer had not done its duty in the proper earnest and there can be no reason why the petitioner Jatat Bahadur Chetri would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.” (Para 5)

“However, for causing inconvenience to the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any application of mind, a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (rupees ten thousand) is imposed on the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to be paid to the petitioner.” (Para 7)

This case highlights the importance of due diligence and the consideration of an individual’s lifelong ties to the country in citizenship determinations.

6.  Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2024)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner based on minor discrepancies in the spelling of names and dates in official documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such variations are common and often arise due to differences in language, pronunciation, and clerical errors. The Court emphasized that these minor inconsistencies should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)

“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)

The Court also highlighted that the authorities must have a material basis for initiating proceedings under the Foreigners Act and that arbitrary or baseless suspicions cannot justify such actions. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, restoring the appellant’s citizenship. (Detailed analysis of the same judgment may be read here.)

Tightening the evidentiary threshold?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India underscores a marked shift toward evidentiary stringency in citizenship adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946. By upholding the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, the Court reasserted two core principles: (1) that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee under Section 9, and (2) that inclusion in the NRC—particularly a draft list—does not override a quasi-judicial declaration of foreign status.

What makes this decision legally significant is its departure from earlier jurisprudence that acknowledged the lived realities of individuals from rural and marginalized communities—realities that often produce inconsistencies in names, ages, and addresses in official records. Judgments such as Sirajul Hoque, Md. Rahim Ali, and Md. Anuwar Hussain adopted a more flexible, contextual reading of documentary discrepancies. In contrast, Rofiqul Hoque takes a formalistic approach, requiring strict evidentiary coherence even when documentary irregularities might stem from administrative lapses rather than wilful deceit.

This evolving judicial posture has far-reaching implications. It raises the evidentiary threshold for proving citizenship, heightens the risk of wrongful exclusion, and underscores the primacy of FT decisions over NRC data, regardless of administrative errors or procedural opacity in the latter. Going forward, both legal practitioners and claimants must place greater emphasis on reconciling all documentary inconsistencies through affidavits, oral testimony, and corroborative records.

In essence, Rofiqul Hoque reinforces the authority of Foreigners Tribunals and sets a cautionary precedent: in the current legal regime, technical lapses—even those reasonably explained—may carry irrevocable consequences for individuals seeking to prove their citizenship in Assam.

Image Courtesy: scobserver.in

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the case lies a disturbing sequence of events: a young tribal man taken from his own wedding ceremony by police officers, subjected to alleged third-degree torture, and found dead in custody; followed by delayed and diluted FIR registration, an ambiguous post-mortem, and retaliatory criminal cases against the sole eyewitness. The State’s response—marked by delays, lack of arrests, and superficial disciplinary action—led the Court to conclude that the investigation was neither fair nor credible.

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional requirement for independent, impartial, and transparent investigation, especially when State agents are themselves under suspicion. It underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding due process, witness protection, and accountability in custodial deaths, while reinforcing that the rule of law cannot be compromised by institutional camaraderie.

Factual background

The case emerges from a gruesome incident of custodial torture that took place in July 2024. Deva Pardhi, a tribal man from Guna district, Madhya Pradesh, was preparing for his wedding. On July 13, while the Haldi ceremony was underway, a team of around 30–40 police personnel stormed the premises, assaulting family members—including women and children—and arresting Deva along with his uncle Gangaram Pardhi.

They were taken not to the new police station equipped with CCTV cameras but to an older facility, allegedly to avoid surveillance. At the station, both men were subjected to severe third-degree torture. According to Gangaram’s account, Deva was:

• Beaten with ropes,
• Doused with hot water, petrol, salt, and chili powder,
• Suspended upside down from the ceiling,
• Suffocated with water.

Eventually, after three hours of this treatment, Deva collapsed and was moved to a hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.

Delayed and diluted FIR: The family of the deceased attempted to register an FIR immediately, but were obstructed by the local police. Only after a Magisterial Inquiry was completed, was FIR No. 341/2024 registered—eight days later. Even then, crucially, the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 302 IPC) was excluded, and less serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were invoked:

• Section 105: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
• Section 115(2): Voluntarily causing hurt,
• Section 3(5): Joint criminal liability,
• Section 120: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession,
• Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Despite these charges, no arrest was made in eight months—a fact that became central to the Court’s conclusion of deliberate institutional shielding.

Eyewitness targeted: Gangaram Pardhi, the only eyewitness to Deva’s custodial torture and death, was illegally detained beyond 24 hours, remanded to custody, and then systematically implicated in at least four more criminal cases:

• FIR 247/2024 (Dharnawada),
• FIR 489/2023 (Dharnawada),
• FIR 434/2023 (Jaora),
• FIR 87/2023 (Chippabarod).

His bail plea was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, however, acknowledged the threat perception he faced and ordered his transfer from Guna District Jail to Gwalior Central Jail.

Medical evidence muzzled by influence: Post-mortem results revealed multiple abrasions and contusions. However, instead of ascribing cause of death to physical injuries, doctors later opined that Deva died of vasovagal shock leading to heart failure. The Court cast serious doubt on the credibility of this conclusion, noting that:

• The Medical Board failed to opine on cause of death despite clear injuries,
• The delay and change in findings suggested direct police interference.

This aspect was described as a symptom of a much broader institutional malaise, wherein even forensic medical systems are suborned by police influence.

Judicial censure from the bench during the April 29 hearing

The Supreme Court’s hearing on April 29, 2025, preceding the final judgment, was marked by a series of extraordinarily candid and stern oral observations by Justice Sandeep Mehta, laying bare the judicial frustration with the State’s apparent unwillingness to take decisive action against the police officials implicated in Deva Pardhi’s custodial death.

When Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, informed the bench that the two key officers had merely been transferred to line duty, Justice Mehta expressed serious displeasure, questioning the sincerity and seriousness of the State’s response. As per the report of LiveLaw, he criticised the administrative tokenism in lieu of criminal accountability, calling it a blatant instance of institutional favouritism.

““Great response to a case of custodial death! What better example of favouritism, shielding your own officers. Would you like yourself to be appointed as amicus or appointed on behalf of CBI to take over the case? Rather than representing the State police. Ridiculous and inhumane approach. Absolutely. Man dies in your custody and it takes you 10 months to lay hands on your own officers. Why did you send them to line duty? For what reason? Their complicity has been found true, why they are not been arrested?”

Justice Mehta went on to question the competence of the investigating authorities, emphasising that the State had failed to arrest even a single person despite the lapse of ten months since the incident. According to LiveLaw, he demanded to know under what provision of law the FIR had been registered and implied that the State’s conduct reflected a gross abdication of investigative duty.

“For the 10 months time you have not been able to arrest a single person. This reflects on your competence. What is the provision of law under which the FIR has been registered?”

When the State sought to justify the absence of arrests by citing that substances had been found in Deva’s body, Justice Mehta dismissed this as a crude attempt at a cover-up, further underlining the systemic efforts to derail the case.

“Can there be a better cover-up act?” Justice Mehta was noted as saying as per LiveLaw.

The Court also took strong exception to the postmortem report, which recorded no conclusive cause of death despite multiple injuries on Deva’s body. The bench described it as inexplicable and suspect, given the visible signs of torture. Justice Mehta lamented the persistent impunity for custodial violence, asserting that repeated judicial pronouncements had done little to deter such brutality.

“A 25-year-old boy killed by custodial violence and not a single injury on the body seen by the medical jurist? You say he died of a heart attack? Bruises all over the body. Sad state of affairs in this country that vice of custodial violence continues unabated despite repeated judgments by this Court, and offenders roam free. Horrendous. And you try to eliminate the sole witness.”

Witness vulnerability and the court’s reluctance to endanger Gangaram: The hearing also saw Advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Gangaram Pardhi, urge the Court to consider his bail application. She pointed out that Gangaram, the sole eyewitness to Deva’s death, continued to face relentless harassment by the police and was being falsely implicated in one case after another.

In response, Justice Mehta made a poignant and chilling observation, suggesting that while judicial custody was undesirable, it may ironically offer better protection than release, given the serious risk to Gangaram’s life if he were freed. His words starkly acknowledged the reality of extrajudicial killings and witness silencing:

“Presently, being in custody is better for your own health and safety. When he comes out, he is run over by a lorry and you won’t even know. It will be an accident and you will lose the single witness. Instance [like this] are not uncommon…We have even rejected bail petitions on grounds that there is a risk of the life of accused himself. It’s always better. You will see instances that the moment the accused came out on bail, he was eliminated by the other side. Don’t take that risk. Leave it to the Court,” Justice Mehta remarked, as per LiveLaw.

These remarks underscored the extraordinary vulnerability of witnesses in cases involving State actors, and served to justify the later directions issued in the final judgment for assigning responsibility to senior State officials for Gangaram’s safety.

Judicial assessment and findings in the judgment

The findings of the Court are among the most comprehensive judicial evaluations of systemic custodial abuse and the complicity of the State machinery in recent times. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Systemic failure to register and investigate FIR promptly

The Court noted that the victim’s family attempted to lodge an FIR immediately after the custodial death occurred. However, the local police actively prevented them from doing so, an action the Court regarded as a deliberate suppression of lawful process.

Only after the Magisterial Inquiry concluded was FIR No. 341 of 2024 registered. Even then, it included Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 (murder), thereby diluting the gravity of the offence.

This delay and selective invocation of penal provisions formed a crucial part of the Court’s reasoning that the investigation was neither independent nor fair. The Court termed this an engineered evasion of accountability.

“The victims’ family tried to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident, but the local police officials prevented them from doing so. It is only after the magisterial inquiry was conducted that the FIR came to be registered wherein the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder was omitted.” (Para 29)

2. Absolute Inaction for Eight Months: No arrests despite direct incrimination

The Supreme Court expressed deep concern that even after eight months, not a single police officer had been arrested despite the fact that the Magisterial Inquiry, medical evidence, and witness statements pointed toward clear custodial torture leading to death.

“Nearly eight months have passed since the FIR was registered but till date, not a single accused has been arrested.” (Para 29)

This inaction, according to the Court, was not accidental but a result of institutional camaraderie—a refusal to act against colleagues, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The Court emphasised that the deliberate delay had the effect of sabotaging the prosecution and undermining public confidence in the legal system.

“These circumstances give rise to a clear inference that the investigation by the local police is not being carried out in a fair and transparent manner and there is an imminent possibility of the prosecution being subjugated by the accused if the investigation is left in the hands of the State police, who are apparently shielding their own fellow policemen owing to the camaraderie.” (Para 30)

3. Suppression and tampering of medical evidence

The post-mortem report, although documenting multiple contusions, abrasions, and visible injuries, made no conclusive finding on the cause of death. Instead, the medical board reserved opinion, and later attributed the death to “vasovagal shock leading to heart attack.”

The Supreme Court found this explanation medically implausible given the physical injuries and the timeline of events, and strongly suspected that the Medical Board was pressurised by the accused police officers. The doctors’ refusal to comment on the cause of death, in the Court’s view, reflected coercive interference by the police.

“The fact that the police officials have influenced the investigation right from the beginning is amply borne out from the circumstance that even the doctors, who conducted autopsy of the dead body of Deva Pardhi, seem to have been pressurised/influenced.” (Para 28)

“We are constrained to observe that despite taking note of the large number of the injuries on the body of Deva Pardhi, the victim of custodial torture, the members of the Medical Board which conducted post-mortem on his body, failed to express any opinion regarding the cause of his death. This omission seems to be deliberate rather unintentional and appears to be a direct result of influence being exercised by the local police officials.” (Para 29)

This finding is especially significant as it suggests institutional rot beyond the police force, implicating the medical system’s integrity in custodial death investigations.

4. Clear Credibility Crisis: Invoking Nemo Judex in Causa Sua

The Court invoked the foundational principle of natural justice — nemo judex in causa sua — which means that no one can be a judge in his own cause.

Given that the very individuals being investigated belonged to the same force tasked with investigating, the Court declared that any semblance of impartiality was fatally compromised. This foundational breach of investigative independence, in the Court’s eyes, necessitated transfer to the CBI.

“We are, therefore, convinced that this is a classic case warranting invocation of the Latin maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ which means that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’. The allegation of causing custodial death of Deva Pardhi is against the local police officials of Myana Police Station.” (Para 28)

5. Credible eyewitness testimony consistently ignored

The Court gave great evidentiary weight to the statement of Gangaram Pardhi, who not only witnessed the torture of Deva Pardhi, but also tried to intervene, and was himself assaulted and illegally detained.

Despite being a direct, material eyewitness, Gangaram’s testimony had not triggered arrests, nor had it been treated with legal seriousness. Instead, he was subjected to retaliatory incarceration and implicated in multiple subsequent cases.

“The involvement of the police officials in the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is clearly borne out from the statement of the sole eye-witness Gangaram Pardhi and stands further corroborated during the magisterial inquiry.” (Para 29)

6. Retaliatory framing and judicial recognition of witness intimidation

The Supreme Court unambiguously held that multiple FIRs filed against Gangaram Pardhi after the custodial death incident were deliberate acts meant to silence and neutralise him.

The Court recognised a pattern of conduct: entangling him in successive, allegedly concocted cases to keep him detained indefinitely, cripple his morale, and deter him from deposing against the police.

“So far as the aspect of grant of bail to Gangaram Pardhi is concerned, we may observe that the underlying facts narrated supra clearly indicate that a deliberate attempt is being made to somehow or the other, implicate Gangaram Pardhi in multiple cases, one after the other, so as to keep him behind bars indefinitely, and break his spirit and the spirit of his family members thereby ensuring that the said person being the star witness of the custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not only demoralized but is also prevented from deposing against the errant police officials.” (Para 33)

Directions anchored in constitutional and criminal law doctrine

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court issued firm and time-bound directions:

• The investigation was immediately transferred to the CBI.
• CBI was ordered to register a Regular Case (RC) and complete investigation within 90 days of arrest.
• The accused police officers were to be arrested within one month.
• Protection of Gangaram under the Witness Protection Scheme was mandated.
• Liberty was granted to apply for bail in all cases, with the High Court directed to consider this Court’s findings.
• The Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh were personally made responsible for ensuring Gangaram’s safety.

Significance and implications

This judgment is significant because it:

• Affirms Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional guardian under Articles 21 and 32 when State failure threatens liberty and life.
• Condemns the culture of custodial impunity, reinforcing that institutional allegiance cannot supersede justice.
• Clarifies that witness protection is not a procedural courtesy but a substantive right, especially when the witness is up against State forces.
• Lays down that transfer of investigation is not an affront to State police, but a necessity when bias taints the process.

Conclusion

The custodial death of Deva Pardhi is not merely a tragic event—it is a mirror held up to the systemic erosion of accountability in India’s criminal justice system. In transferring the case to the CBI and holding the State to account for its failures, the Supreme Court has emphatically reiterated that no State apparatus, however powerful, is above the Constitution. The judgment stands as a clarion call for legal reform, ethical policing, and the preservation of human dignity in custodial spaces.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

“No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check

The post “Shielding their own”: Supreme Court slams Madhya Pradesh police, transfers custodial death probe of a tribal man to CBI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The poem did not name any religion or community but lamented injustice, questioned state power, and called for non-violence as a means of resistance. The complaint alleged it incited religious hatred and disturbed social harmony.

What was at stake was far greater than one poem or one politician—it was the scope of criminal law in regulating political speech, the meaning of “incitement”, and whether popular offence can override constitutional values.

Background: A poem, a platform, and a prosecution

On December 29, 2024, during a mass wedding programme in Jamnagar, Gujarat, organised by a local councillor, Imran Pratapgarhi recited a poem that was later posted as a video on his verified social media account on the platform ‘X’. The poem included verses such as:

“ए ख़ून के प्यासों बात सुनो
गर हक़ की लड़ाई ज़ुल्म सही
हम ज़ुल्म से इश्क़ निभा देंगे…”

Translated broadly:

“O you blood-thirsty, listen!
If the fight for rights brings injustice,
We will meet that injustice with love…”

The FIR accused the appellant of promoting enmity between communities and disturbing national harmony. Shockingly, he was charged under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) of the BNS—provisions dealing with incitement, hate speech, religious disharmony, and even abetment of violence. Through the FIR, it was alleged that the spoken words of the poem incite people of one community against another, and it hurts a community’s religious and social sentiments. It was further alleged that the song had lyrics that incited people of other communities to fight for the community’s rights. It was claimed that the video posted by the appellant created enmity between two communities at the national level and hatred towards each other. It was further alleged that it had a detrimental effect on national unity.

Key observations of the Court

1. Constitutional Voice vs. State Machinery: A foundational tension

At the heart of this judgment lies an old constitutional paradox: the State is both the guarantor and violator of fundamental rights. Justice Oka, with characteristic candour, begins by confronting this tension head-on:

“This case shows that even after 75 years of the existence of our Constitution, the law enforcement machinery of the State is either ignorant about this important fundamental right or does not care for this fundamental right.” (Para 1)

In this opening salvo of the judgment, Justice Abhay S. Oka sets the tone for a judgment that is as much an indictment of institutional apathy as it is a reaffirmation of constitutional values. The observation that even after 75 years of constitutional existence, law enforcement remains either ignorant of or indifferent to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, reveals a profound structural dysfunction. This remark is not made in passing—it is a judicial rebuke aimed squarely at a State apparatus that defaults to coercion over constitutional engagement. By framing the issue as one of institutional disrepair rather than individual excess, the Court shifts the spotlight from the accused citizen to the accuser state, raising critical questions about how routinely—and with what legal illiteracy—criminal law is weaponised to suppress dissent.

What emerges from this framing is the Court’s role not as a mere adjudicator of facts, but as a constitutional conscience-keeper. Rather than balancing “free speech” against “law and order,” the judgment asserts that the State’s repeated resort to criminal prosecution for expressive acts is itself an affront to the constitutional order. This is not just about a misreading of a poem—it is about the State’s deep discomfort with metaphor, criticism, and resistance. The Court’s insistence that the rule of law includes a duty to respect rights, not merely regulate them, transforms the case into a referendum on how faithfully the State embodies the very freedoms it claims to guarantee. In doing so, the Court subtly but powerfully reclaims constitutional morality as an active, living principle—not a hollow preamble.

2. A Theory of Free Speech: From libertarian tolerance to affirmative protection

This judgment doesn’t merely shield speech—it underlines its necessity. Justice Oka, who had authored the judgment on the behalf of the Bench, frames Article 19(1) (a) as not merely a right but as a structural precondition for human dignity and democratic engagement, thereby locating it within the broader penumbra of Article 21:

“Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or groups of individuals is an integral part of a healthy, civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.” (Para 38)

This convergence of Articles 19 and 21 reflects a distinctly substantive conception of liberty, moving beyond formal non-interference toward affirmative obligation. The State (including the police and judiciary) is thus required not just to refrain from suppressing speech but to actively ensure its flourishing.

“The reasonable restrictions provided for in Article 19(2) must remain reasonable and not fanciful and oppressive. Article 19(2) cannot be allowed to overshadow the substantive rights under Article 19(1), including the right to freedom of speech and expression.” (Para 29)

3.  The law’s elasticity: From ambiguity to abuse

The charges levelled against Pratapgarhi under Sections 196, 197, 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represent an alarming instance of legal overbreadth being used as a political weapon. The BNS, like its predecessor IPC, contains clauses so capaciously worded (e.g., “feelings of enmity”, “disharmony”, “outraging religious beliefs”) that they leave room for subjective interpretation and state-led abuse.

Justice Oka (and J Bhuyan) cut through this ambiguity:

“By no stretch of imagination does it promote enmity… The poem refers to injustice and offers non-violence as a response. It cannot be seen as a cause of communal disharmony.” (Para 10)

This is a clear attempt to re-inscribe constitutional interpretation over statutory vagueness, requiring any criminal allegation under these sections to pass a high threshold of intent, clarity, and demonstrable harm.

4. From Lalita Kumari to BNSS: Rethinking FIR registration

The Court’s discussion on Section 173(3) of the BNSS is an important departure from earlier CrPC jurisprudence under Lalita Kumari.

Where Lalita Kumari limited the police’s discretion, the BNSS introduces a structured preliminary inquiry model for offences punishable by 3–7 years—like many speech-related provisions.

The Supreme Court insists that in all speech-related cases where this discretion is available, it must be exercised:

“If an option under sub-Section (3) is not exercised by the police officer in such a case, he may end up registering an FIR against a person who has exercised his fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) even though clause (2) of Article 19 is not attracted. If, in such cases, the option under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is not exercised, it will defeat the very object of incorporating sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS and will also defeat the obligation of the police under Article 51-A (a).” (Para 29)

This means the police must now interpret the text of the speech itself, not just the complaint—an approach that, while normatively sound, places interpretive responsibility on officers often untrained in the subtleties of metaphor, political critique, or artistic licence.

5. Institutional analysis: The High Court’s abdication and the Supreme Court’s role as rights sentinel

The Gujarat High Court, by deferring to the early stage of the investigation, abdicated its constitutional responsibility to scrutinise rights violations at the threshold.

The Supreme Court rebuked this stance:

      “We fail to understand how the High Court concluded that the message was posted in a manner that would certainly disturb social harmony. Thereafter, the High Court gave a reason that the investigation was at a nascent stage. There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage.” (Para 37)

This reaffirms that judicial intervention in the early stages of political or speech-related prosecutions is not just permissible but necessary. The longer the case proceeds, the more the process itself becomes punishment. This view counters a dangerous trend: judicial evasion in politically sensitive matters, often under the guise of deference to procedure. Here, the Court restores its duty as a constitutional firewall, refusing to be paralysed by formalism.

6. The Reasonable Reader standard: Sedition, hate Speech, and judicial empathy

A key analytical move in the judgment is the revival of the “reasonable, strong-minded” observer standard from Bhagwati Charan Shukla:

“When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strongminded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.” (Para 33)

This interpretive lens displaces subjective offence with an objective, resilient baseline, thereby protecting robust discourse. It delegitimises state action based solely on hurt sentiments or perceived disrespect to power. This is especially important in India’s contemporary climate, where claims of communal hurt are often wielded as instruments of political repression.

7. Literature as democratic praxis: The place of poetry in the Constitutional Order

In recognising the poem’s form and context, the Court refrains from sterilising language into literalism. Justice Oka honours the metaphorical richness of poetic expression and its political function:

“…the poem does not encourage violence. On the contrary, it encourages people to desist from resorting to violence and to face injustice with love. It states that if our fight with injustice results into the death of our near and dear ones, we would be happy to bury their bodies.” (Para 10)

Poetry here is not ornamental—it is political speech in its most potent, imaginative form. The Court recognises that to penalise such speech is to criminalise dissent itself. This judgment contributes to an emerging jurisprudence where art is recognised as both speech and constitutional engagement, not as a diluted cousin of prose but as its fiercest challenger.

8. Toward a doctrine of “Constitutional offence”

Perhaps the most striking analytical thread is the Court’s suggestion that some state actions themselves verge on a constitutional offence:

      “Even while dealing with the performance of an obligation under sub-Section (1) of Section 173, where the commission of the offence is based on spoken or written words, the police officer concerned will have to keep in mind the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with an exception carved out under clause (2) of Article 19. The reason is that he is under an obligation to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals under the Constitution. The Constitution is more than 75 years old. By this time, the police officers ought to have been sensitized about their duty of abiding by the Constitution and respecting the ideals of the Constitution.” (Para 30)

Here, Justice Oka (and Justice Bhuyan) aren’t merely interpreting law—they are charging the State with constitutional delinquency. In doing so, they lay the groundwork for a potential doctrine where misuse of criminal process to silence dissent could itself be a rights violation subject to public law remedy.

This is not explicitly framed in the language of compensation or tort—but it hints at a growing judicial recognition that abuse of power is not neutral—it is a rights violation in itself.

Legal analysis of offences under BNS: A systematic dismantling

In the judgment, the Supreme Court, has also meticulously analysed the ingredients of each alleged offence and found all of them legally untenable.

1. Section 196 (Promoting enmity between groups)

      “The poem does not refer to any religion, caste or language. It does not refer to persons belonging to any religion. By no stretch of imagination, does it promote enmity between different groups. We fail to understand how the statements therein are detrimental to national unity and how the statements will affect national unity. On its plain reading, the poem does not purport to affect anyone’s religious feelings.” (Para 12)

Based on precedent (Manzar Sayeed Khan, Patricia Mukhim, Javed Ahmad Hajam), the Court reaffirmed that criminalising speech requires a showing of deliberate intent (mens rea). Without it, the mere content of speech, however provocative to some, is not criminal.

      “Mens rea will have to be read into Section 196 of the BNS… it is impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant.” (Para 34)

2. Section 197 (Prejudicial to national integration)

Therefore, as the Supreme Court, read both facts and the law, the poem by Imran Pratapgarhi did not attract the offence under Section 197 as it:

• Did not cast doubt on the loyalty of any group.
• Did not assert the denial of citizenship rights.
• Did not jeopardise national unity.

      “…the poem does not make or publish any imputation and is not concerned with any religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not suggest that any class of persons have been denied rights as citizens because they are members of a religious, racial, language, regional group, caste, or community. It does not make or publish any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill will. The poem does not publish or make any false or misleading information.” (Para 16)

3. Section 299 & Section 302 (Religious insult or wounding religious sentiment)

The Court termed these charges “ridiculous”:

      “To say the least, it is ridiculous to say that the act of the appellant is intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. The poem only tells the rulers what the reaction will be if the fight for rights is met with injustice.” (Para 17)

4. Section 57 (Abetment by public)

      “We fail to understand, even if it is assumed that the appellant has committed some offence, how he has abetted the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten.” (Para 19)

The Supreme Court’s systematic dismantling of the charges against Imran Pratapgarhi reflects a jurisprudence grounded in constitutional fidelity and statutory precision. In addressing Section 196 of the BNS—concerning promotion of enmity between groups—the Court reiterates a long-standing doctrinal principle: that the mere capacity of speech to provoke cannot substitute for a demonstrable, deliberate intent to incite enmity. Drawing from precedents like Manzar Sayeed Khan, Patricia Mukhim, and Javed Ahmad Hajam, the Court makes it clear that mens rea—a deliberate, malicious state of mind—is essential for liability. The poem in question, devoid of any reference to religion, caste, or community, could not be interpreted as promoting group enmity, and to criminalise it would be a distortion of both the statute and the Constitution. The Court’s reading imposes a constitutional filter on the BNS provision, ensuring it cannot be misused to punish subjective offence or perceived disrespect.

This logic extends seamlessly to the rejection of charges under Sections 197, 299, 302, and 57. Under Section 197, which deals with acts prejudicial to national integration, the Court’s reasoning is particularly illuminating. Justice Oka dissects the elements of the offence and finds none fulfilled: the poem neither impugns any group’s loyalty nor suggests the denial of citizenship rights, nor does it propagate disinformation. Similarly, the invocation of Section 299 and 302 for religious insult is dismissed as “ridiculous,” with the Court recognising that the poem critiques state injustice, not religious belief. Most striking is the Court’s incredulity at the Section 57 charge—abetment by the public—highlighting not only the absence of any instigated act but also the absurdity of imagining that poetic expression could be interpreted as a generalised call to criminal conduct. This cluster of analyses reveals not only the hollowness of the FIR but also the deeper pathology of criminal law’s misuse: charges laid without regard for statutory thresholds, constitutional limits, or evidentiary plausibility. Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan’s reasoning is a potent reminder that law, especially criminal law, cannot be driven by sentiment, conjecture, or political expediency—it must be anchored in demonstrable harm, clear intent, and legal fidelity.

The Court as guardian of the Republic’s imagination

Imran Pratapgarhi judgement is not merely about poetry—it is about power, protest, and the place of dissent in India’s constitutional framework. This judgment revitalises the meaning of free speech in an age where criminal law is increasingly wielded to silence opposition. It teaches us that:

• Law is not merely a set of punishments but a moral language.
• Courts must defend expression, even if the State finds it discomforting.
• Poetry, critique, and satire are not seditious—they are the scaffolding of a free republic.

In this moment, the Supreme Court does not merely defend a poem—it defends the possibility of dissent itself. And that makes it one of the most important judgments on freedom of speech in recent Indian history.

To borrow the Court’s own words:

      “Courts, particularly the constitutional Courts, must be at the forefront to zealously protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the Constitution and the ideals of the Constitution are not trampled upon.” (Para 39)

Conclusion: A Constitutional anthem for the right to dissent

The Imran Pratapgarhi judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that the Constitution of India is not a brittle document to be bruised by sentiment, nor a tool to be twisted by the might of the State. It is, instead, a living charter that guarantees not only the right to speak, but the right to disturb, to provoke, and to dissent—particularly through art, poetry, and political expression. Justice Oka’s reasoning does not merely rescue one man from a legally untenable prosecution; it reclaims the constitutional promise that the State cannot demand silence in exchange for citizenship.

By scrupulously dismantling every charge brought under the BNS and holding law enforcement accountable to constitutional ideals, the judgment delivers a rare, lucid defence of free speech in an era when such freedoms are frequently under siege. It goes beyond the judicial role of error correction and enters the moral terrain of democratic defence. This case is not just precedent—it is a call to conscience for the police, for the lower judiciary, and for civil society. In drawing a firm constitutional line between law and power, it sends an unequivocal message: poetic dissent is not criminal, and the Constitution does not flinch before uncomfortable truths.

Ultimately, this is not merely a judgment about the legality of a poem—it is a resounding assertion of the Republic’s constitutional soul. It reminds us that the true test of democracy is not how the State treats speech that flatters, but how it responds to speech that resists. On that test, the Supreme Court has spoken with uncommon clarity and courage.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025

“Nothing but an abuse of the process of law”: SC bars second Foreigners Tribunal case against same person, reinforces finality of citizenship verdicts

The post A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I. Policing at a Breaking Point: Undermanned, undertrained, and underprepared

The India Justice Report 2025 presents a sobering assessment: India’s policing system, crucial to the delivery of justice and maintenance of public trust, remains trapped in a cycle of chronic under-capacity, neglect of training, weak diversity, and mounting public distrust.

At the national level, India’s police-population ratio remains alarmingly low at 155 police personnel per 100,000 population, well short of the sanctioned strength of 197.5 and far below the United Nations’ recommended minimum of 222. The disparities are even more troubling at the state level: Bihar, for instance, deploys just 81 police personnel per lakh, leaving communities drastically underserved.

This shortage is amplified by high vacancy rates. As of 2023, 22% of sanctioned posts across all ranks were vacant nationally, with states like Uttar Pradesh facing a vacancy rate exceeding 25%. Recruitment drives have been sporadic and insufficient, with training capacities unable to keep up with even existing personnel needs.

Training, the backbone of effective policing, is gravely underfunded. States on average allocate only 1.25% of their police budgets to training, with only four states exceeding the 2% threshold. Further, only five states possess fully accredited police training academies. Specialised training in crucial areas such as cybercrime investigation, gender sensitisation, juvenile justice, and forensic handling remains thin and inconsistent across the country.

The crisis in forensic staffing exacerbates poor investigative quality: Half of all sanctioned forensic posts nationally remain vacant. Without adequate forensic support, investigations falter, leading to delayed trials, wrongful acquittals, or even wrongful convictions.

Infrastructure modernisation, while visible in patches, remains uneven.

• 83% of police stations now have at least one CCTV camera, yet compliance with Paramvir Singh Saini Supreme Court standards is inconsistent.
• 78% of police stations have set up women’s helpdesks, yet no state or UT meets its internal reservation targets for women in police, where the national average stands at a low 12%. Only Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chandigarh, Ladakh, and Tamil Nadu show movement towards the 33% target.

Urban-rural divides sharpen the challenges: Between 2017 and 2022, urban police stations increased by 4%, while rural police stations declined by 7%. In rural areas, each station covers an average of 300 square kilometres, compared to just 20 square kilometres for urban stations — dramatically limiting police accessibility for rural citizens.

Community policing initiatives — vital for building local trust — remain poorly institutionalised. Few states maintain dedicated community policing units or trained officers, and even where they exist, budgetary support is minimal.

Digitisation efforts such as the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) and the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) have made gains.
However, infrastructural bottlenecks — poor internet, electricity issues, and limited digital literacy among police — undermine their potential.

Gender diversity: The national benchmark for women’s representation in the police is 33 per cent, as advised by the central government in 2009. As of January 2023, the overall representation of women in the police (the civil police, District Armed Reserve [DAR], Special Armed Police Battalion, and Indian Reserve Battalion [IRB]) across all states and UTs stood at only 12.3 per cent, a modest rise from 11.7 per cent in January 2022. Among the large and mid-sized states, Bihar, at 24 per cent, now leads in women’s representation in the police, surpassing Andhra Pradesh (22%). Bihar also recorded the highest growth, from 21 per cent in 2022 to 24 per cent in 2023. Conversely, nine states/UTs,49 including Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal, saw declines, and seventeen states/UTs still report women’s representation below 10 per cent. Multiple MHA advisories have recommended three women Sub-Inspectors (SI) and 10 women constables in each police station. With little change over 2022, except Delhi, no state/UT meets this benchmark for SIs

Caste representation: Representation of under-represented caste groups are set by each state in line with its population mix. As of January 2023, Karnataka stands out as the only state to consistently achieve its targets across all three reserved groups, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Castes, both at the officer and the constabulary levels.

• Scheduled caste- Only four states (Gujarat, Manipur, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh) met their SC quotas at both officer and constabulary levels. Goa is the only other state to meet its target at the officer ranks. Sikkim, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Kerala met their quotas only at the constabulary level. Uttar Pradesh (61%), Rajasthan (52%), Tripura (47%), and Bihar (42%) faced the largest deficits in SC officer appointments.
• Scheduled Tribes- Several states have made significant strides in improving Scheduled Tribe (ST) representation within their police forces, with Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, and Karnataka demonstrating good performance by meeting their ST targets across both officer and constabulary ranks. However, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Tripura exhibit the highest shortfalls among ST Officers. Punjab has a 25 per cent quota for STs; it records only 3 ST Officers, equivalent to a 0.11 per cent representation or a shortfall of 99.8 per cent.
• Other Backward Classes: Nine states/UTs63 among those with quotas64 for Other Backward Classes (OBC) at the officer level have successfully met their targets. Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, and Kerala have over 40 per cent reservation for OBCs; in this instance, Tamil Nadu has exceeded its quota but Kerala and Sikkim have shortfalls of 7 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively.

The India Justice Report concludes bluntly: Without radical investment in human resources, serious upgrading of forensic and digital capacities, targeted gender inclusion and caste diversity, and strengthening rural policing, India’s policing system risks becoming increasingly irrelevant, reactive, and distrusted.

II. Prisons in Freefall: Overcrowded, underserved, and forgotten

India’s prison system, already strained, has now reached crisis proportions.
The India Justice Report 2025 reveals a sector overwhelmed by overcrowding, underfunding, systemic understaffing, and the abandonment of rehabilitation as a serious goal. Over the past decade, India’s prison population has expanded by almost 50%, while corresponding increases in infrastructure, medical care, or staffing have remained grossly inadequate. The national average prison occupancy stands at a shocking 131%, and 176 prisons operate at 200% occupancy or more. Several prisons house four times their sanctioned capacity.

Even more troubling is the composition of the prison population: 76% are undertrials — individuals who have not yet been convicted but are imprisoned due to sluggish police investigations, delayed trials, or systemic barriers to bail. In 20 states and UTs, more than 20% of undertrials have been detained between one to three years, without being found guilty.

Period of Detention: On average undertrials are spending more time than ever before in pre-trial detention. At the end of 2022, 11,448 or 2.6 per cent had spent more than five years in pretrial detention. This is considerably higher than the 5,011 in 2019 and 2,028 in 2012. Worryingly, Uttar Pradesh alone accounted for nearly 40 per cent of the undertrials who had spent more than five years in detention.

Infrastructure and healthcare deficits are appalling:

• According to the Supreme Court-appointed Amitava Roy Committee, only 68% of inmates have access to basic sleeping space.
• Health services are grossly underprovided: many prisons have one doctor for several hundred prisoners, whereas standards require one doctor for every 300 inmates.
• Mental health services are practically absent: out of 5.7 lakh prisoners, there are only 25 sanctioned psychologists or psychiatrists nationally, and 25 states/UTs have sanctioned none.

Staffing shortages exacerbate the situation:

• Nationally, over 33% of sanctioned prison posts remain vacant.
• Guard-to-inmate ratios in many states are as high as one guard per 80–100 prisoners, against the recommended 1:6 ratio, compromising safety and order.

Welfare spending is neglected: Less than 1% of prison budgets are allocated for rehabilitation, education, vocational training, or prisoner welfare. Funds earmarked for these purposes are often underutilised or redirected toward basic administrative costs.

Despite the adoption of forward-looking policies like the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prison and Correctional Services Act 2023, real transformation remains minimal. While 86% of prisons have introduced video conferencing facilities for court appearances, this has not significantly reduced trial delays or undertrial detention periods.

Legal aid services inside prisons are patchy:

• Only 67% of prisons have functional legal aid clinics.
• Where available, lawyers are poorly compensated (between ₹500–₹1000 per case), leading to low commitment and high absenteeism.

Open prisons — proven internationally to reduce recidivism — exist in only 16 states, covering a minuscule fraction of eligible inmates.

The situation for women prisoners is even worse:

• Sanctioned budgets for maternity and childcare are inadequate.
• Many prisons lack gender-sensitive facilities like private counselling spaces or sufficient women staff.

Deaths in custody, both natural and unnatural, have risen between 2017 and 2022 — a grim indicator of the system’s growing brutality.

The India Justice Report warns unambiguously: Until governments prioritise prison reforms with serious budgetary commitment, robust healthcare staffing, expanded rehabilitation services, and genuine decongestion measures, prisons will continue to be spaces of injustice, suffering, and lost human potential.

Conclusion: A justice delivery chain under threat

India’s police and prison systems form two vital links in the chain of justice.
Today, both are stretched to breaking point — one unable to protect citizens effectively, the other compounding injustice by warehousing them indefinitely.

The India Justice Report 2025 demands nothing less than a structural overhaul:

• Massive recruitment drives and specialised training
• Scientific and gender-diverse policing
• Investment in forensic and digital infrastructure
• Aggressive decongestion of prisons
• Rehabilitation-driven prisoner management
• Guaranteeing legal aid access and prison healthcare

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

India’s Free Speech Crisis Deepens: 329 violations recorded in just four months of 2025

Underfunded, Overburdened, and Unjust: The national verdict from the India Justice Report 2025

Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack

The post A System Under Strain: India’s police and prisons in crisis shows Indian Justice Report 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The IJR 2025 delivers a sobering yet illuminating portrait of the state of justice delivery across the country. Drawing from government data across police, judiciary, prisons, legal aid, and human rights commissions, it presents a powerful call to action. Despite pockets of progress, the national picture remains dominated by chronic capacity deficits, deep systemic inequalities, and a sluggish pace of reform.

A System Under Strain: Deficits and gaps

Across the pillars of justice, major structural weaknesses persist. Police forces nationwide allocate a mere 1.25% of their budget to training, a clear indicator that human capital development remains a low priority. Alarmingly, no state or union territory meets its own reserved quotas for women in the police, exposing deep gender disparities at the very frontline of law enforcement.

The forensic science ecosystem, crucial to modern crime detection and fair trials, is also buckling. Half the sanctioned forensic staff positions across the country remain vacant, paralysing investigations and exacerbating delays. In prisons, conditions continue to deteriorate: 176 prisons report occupancy rates of 200% or more, while over 20% of undertrial prisoners have been incarcerated for one to three years without conviction — an indictment of both police investigation and judicial functioning.

Judicial backlogs have reached staggering heights, with over five crore cases pending across court levels, reflecting a crippling burden on the system. Meanwhile, the promise of judicial dynamism is undermined by the fact that only 4% of cases are initiated suo motu — a marker of proactive judicial intervention — leaving citizens heavily dependent on individual litigation to seek redress.

In the realm of legal aid, there has been a disheartening drop in the number of paralegal volunteers since 2019, and access to basic legal advice in rural and marginalised communities remains worryingly thin.

The crisis extends to prisoner welfare too. For a prison population exceeding 5.7 lakh, the country boasts just 25 sanctioned psychologists or psychiatrists, with 25 states and UTs sanctioning none at all. The absence of mental health support in overcrowded, violent environments exacerbates the cycles of trauma and criminality that prisons are supposed to break.

Green Shoots: Signs of progress

Yet, amidst these dismal findings, rays of hope shine through. A steady expansion of digital infrastructure and gender diversity points towards meaningful, if limited, gains.

By 2025:

• 83% of police stations have at least one CCTV camera, a critical tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in custodial settings.
• 78% of police stations now have women’s helpdesks, offering marginal improvements in gender-sensitive policing.
• 86% of prisons are equipped with at least one video-conferencing facility, easing prisoner access to courts without physical transfers.
• The share of women judges in the district judiciary has climbed to 38%, a vital step towards a more representative bench.

Notably, six states now meet the recommended benchmark of one woman medical officer for every 300 women inmates in prisons, addressing a long-standing neglect of gender-sensitive prison health services.

High courts have managed to maintain case clearance rates exceeding 100% annually since 2017, a promising trend suggesting some resilience even under extreme workload pressures.

Data based on the national findings:

1. Who Leads, Who Lags: Rankings across states

Large and mid-sized states (Map 1)

• Karnataka retains the top position among 18 large states, with a composite score of 6.78/10.
• Andhra Pradesh makes a remarkable jump to second place (6.32), up from fifth earlier.
• Telangana ranks third (6.15), showing consistent progress since 2019.
• Kerala and Tamil Nadu complete the top five.

At the bottom:

• Bihar, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal occupy the lowest ranks.
• West Bengal drops to the bottom (18^th place), swapping places with Uttar Pradesh.

Small states (Map 2)

• Sikkim remains the top-ranked small state (5.20/10).
• Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh follow closely.
• Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Goa slide to the bottom ranks among the seven small states.

2. Scorecards of Change: Who improved? (Figure 1: Improvement scorecard)

The report measured whether states had improved between the 2022 and 2025 editions across 68 indicators.

Top improvers among large states:

• Bihar improved on 47 out of 68 indicators — the highest improvement rate.
• Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Karnataka also showed strong positive shifts (around 40 indicators each).

Among small states:

• Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim were the most consistent improvers.

Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh showed moderate improvements, while states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu showed worrying stagnation or decline.

3. Diversity and Representation: Still a distant goal?

Diversity rankings (Figure 2)

• Karnataka is the only large state to meet SC, ST, and OBC quotas in both police and judiciary.
• Caste-based diversity in judicial appointments is poor across most states, despite constitutional mandates.

Women’s representation (Figure 3–5)

• Five states — Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chandigarh, Ladakh, and Tamil Nadu — are moving steadily towards achieving 33% women’s representation in police.
• District judiciary has seen a steady rise in women judges, now at 38%, but High Courts and Supreme Court continue to show male domination.
• Projections suggest that even at the current pace, it will take decades for full gender parity.

4. Human Resources: Vacancies and gaps (Figure 7–9)

• Judge-to-population ratios remain poor across almost all states; subordinate courts suffer from 20% judicial vacancies on average.
• Police vacancies have barely improved since 2017.
• Forensics staffing is dangerously low, jeopardising the quality of investigations and trials; Out of nearly 10,000 sanctioned posts across states, nearly 50% remain vacant.

5. Justice system intent and budgets (Figure 10-11)

• Budgets for judiciary, legal aid, and police have increased — but primarily towards salaries, with little new investment in training, modernisation, or infrastructure.
• States’ contributions to legal aid budgets remain minimal, indicating a continued lack of political will.

6. Pendency of cases (Figure 12-15)

• Cases pending for more than three years account for a large proportion of the backlog in subordinate courts.
• Cases pending more than five years are also rising steadily — indicating systemic failures in ensuring timely justice.

Regional leaders and laggards

Southern states dominate the upper echelons of the justice delivery rankings. Karnataka leads among large states, followed closely by Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka stands out as the only state that meets Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Other Backward Classes quotas in both the police and judiciary.

Among smaller states, Sikkim has consistently retained its top position, followed by Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh. In contrast, Goa, Mizoram, and Meghalaya have slipped to the bottom rungs.

At the lower end, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal continue to battle for last place among larger states, highlighting severe structural deficits.

Capacity challenges across the board

The findings also reveal that capacity-building remains elusive across pillars. Police forces struggle with low personnel numbers and training investments. Prisons remain overcrowded and under-resourced. Judicial strength and efficiency remain hostage to persistent vacancies and procedural rigidity. Legal aid services show shrinking outreach efforts. State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) display improved case disposal rates, but this masks a worrying trend: many SHRCs reject complaints at the outset rather than offering substantive resolutions, compromising their integrity and public trust.

Moreover, while technology adoption has expanded — with platforms like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and NALSA’s legal aid management system — poor internet access, patchy digitisation, and bureaucratic inertia hamper real transformation.

A call to action

The India Justice Report 2025 makes it starkly clear: without serious, sustained investment in the structural capacities of the justice system, without a genuine commitment to inclusion, transparency, and systemic reform, India’s vision of equitable, accessible justice will remain out of reach.

Data from the report underscores that while isolated improvements are visible, the system as a whole still falters. Fragmented, underfunded, and often discriminatory, India’s justice institutions need not just incremental changes but a concerted, well-resourced overhaul.

The findings are not just a mirror of current realities, but a roadmap for an ambitious, necessary transformation — one where justice, as promised by the Constitution, can become a lived reality for all.

The complete report may be read here.

Related:

Beed to Delhi: Lawyer beaten in Maharashtra, judge threatened in Delhi—what the path for justice means for women practioners in today’s India

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale released: Seven years of injustice by a state that punishes dissent

The post Underfunded, Overburdened, and Unjust: The national verdict from the India Justice Report 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the afternoon of April 22, the area was bustling with families, couples, and individual tourists. Many were enjoying tea and snacks after a trek or pony ride to the high-altitude meadow, unaware of the horror about to unfold.

At approximately 2:45 pm, peace was torn apart when a group of four heavily armed militants, disguised in camouflage uniforms, emerged from the forest surrounding Baisaran. Without warning, they opened fire on the unsuspecting tourists, unleashing a hail of bullets that reverberated across the valley.

Witnesses described a scene of sheer panic and terror. Tourists, many of them with children, fled in every direction. One survivor from Nagpur, Simran Chandani, spoke to The Times of India and recalled the chaos: “We had just finished our tea and were preparing to leave. Suddenly, we heard what we thought was a balloon bursting, and then came the screams, the stampede. I ran, taking the name of God.”

Initial reports confirmed 28 civilians killed—most of them tourists—and many more injured, making it one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in India since the 2008 Mumbai carnage. Questions have been raised regarding the absence of any police, paramilitary, or army in or around the place of attack, as a large number of tourists were present at the Baisaran meadow. As per media accounts, ANI, PTI, Greater Kashmir, about six armed gunmen first encircled then selectively shot dead the men from among several visitors gathered there.

Claim of responsibility and motive

A group of four, including two locals, identifying itself as Resistance Front (TRF), believed to be a front for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the heinous assault. The group cited opposition to the recent settlement of more than 85,000 outsiders in the region as their justification—a deeply troubling development, hinting at targeted violence based on identity and residency. Sketches of the suspected attackers—identified as Asif Fauji, Suleman Shah, and Abu Talha (aliases Moosa, Yunus, and Asif)—were released shortly after the attack. 

Targeted horror and eyewitness testimony

A report of Deccan Herald provided the account of survivors, who says that the militants deliberately targeted men, asking them to identify themselves and even allegedly forcing some to recite Islamic verses. There were claims that some were made to remove clothing before being executed at close range. Although these details are still being verified, the cruelty and premeditation behind the attack are undeniable.

The firings lasted an excruciating 20 to 25 minutes at least, as per multiple media reports. Over 70 shell casings—belonging to American M4 carbine rifles and AK-47s—were found at the scene. The attackers later vanished into the forested terrain, triggering a massive search operation by Indian security forces.

One local, Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a pony ride operator, emerged as a tragic hero. He attempted to disarm one of the terrorists in a desperate bid to protect a tourist under his care. Shah was shot dead during the attempt—becoming the only Kashmiri local killed in the attack. His grieving family, now without its only breadwinner, has appealed for justice.

The Victims: Lives interrupted, dreams extinguished

The true weight of the Pahalgam attack is not in the number of bullets fired or shell casings recovered, but in the lives so brutally cut short. Each victim was more than a statistic—they were sons, daughters, parents, and partners.

Among those killed was a young Indian Navy officer on his honeymoon, his uniform traded for a few days of peace in the hills. A retired banker from Andhra Pradesh was also gunned down without warning. A realtor from Karnataka, an accountant from Odisha, and a cement dealer from Uttar Pradesh—each on a simple holiday with loved ones—met the same cruel fate.

There was a man from Kerala who had recently returned from the Gulf, and a tourist from Nepal, the only foreign national killed, whose presence was a reminder of Kashmir’s reputation as a destination that once transcended borders. Now, their names are etched into a grim list of those who never made it home. The tragedy of this attack lies not only in the brutality of the act but in the ordinary, joyful moments it stole. This was not just an attack on individuals—it was an attack on the fundamental human desire to seek beauty, joy, and connection. And that is why it cuts so deep.

A Local Hero: The story of Syed Adil Hussain Shah

As bullets rained down on unsuspecting tourists in Pahalgam, amidst screams and chaos, one man stood his ground—not to flee, but to protect. A Gujjar local Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a humble pony ride operator from Pahalgam, displayed remarkable bravery in the face of terror. NDTV reported his heroic acts in a special report. In a moment that epitomised selflessness, Shah tried to snatch a rifle from one of the gunmen in a desperate attempt to save the tourists he had ferried to the Baisaran meadow. His valiant act cost him his life.

Adil Shah was the only local killed in the brutal attack that claimed the lives of 26 tourists. According to eyewitness accounts, the terrorists were selecting victims based on their religion, reportedly asking people to recite a Koranic verse before pulling the trigger. In the midst of this horror, Shah’s actions offered a fleeting glimmer of humanity. He refused to cower—his last moments defined by courage rather than fear.

As reported by NDTV, Adil leaves behind an elderly mother and father, a wife, and young children, all of whom depended on him. The grief in the Shah household is immeasurable. His inconsolable mother wept not only for the irreplaceable loss of her son but also for the uncertain future that now looms over the family. His father, Syed Haider Shah, speaking to ANI, said: “My son went to Pahalgam yesterday to work, and around 3 pm, we heard about the attack. We called him, but his phone was switched off. Later, at 4.40 pm, his phone turned on, but no one answered. We rushed to the police station, and that’s when we learned that he had been shot in the attack. Whoever is responsible must face the consequences.”

#WATCH | J&K | Family member of Anantnag resident Syed Hussain Shah, who lost his life in the #PahalgamTerroristAttack, says, “He (Syed Hussain Shah) had gone to Pahalgam to work… We got information about the attack at 3 pm. When we called (Syed Hussain Shah), the phone was not… pic.twitter.com/8IlX5NKB8j

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

Adil’s story is more than a tragedy—it is a testament to the strength of character that often goes unsung in times of crisis. In a region haunted by decades of conflict, his death is a piercing reminder that violence knows no bounds, and its victims are often the very people who strive to preserve life. The family has appealed for justice, and the Valley mourns a son who died not in silence, but in struggle—trying to protect those who had come seeking peace in the meadows of Kashmir.

#WATCH | J&K | Mother of the Anantnag resident Syed Hussain Shah, who lost his life in the #PahalgamTerroristAttack, gets emotional, says, “He was the only bread earner of the family…” pic.twitter.com/W7BgzeVOEC

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

National and international response

The attack drew widespread condemnation and grief from both national and international quarters. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was on a diplomatic visit to Saudi Arabia, immediately cut short his trip and returned to India. In a statement, he described the assault as a “heinous act,” vowed that the perpetrators “will not be spared,” and promised all assistance to the injured and the families of the deceased.

I strongly condemn the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Condolences to those who have lost their loved ones. I pray that the injured recover at the earliest. All possible assistance is being provided to those affected.

Those behind this heinous act will be brought…

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) April 22, 2025

Home Minister Amit Shah flew to Srinagar to oversee the investigation, while the government decided to transfer the probe from the Jammu and Kashmir Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), indicating the gravity of the situation.

With a heavy heart, paid last respects to the deceased of the Pahalgam terror attack. Bharat will not bend to terror. The culprits of this dastardly terror attack will not be spared. pic.twitter.com/bFxb2nDT4H

— Amit Shah (@AmitShah) April 23, 2025

US President Donald Trump expressed deep condolences and assured India of America’s full support. The world watched in horror as images and videos of the aftermath—people screaming, bleeding, and desperately pleading for help—circulated across social media.

Across India, political leaders and citizens reacted with grief and anger. Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi expressed sorrow and condemnation at the attack but also stated on his account on X that he had spoken to Home Minister, Amit Shah.

“Spoke with HM Amit Shah, J&K CM Omar Abdullah, and J&K PCC President Tariq Karra about the horrific Pahalgam terror attack. Received an update on the situation. The families of the victims deserve justice and our fullest support,” Gandhi said.

Spoke with HM Amit Shah, J&K CM Omar Abdullah, and J&K PCC President Tariq Karra about the horrific Pahalgam terror attack. Received an update on the situation.

The families of victims deserve justice and our fullest support.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) April 23, 2025

Rahul Gandhi also spoke to Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, the chairman of the National Conference, which leads the ruling alliance in the Union Territory, with the Congress as a coalition partner. After the 2001 attack on the Parliament, Sonia Gandhi, who was then the Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, was among the first leaders to dial the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to enquire about his well-being.

Chief Minister, Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah expressed heartbreak over the mass exodus of tourists and urged cooperation with controlled evacuation efforts, given the precarity of local roads.

It’s heartbreaking to see the exodus of our guests from the valley after yesterday’s tragic terror attack in Pahalgam but at the same time we totally understand why people would want to leave. While DGCA & the Ministry of Civil Aviation are working to organise extra flights,… pic.twitter.com/5O3i5U1rBh

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) April 23, 2025

Mehbooba Mufti, former Chief Minister and PDP leader, led a protest march with party workers in Srinagar. They held placards reading, “This is an attack on all of us” and “Stop innocent killings.” Iltija Mufti, a young local leader, expressed disbelief, saying Baisaran was heavily patrolled and the ease with which such an attack happened was deeply alarming.

This is an attack on all of us. #Pahalgam pic.twitter.com/3NAJKrG0Wp

— J&K PDP (@jkpdp) April 23, 2025

CPI (M) leader and Kulgam MLA MY Tarigami speaking to PTI has said, “It is very unfortunate and painful for all of us. Especially for those whose family members, loved ones have been injured in the attack. When a tourist comes to Jammu and Kashmir, it opens employment opportunities for the locals here… It is a good thing for us when tourists come here again and again, but if they are attacked, then it is very shameful and painful… The government should take strict action against this.”

Condemning the dastardly attack on tourists in Pahalgam. The inhuman act of violence deserves to be denounced in the strongest terms. Such cowardly attacks on innocent civilians have no place in any civilised society.

— M Y Tarigami (@tarigami) April 22, 2025

Senior advocate and independent Rajya Sabha member, Kapil Sibal has, in a statement quoted by PTI stated, “Quoting Pakistan Chief Gen Asim Munir’s ‘jugular vein comment’, Sibal called the attack as a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack. He says, “It will be our jugular vein, we will not forget it, we not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their historic struggle. So obviously this is (Pakistan) state sponsored because this was said just a week ago…. I would urge the Home Minister to proscribe the outfit as a terrorist organisation under UAPA and we should file a prosecution in the International Criminal Court, urge international community to boycott Pakistan.”

Pahalgam
Baisaran Valley
26 dead so far..

This terrorist attack is an attack against humanity clearly sponsored by Pakistan.

General Munir said “Kashmir is our jugular vein..” one week ago

HM must proscribe Pakistan a terrorist state ; a terrorist organisation under UAPA

— Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) April 23, 2025

VIDEO | Quoting Pakistan Army chief Gen Asim Munir’s ‘jugular vein’ comment, Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) calls Pahalgam terrorist attack as Pakistan sponsored terrorist attack.

He says, “‘It will be our jugular vein, we will not forget it, we will not leave our… pic.twitter.com/CA07QxG0qG

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) April 23, 2025

Security and evacuation efforts

In the immediate aftermath, the region saw a significant security build-up. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) urged airlines to increase flights from Srinagar and waive rescheduling fees to help tourists evacuate. 

Aftermath of Pahalgam terror attack, DGCA issues advisory to airlines over surge in pricing and waiving cancellation charges: DGCA pic.twitter.com/GHzerH1NSw

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

Helicopters were deployed to airlift the severely injured, while locals—many of whom make a living from tourism—rushed to carry the wounded down the hill on ponies, a testament to the humanity still present amid horror.

Protests: A valley silenced by grief, united in defiance

This attack has dealt a severe blow to the region’s fragile calm, coming at a time when Kashmir was witnessing a revival in tourism. With the 38-day Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage set to begin in July, concerns over security are likely to grow.

While investigations continue, the horror at Pahalgam has brought back chilling memories of past tragedies in the Valley. It has reminded the country that terrorism still lurks, capable of destroying lives and peace in an instant.

On the morning following the horrific terror attack in Pahalgam that left 28 people dead—mostly tourists and local guides—Kashmir awoke to a sight it hadn’t seen in decades. Leading newspapers across the Valley printed their front pages in black, a visual lament echoing the sorrow, fury, and helplessness that had gripped the region. With headlines in stark white and crimson, the media offered a rare and haunting public protest against the brutality that once again ruptured the fragile peace of Jammu and Kashmir.

This is how Kashmir is feeling today. Saluts to the local newspapers: apologies to all Kashmiris for some of the Indian commercial electronic TV channels! https://t.co/dVycluuuwJ

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) April 23, 2025

Prominent English and Urdu dailies—Greater Kashmir, Rising Kashmir, Kashmir Uzma, Aftab, and Taameel Irshad—eschewed the usual format, opting instead for a symbolic blackout. Greater Kashmir led with the chilling headline: “Gruesome: Kashmir Gutted, Kashmiris Grieving”, its subheading in blood red: “26 killed in deadly terror attack in Pahalgam.” The editorial beneath, titled “The massacre in the meadow – Protect Kashmir’s soul,” did not mince words. It described the assault not merely as a massacre but as an existential threat— “a deliberate blow to Kashmir’s identity and values — its hospitality, its economy, and its fragile peace.”

https://t.co/IJhRewSpKd #PahalgamTerroristAttack #pahalgamattack #PahalgamTerrorAttack

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) April 23, 2025

The editorial called for an urgent reimagining of security and intelligence coordination in the Valley. “The ability of terrorists to infiltrate a high-traffic, pedestrian-only tourist site undetected,” it warned, “points to severe gaps in our preventive mechanisms.” It urged a shift from reactive to proactive governance—demanding not just increased surveillance, but greater community engagement and a concerted effort to uproot terror infrastructure.

In a dramatic shift not witnessed since the early 1990s, the entire Kashmir Valley observed a total shutdown in response to the killings—marking the first bandh called to protest terrorism in over 35 years. The call for the shutdown was widely endorsed across the political spectrum and sections of civil society, including religious organisations, business federations, students’ unions, and trade bodies.

As per Hindustan Times, shops, fuel stations, and businesses remained closed in Srinagar and other districts. Public transport was scarce. Only essential services operated, and private vehicles plied the roads cautiously. Private schools suspended classes, while Kashmir University postponed all examinations. The silence that enveloped the Valley was not one of fear but of collective mourning—an unspoken but palpable declaration of unity against the forces that sought to terrorise the region.

Throughout the day, spontaneous and organised protests emerged in all corners of Kashmir. In Srinagar’s Lal Chowk, Mehbooba Mufti joined grieving citizens in a rare display of civilian solidarity. Holding placards that read “Stop innocent killings” and “Killing innocents is an act of terror,” protesters demanded accountability and protection. Addressing the crowd, Mufti said, “This massacre is not just an attack on tourists, but an attack on the very soul of Kashmir. We have always stood against violence, and we will continue to raise our voice until the bloodshed ends.”

Killing innocents is an act of terror. Jammu & Kashmir stands against it. This attack is an attack on all of us. pic.twitter.com/Kc7BiesI4C

— Iltija Mufti (@IltijaMufti_) April 23, 2025

No to Killings. No to Terror. We stand in shame and sorrow. #PahalgamTerroristAttack pic.twitter.com/pP6lY0oyl8

— Yasir Reshi (@YasirrReshi) April 23, 2025

South Kashmir towns like Anantnag, Kulgam, and Shopian saw markets voluntarily shut down. In Ganderbal and Kangan, traders staged processions through town squares, closing their establishments in mourning. Civil society participation was overwhelming. The Mutahida Majlis Ulema (MMU)—a collective of Islamic scholars led by Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq—issued a rare joint appeal for peace and justice. Quoting the Quran during Friday prayers, the Mirwaiz said: “Whoever kills an innocent soul… it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” He urged the people to observe the shutdown not in vengeance but as a dignified protest against a “heinous crime against humanity.”

#WATCH | J&K | Locals hold a protest against #PahalgamTerrorAttack in Pulwama. pic.twitter.com/Gmgz1y8eE6

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

#WATCH | In light of the tragic killing of innocent civilians by terrorists in Pahalgam, government employees across Jammu and Kashmir observe a two-minute silence as a mark of respect and solidarity

(Visuals from Jammu) pic.twitter.com/XMoCYHHfkW

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

Political parties that have often found themselves at ideological odds—National Conference (NC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Peoples Conference, Apni Party—all joined in a chorus of condemnation, signalling a rare moment of political consensus in the Valley. Leaders across affiliations called for a unified approach to security, a reaffirmation of Kashmir’s commitment to peace, and a crackdown on the networks enabling such attacks.

On social media, heartbreak and solidarity flowed freely. A photo of a woman cradling her husband’s bloodied body outside a hospital in Anantnag became emblematic of the grief sweeping through the Valley. Tributes poured in not just for the tourists who perished, but for local guides, porters, and shopkeepers who died helping others flee.

#WATCH | Delhi | On Pahalgam terrorist attack, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal says, “Those responsible for this should be prosecuted in the international court. I urge the Home Minister to proscribe Pakistan as a terrorist state and move the International Criminal Court. I am sure… pic.twitter.com/eYHdRnUHRy

— ANI (@ANI) April 23, 2025

In Baramulla, hundreds gathered for a candlelight vigil led by students, while in Pulwama, elderly citizens marched silently, holding signs that read “We are Kashmiris, not terrorists.” In Budgam, schoolteachers and parents formed human chains outside education offices, denouncing the return of fear in a region already battered by decades of trauma.

Significantly, for the first time since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the administration did not clamp down on protest rallies. Officials confirmed that while security was heightened across sensitive areas, demonstrations were allowed to proceed. “We recognised that this was not an ordinary political agitation. This is a collective tragedy,” a senior police officer said. “The public anger is real, it is justified—and today, the people of Kashmir have made it clear: they reject terror in all its forms.”

The day-long shutdown, though sombre, was not a surrender to fear. It was a powerful, united act of remembrance and resistance—a statement that Kashmiris will not let violence define them. 

Other reports on the Pahalgam terror attack may be read here and here,

Related:

Muslims in Kashmir & across India strongly condemn Pahalgam terror attack

Indian Muslims, others, condemn the heinous massacre of tourists near Pahalgam, Kashmir

The post A Tranquil Paradise Shattered: The Pahalgam terror attack appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thirty-six-year-old Dnyaneshwari Anjan, a practising advocate at the Ambajogai Sessions Court, had reportedly approached the police with a complaint about loudspeakers blaring from a nearby temple, as well as the constant disturbance from three flour mills installed near her home. Villagers, including the sarpanch (village head) however claim that she was a persistent (and often exaggerated complaint), sometimes even filing false complaints! Her claim that the persistent noise triggered migraines and caused her physical distress brought her violent retribution. Instead of any attempts at dialogue with her, detractors resorted to what, increasingly is seen, vigilante violence.

On the morning of April 19, 2025, Anjan was attacked by her village sarpanch and at least nine of his supporters. According to her account, they dragged her to a farm and formed a circle around her, beating her with wooden sticks and plastic pipes—including on her head—until she nearly lost consciousness. The photos of her severely bruised and battered back, which she later shared publicly, went viral on social media, igniting an outcry among civil society, and opposition leaders.

An attack orchestrated by power and patriarchy

This was not a spontaneous act of rage—it was a deliberate, orchestrated punishment for speaking up. Anjan revealed that prior to the attack, the sarpanch had visited her house and told her parents to “reprimand” her, as though her assertion of rights was a form of insubordination. An FIR was registered a full day after the assault, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections for rioting (Section 191(2)), assault to outrage modesty (Section 74), unlawful assembly (Section 189), criminal intimidation (Section 351(2)), and voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means (Section 118(2)). And yet, as of the last update, none of the accused had been arrested. The police at Yusuf Wadgaon station claimed that search teams had been formed, but the perpetrators remain at large—shielded, perhaps, by political proximity or the comfort of knowing that consequences are rarely swift for those who harm women.

Political firestorm, but no real action

Opposition leaders were quick to condemn the incident. Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal declared it a “proof” of the BJP-led government’s failure to ensure women’s safety, stating, “If a woman lawyer is not safe, what about ordinary citizens?” He added that the lawyer was taken to a farm and mercilessly beaten till she fell unconscious, demanding the arrest of the accused and accountability from Devendra Fadnavis, who also holds the home portfolio.

Amol Kolhe, NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) MP, called the incident a “blot on a progressive state like Maharashtra”, invoking the legacy of icons like Jijabai, Ahilyabai Holkar, and Savitribai Phule, and pointing to the collapsed law and order under the BJP-Shiv Sena-NCP alliance. As per Hindustan Times, he added, “Instead of working for the people, alliance leaders are busy fighting among themselves for power.”

Even as the outrage spread online, with photos of Anjan’s injuries making the rounds, the BJP led Maharashtra state government’s silence has been deafening. As public confidence in the state’s protection mechanisms erodes, what is left is the image of a woman lawyer—bruised, nearly broken—punished for doing what the law allows: filing a complaint.

A female advocate was brutally beaten by Sarpanch and his accomplice at Beed District of Maharashtra. Beed again news for wrong reasons#Beed #beednews #Maharashtra pic.twitter.com/QftUfGeCbR

— Tikam Shekhawat (@TikamShekhawat) April 18, 2025

From Beed to Delhi: A wider crisis of safety for women in law

What makes the Beed incident even more disturbing is that it is not isolated. Just days earlier, in Delhi, a woman Judicial Magistrate was subjected to a shocking episode of intimidation and abuse—this time within the confines of her own courtroom.

After convicting an accused in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Judicial Magistrate Shivangi Mangla recorded in her official court order that the accused and his lawyer hurled abuses, made death threats, and attempted to hurl an object at her. The convict told her, in open court, “Tu hai kya cheez… tu bahar mil, dekhte hain kaise zinda ghar jaati hai”—a direct threat to her life.

The lawyer, Atul Kumar, joined his client in pressuring the magistrate to resign and reverse her judgment. Judge Mangla noted that the harassment continued beyond the courtroom, including psychological pressure to quit her post. In her courageous response, she announced her intent to approach the National Commission for Women, and also issued a show cause notice to the lawyer, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

Here was a woman judge, upholding the law of the land, being told she might not “make it home alive” for doing her job.

A systemic pattern of violence and intimidation

What connects Dnyaneshwari Anjan in Beed and Shivangi Mangla in Delhi is not just their profession—it’s the price they paid for exercising their legal rights and authority. In one case, a complaint. In another, a conviction. In both cases, the state’s promise of safety and institutional protection crumbled in the face of patriarchal rage and unchecked power.

It is not enough to call these “rare” or “shocking.” They are part of a wider pattern of systemic violence against women—especially those who step outside domestic spaces and challenge the authority of men in politics, religion, and even the courtroom.

What is at stake is the integrity of the legal system itself, the right to justice, and the belief that the rule of law can protect us.

Conclusion: When the protectors are left unprotected

The brutal assault on Dnyaneshwari Anjan and the threats against Judge Shivangi Mangla should not be seen as two separate news items—they are symptoms of the same disease. A society where women in legal professions are met with violence, abuse, and threats, simply for doing what the law entitles them to do, is a society teetering on the edge of lawlessness.

Where is the urgency in the state’s response? Where is the accountability from those in power? Notably, both the states where these incidents took place are being governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. When perpetrators feel empowered enough to attack lawyers and threaten magistrates, they are signalling something far more dangerous—that they believe the law is on their side, or at least will look the other way.

Related:

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state

The post Beed to Delhi: Lawyer beaten in Maharashtra, judge threatened in Delhi—what the path for justice means for women practioners in today’s India appeared first on SabrangIndia.