Tanya Arora | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/content-author-28800/ News Related to Human Rights Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:29:35 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Tanya Arora | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/content-author-28800/ 32 32 A Tranquil Paradise Shattered: The Pahalgam terror attack https://sabrangindia.in/a-tranquil-paradise-shattered-the-pahalgam-terror-attack/ Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:29:35 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41396 As 28 lives were lost in a brutal terror attack on Kashmir’s beloved tourist haven, the Valley mourns the dead, honours a local hero’s courage, condemns the terror attack and unites in grief and defiance against violence

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

]]> Pahalgam, often called the “valley of shepherds,” is a serene and stunning tourist haven nestled about 50 kilometres from Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir. Known for its breath-taking beauty and the popular Baisaran meadow—nicknamed “mini-Switzerland” for its lush green expanse—it draws thousands of visitors each year seeking solace and scenic wonder.

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.”

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

 

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. 

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

]]> Beed to Delhi: Lawyer beaten in Maharashtra, judge threatened in Delhi—what the path for justice means for women practioners in today’s India https://sabrangindia.in/beed-to-delhi-lawyer-beaten-in-maharashtra-judge-threatened-in-delhi-what-the-path-for-justice-means-for-women-practioners-in-todays-india/ Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:15:00 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41303 From a brutal assault in rural Maharashtra to death threats in a Delhi courtroom, the message is chillingly clear: women who uphold the law are not safe

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.

]]> In a chilling reminder of the price women continue to pay for asserting their rights, a woman lawyer in Maharashtra’s Beed district was brutally assaulted—dragged to a field, surrounded by men, and thrashed with sticks and pipes—for the “crime” of filing a noise pollution complaint. The incident, which unfolded in Sangaon village of Ambajogai tehsil, has triggered state-wide outrage, yet the response from law enforcement and government authorities remains disturbingly muted.

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.

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.

]]> “Urdu Is Not Alien”: Supreme Court reclaims the language’s place in the Indian Constitutional fabric https://sabrangindia.in/urdu-is-not-alien-supreme-court-reclaims-the-languages-place-in-the-indian-constitutional-fabric/ Thu, 17 Apr 2025 05:43:03 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41219 By upholding the use of Urdu on a municipal signboard in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reaffirms India’s plural ethos, debunks politicised language divides, and restores dignity to a shared linguistic heritage

The post “Urdu Is Not Alien”: Supreme Court reclaims the language’s place in the Indian Constitutional fabric appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In a time when language is increasingly being used as a proxy for identity, and identity as a tool for exclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mrs. Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra is a resounding reaffirmation of India’s constitutional commitment to pluralism. Delivered on April 15, 2025, the decision upheld the display of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of a municipal building in Patur, Akola district, rejecting the claim that such usage violated the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.

But this was not just a case about signage or statutory interpretation. It was about what place Urdu—and by extension, linguistic and cultural minorities—continue to hold in the Indian republic. Authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who presided over the bench of the Supreme Court along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the judgment blends legal clarity with cultural wisdom, and reads as much like a constitutional essay as a judicial opinion. It situates the question of language within the broader context of Indian history, identity, and fraternity—invoking not only statutory text but the spirit of the Constitution, the debates of the Constituent Assembly, and the lived realities of India’s multilingual people.

What emerges is not just a dismissal of an exclusionary petition, but a powerful defence of linguistic harmony, cultural coexistence, and the right of every Indian language—especially those spoken by minorities—to be seen, heard, and respected.

The judgment begins with a line from Mouloud Benzadi that sets the tone for what follows:

“When you learn a language, you don’t just learn to speak and write a new language. You also learn to be open-minded, liberal, tolerant, kind and considerate towards all mankind.”

Facts of the case

The petition was filed by Mrs Varshatai, a former member of the Municipal Council, who objected to the use of Urdu in any form, including on signage. Her argument was that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, permitted only Marathi. The Municipal Council had earlier rejected her plea by a majority resolution dated February 14, 2020, noting that the use of Urdu had been longstanding—since 1956—and that a significant portion of the town’s population was Urdu-speaking.

The appellant then moved an application under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965, before the Collector, who allowed it, citing a government circular that mandated 100% use of Marathi in government proceedings. However, this was later set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, leading to a challenge before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed her petition. She then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of the case, the 2022 Act came into force. In an earlier round, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, stating that the High Court order may not stand in light of the new law but leaving it open to the aggrieved party to seek appropriate remedy. The matter was then heard afresh by a division bench of the High Court, whose ruling in favour of the Municipal Council was challenged once again—bringing the issue back before the Supreme Court.

The final decision, delivered on April 15, 2025, rejected the challenge and upheld the High Court’s ruling.

The legal position and the Court’s reasoning

The Supreme Court first dealt with a procedural infirmity in how the challenge to the Municipal Council’s resolution was brought about. The appellant had approached the Collector under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965, seeking suspension of the Council’s decision to retain Urdu on its signboard. However, a crucial amendment to Section 308 in 2018 had changed the law: after this amendment, the Collector can no longer act on complaints made by individuals or councillors, even if they were former members. The power to bring a resolution to the Collector’s attention rests solely with the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council.

The Court made this limitation clear:

“After the amendment… the Collector can exercise powers only when the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council brings it to the Collector’s notice… In this case, the application was admittedly not made by the Chief Officer… which should not have been entertained in the first place.” [Para 11]

In other words, the entire chain of proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Collector was legally untenable from the outset, as she had no standing under the amended law to invoke the Collector’s jurisdiction. This aspect alone could have disposed of the case. However, given the persistence of the challenge and the deeper constitutional concerns it raised, the Court moved to examine the substance of the matter as well.

At the heart of the substantive issue was the interpretation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022—a law that declares Marathi as the official language for all local government bodies in the state. The petitioner’s argument hinged on a narrow and rigid reading of this Act—that once Marathi was declared the official language, the use of any other language, including Urdu, became impermissible.

The Court decisively rejected this interpretation, emphasising that the Act mandates the use of Marathi for official communication, but does not prohibit the use of additional languages for supplementary or public-facing purposes, such as signboards. It quoted the High Court’s clear reading of the law:

“All that [the Act] does, is to ensure that the business and affairs of the Council, are to be conducted in Marathi language… it does not prohibit use of an additional language… the use of an additional language… would not indicate any violation of the provisions of the Act of 2022.” [Para 14]

The Supreme Court agreed with this view, observing:

“The High Court to our mind rightly concluded that the 2022 Act, on which the appellant placed significant reliance, does not prohibit the use of an additional language, which is Urdu in the present case, on the signboard of the Municipal Council building.” [Para 15]

This distinction—between mandating a language and prohibiting others—is constitutionally important. The 2022 Act ensures that Marathi is used, but does not insist that it be used exclusively. As such, Urdu can co-exist on a signboard without violating the law.

Further, the Court reframed the debate entirely by shifting attention from legality to constitutional purpose. Why use Urdu at all? The Court’s answer was simple but deeply rooted in the values of inclusivity and effective governance:

“The purpose here for the use of Urdu is merely communication. All the municipal council wanted to do was to make an effective communication.” [Para 19]

This clarity of purpose is crucial. The use of Urdu on the signboard was not a political gesture or an assertion of religious identity. It was a functional, inclusive, and locally appropriate decision, intended to reach and welcome a section of the population that reads Urdu. The Court highlighted that this was neither new nor radical—Urdu had been used on the Patur Municipal Council’s signage since 1956.

Finally, in what is arguably the most important paragraph in terms of grounding the decision in the lived realities of governance and citizenship, the Court stated:

“Coming to the present case, it must be stated that a Municipal Council is there to provide services to the local community of the area and cater to their immediate day-to-day needs. If people or a group of people, residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on the signboard of the Municipal Council. Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division.” [Para 46]

This is where the Court moved beyond a narrow legal resolution and reminded the petitioner—and the country—that language, at its best, is a bridge, not a barrier. The Municipal Council exists to serve the community—not to assert a singular linguistic identity at the cost of alienating others. If part of the community reads Urdu, there is no reason—legal, moral, or constitutional—to exclude it from a signboard.

By recognising this, the Court reclaimed the space of local governance as one that is responsive to local needs, identities, and realities, not one dictated by abstract notions of linguistic nationalism.

A powerful history lesson

Where this judgment truly shines is in its cultural, historical, and constitutional depth. The Court does not stop at interpreting a statutory provision or addressing procedural irregularities. It goes much further—into the idea of language as identity, as history, and as belonging. In doing so, it delivers a clear and courageous rebuke to the growing communalisation of Urdu and the false binaries that have been constructed around it.

The Court directly confronts the widespread tendency to associate Urdu with Islam, and to treat it as a foreign or sectarian language. It challenges this prejudice head-on by making a series of powerful and clarifying declarations. Perhaps the most quoted and impactful of them is this:

“Let our concepts be clear. Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people; and not to a religion.” [Para 17]

This simple but profound line dismantles the politicised narrative that seeks to conflate Urdu with a religious identity. It restores to language its proper meaning—not as a marker of religious belonging, but as a tool of expression, identity, memory, and connection. Language, the Court reminds us, cannot be confined to a single group or cast as exclusive to one faith.

The Court deepens this point by offering a civilisational and cultural defence of Urdu, recognising it as a product of the ganga-jamuni tehzeeb—India’s long-standing tradition of cultural syncretism, particularly in the northern and central plains.

“Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people. So is the case of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India. But before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication.” [Para 18]

By invoking this shared cultural history, the Court reclaims Urdu as Indian, not just linguistically but emotionally and historically. It reminds us that Urdu is not a cultural intruder—it is a civilisational creation, a language born out of coexistence, shared spaces, and mutual exchange. The judgment acknowledges that Urdu’s elegance, refinement, and poetic tradition are the legacies of this syncretic past, which the Constitution was meant to preserve, not erase.

The Court also situates this discussion in constitutional history, tracing how Hindi and Urdu were not seen as oppositional or incompatible during the freedom movement and in the early years of the republic. Instead, they were regarded as two forms of the same evolving language—Hindustani—that could serve as a common national medium. The Court draws on the work of Granville Austin, whose scholarship on the Constituent Assembly debates and post-independence linguistic compromise is widely regarded as authoritative.

Referring to the language debates before and after Partition, the Court notes:

“Partition killed Hindustani and endangered the position of English and the provincial languages in the Constitution.” [Para 34]

This line, taken from Austin, captures the tragic turning point at which a shared language—Hindustani, made up of both Hindi and Urdu—was discarded, and its components polarised. Urdu, in particular, bore the brunt of this rupture. The judgment acknowledges that post-Partition nationalism rejected Urdu not because of linguistic reasons but because of political and communal ones—a move that was neither just nor historically accurate.

The Court quotes Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been a staunch advocate of Hindustani as the people’s language—a bridge between Hindi and Urdu, and a language capable of uniting India’s many regions:

“Hindustani (Hindi or Urdu)… is bound to become the all-India medium of communication, not displacing the great provincial languages, but as a compulsory second language.” [Para 31]

This vision—of Hindustani as an inclusive, flexible, people’s language—was derailed by Partition, but the judgment shows that it remains constitutionally relevant even today. By citing Nehru, the Court not only restores this vision but places its ruling in a long constitutional arc that includes freedom movement ideals, the Constituent Assembly’s balancing act, and post-independence compromises.

The judgment also brings in Mahatma Gandhi, who warned against linguistic purism and the dangers of reducing language to a narrow, communal identity. Gandhi understood language as dynamic and inclusive, and his approach to Hindustani reflected this. The Court quotes him with quiet force:

“To confine oneself exclusively to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against intelligence and the spirit of patriotism.” [Para 36]

Gandhi’s words underscore that linguistic plurality was never seen as a threat to national unity—it was the foundation of it. In quoting both Nehru and Gandhi, the Court implicitly argues that today’s efforts to banish Urdu from public spaces are not just unconstitutional—they are a betrayal of the nation-building vision of those who fought for India’s independence.

Together, these references and insights make this portion of the judgment a masterclass in cultural constitutionalism. It does not approach the question of language as a dry administrative matter, but as a living symbol of India’s diversity—something that must be protected not just by law, but by respect, memory, and a shared sense of belonging.

By restoring Urdu to its rightful place—as an Indian language, a people’s language, and a constitutional language—the Court reaffirms that inclusion, not exclusion, is the heart of our constitutional identity.

Debunking the myth that Urdu is alien

One of the most important contributions of this judgment is the way it confronts and dismantles the deep-rooted prejudice against the Urdu language—a prejudice that has been allowed to flourish in public discourse, often unchallenged. The Court recognises that the hostility towards Urdu is not grounded in linguistic fact, but in a political fiction, born out of Partition-era anxieties and perpetuated by majoritarian narratives.

In a critical passage, the Court squarely addresses and rebuts the idea that Urdu is somehow foreign or un-Indian:

“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India… Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land.” [Para 27]

This statement is not only accurate in terms of linguistic classification—Urdu, like Hindi and Marathi, evolved from Prakrit and Apabhramsha and belongs to the same Indo-Aryan family—but also essential in its rejection of the false notion that Urdu is inherently Islamic. The Court affirms what should be a basic and accepted truth: that Urdu is Indian in its origins, Indian in its development, and Indian in its usage.

It goes further to remind us that Urdu arose from real, lived interactions among people in India—particularly in the north and centre of the country—where different communities needed to communicate across linguistic and cultural lines. Over centuries, this led to the development of a sophisticated, inclusive, and adaptable language, enriched by multiple traditions and serving as a lingua franca in many regions. In fact, it was not born out of exclusivism, but out of coexistence.

The Court then makes a subtle but powerful observation about the everyday presence of Urdu, especially in the speech of people who may not even recognise its origins:

“Even today, the language used by the common people of the country is replete with words of the Urdu language, even if one is not aware of it.” [Para 37]

This insight challenges the idea that Urdu is used only by a particular religious or social group. On the contrary, the vocabulary of Urdu has become so woven into the fabric of everyday Hindi and Indian speech that it is impossible to separate the two without distorting both. From the language of friendship and affection to politics and cinema, Urdu has left a profound mark.

The Court also offers a striking example of how deeply entrenched Urdu is in the Indian legal system. It lists several key legal terms that are of Urdu origin and are still widely used in courts across the country—even in the Supreme Court, where the official language is English. The judgment notes:

“Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance… Adalat, halafnama, peshi, vakalatnama, dasti…” [Para 38]

These are not minor or incidental terms. They are core procedural and functional terms used in both civil and criminal proceedings, known to every lawyer, judge, and litigant across India. ‘Adalat’ (court), ‘halafnama’ (affidavit), ‘peshi’ (appearance), ‘vakalatnama’ (power of attorney), and ‘dasti’ (by hand)—these are foundational building blocks of legal vocabulary.

This point is underscored further in the next line:

“Even though the official language of the Supreme Court… is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till date.” [Para 38]

In making this observation, the Court underlines an important irony: Urdu is being spoken, written, and relied upon at the highest levels of India’s judiciary, even as efforts continue in some quarters to stigmatise it. This lived reality gives lie to the claim that Urdu is somehow alien or inappropriate for official or legal use.

Together, these points form a comprehensive and compelling rebuttal of the misconceptions surrounding Urdu. The Court not only reaffirms that Urdu is as Indian as any other regional language, but also that it remains active, visible, and essential—not just culturally, but administratively and judicially.

Language as a bridge—not a weapon

In one of the segments of the judgment, the Court engages deeply with linguistic scholarship to challenge the idea that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. This part of the judgment goes beyond the immediate question of signage and moves into the realm of intellectual history and sociolinguistics, showing how the binary between Hindi and Urdu was not a natural evolution but a consciously created political divide.

To support this, the Court draws on the works of prominent scholars such as Gyan Chand Jain, Amrit Rai, Ram Vilas Sharma, and Abdul Haq—all of whom have extensively studied the origins, development, and mutual influence of Hindi and Urdu.

“It is absolutely clear that Urdu and Hindi are not two separate languages… Even though Urdu literature and Hindi literature are two different and independent literatures, Urdu and Hindi are not two different languages.” [Para 41]

“Hindi-Urdu are not two separate languages; they are basically one and the same… There are no two other languages in the world whose pronouns and verbs are one hundred per cent the same.” [Para 42]

This is an emphatic and almost scientifically framed observation—what unites Hindi and Urdu is not merely poetic sentiment but the structural bedrock of language. The judgment notes that while their scripts differ (Devanagari for Hindi, Perso-Arabic for Urdu), and while each has drawn vocabulary from different classical sources (Sanskrit for Hindi, Persian and Arabic for Urdu), their spoken forms remain nearly indistinguishable in everyday use across north India.

In referencing Amrit Rai’s influential work, the Court aligns itself with the understanding that Hindi and Urdu emerged from the same linguistic root—Hindavi or Hindustani—and that the divide between them was sharpened over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, not by natural evolution but by colonial language policies and post-Partition communal politics. Amrit Rai’s thesis, A House Divided, showed how political forces came to assign communal identities to languages that had once coexisted fluidly.

The judgment does not stop at historical analysis—it goes further to expose the consequences of this artificially constructed divide. By making language a marker of religious identity, a shared cultural and linguistic inheritance was fractured. Urdu came to be falsely viewed as “Muslim”, and Hindi as “Hindu”—a split that ignored centuries of shared grammar, mutual influence, and bilingual expression in the public sphere.

These scholarly citations give the judgment a rare academic depth. It is unusual—though deeply welcome—for the judiciary to cite literary historians and linguists so prominently. And yet, in doing so, the Court performs a vital task: it returns the conversation about language to the terrain of fact, scholarship, and nuance, rather than leaving it to be defined by prejudice and politicised emotion.

And then, poetry

The judgment ends with a poetic flourish, quoting Iqbal Ashhar’s nazm where Urdu speaks for itself:

““urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī

kyuuñ mujh ko banāte ho ta.assub kā nishāna

maiñ ne to kabhī ḳhud ko musalmāñ nahīñ maanā

dekhā thā kabhī maiñ ne bhī ḳhushiyoñ kā zamāna

apne hī vatan meñ huuñ magar aaj akelī

urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī” [Para 48]

“Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’

Do not hold me for your prejudices

I never considered myself a Muslim

I too have seen happier times

I feel like an outsider in my homeland today

Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’”

The Court then reflects:

“Let us make friends with Urdu and every language. If Urdu was to speak for herself, she would say…” [Para 48]

A verse that speaks of belonging, alienation, and identity—reminding the reader that Urdu, like any other Indian language, asks not for supremacy, but for space to exist.

Why this judgment is important

This is more than a legal ruling—it is a profound affirmation of India’s constitutional soul. It reasserts that the Constitution protects not only freedom of religion, but freedom of language, identity, and culture. India’s commitment to pluralism is not merely symbolic—it is embedded in its constitutional text and historical experience. This judgment operationalises that commitment with clarity and courage.

It is important because:

  • It clarifies the law, confirming that there is no legal bar on using additional languages like Urdu on public signboards under the 2022 Act.
  • It safeguards linguistic and cultural rights, especially of minority communities, and affirms that state recognition does not require the exclusion of others.
  • It dispels the myth that Urdu is alien, asserting its deep roots in India’s linguistic heritage and constitutional imagination.
  • It confronts majoritarian narratives, refusing to allow language to be communalised or weaponised.

This judgment stands out for its clarity, depth, and conviction. It does not merely interpret a statute or settle a procedural flaw—it reaffirms foundational constitutional values. By recognising the legitimacy of linguistic diversity and rejecting efforts to erase or marginalise a language rooted in India’s soil, the Court has underscored that governance must serve all, not just the dominant voice. In doing so, it reminds us that the Constitution protects not just rights in the abstract, but the dignity of communities, cultures, and the many languages in which India speaks.

The complete judgment may be read here.

Download PDF

Related:

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

A Judgement of Conscience: Bombay High Court orders SIT Probe into alleged fake encounter in Badlapur

Supreme Court slams UP police for criminalising civil disputes, calls it a ‘complete breakdown of rule of law’

Uttarakhand HC orders unsealing of Madrassa, SC steps in to hear Jamiat’s petition against Dhami govt’s crackdown against Madrassa

 

 

The post “Urdu Is Not Alien”: Supreme Court reclaims the language’s place in the Indian Constitutional fabric appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Gelatin blast at Mecca Mosque in Beed district ahead of festival celebrations, two arrested under BNS 2023 https://sabrangindia.in/gelatin-blast-at-mecca-mosque-in-beed-district-ahead-of-festival-celebrations-two-arrested-under-bns-2023/ Tue, 01 Apr 2025 10:53:37 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40855 Long-standing tradition of celebrating festivals together, with Ramzan and Gudi Padwa coinciding, comes to a sorry end with a blast caused by gelatin sticks severely damages the Mecca Mosque in Ardha Masla village; Vijay Rama Gavhane (22) and Sriram Ashok Sagde (24) arrested

The post Gelatin blast at Mecca Mosque in Beed district ahead of festival celebrations, two arrested under BNS 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On Sunday, April 30, a blast occurred inside the Mecca Mosque in Ardha Masla village, Georai tehsil, Beed district, Maharashtra. The explosion, which took place around 2:30 am, caused significant damage to the mosque’s interior but fortunately did not result in any casualties. The incident has heightened communal tensions in the region, prompting authorities to deploy additional security forces to maintain order.

The Beed police swiftly arrested two suspects, Vijay Rama Gavhane (aged 22) and Sriram Ashok Sagde (aged 24), both residents of the village, and detained two others for questioning. The officials believe the accused planted gelatin sticks inside the mosque, leading to the explosion. The suspects, engaged in well-digging work, allegedly diverted the explosives from their professional use to orchestrate the attack.

According to locals, tensions escalated on Saturday night during the ‘Sandal’ procession at the village dargah, a traditional event that draws participants from surrounding areas. An altercation broke out between Vijay Rama Gavhane, Sriram Ashok Sagde, and a group of Muslim youths. As per the report of Hindustan Times, the FIR states that communal slurs were exchanged, and Gavhane allegedly threatened, “Why is a mosque being built here? Destroy it, or else we will.”

The Mecca Masjid, where the blast occurred, is located close to the dargah Gavhane referred to. After the argument, villagers intervened, and the groups dispersed for the night. However, at approximately 2:30 am, Rashid Sayyad, the complainant in the case, was woken by the sound of an explosion. According to the FIR, several villagers then witnessed Gavhane and Sagde fleeing the scene.

 

Arrests and investigation

A case has been registered at Talwada police station under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those related to desecrating a place of worship, inciting communal discord, and illegal possession of explosives. Sections such as 298 (destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or sacred object), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts that insult the religious beliefs of any group of people), 196 (actions or speech that promote enmity or hatred between groups), 326(g) (Mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentional insults that incite a breach of peace), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have been used. Additional charges sections 3 (explosion likely to endanger life or property), 4 (making/keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property), and 5 (making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, have also been invoked. As per a report of Free Press Journal, forensic experts and bomb disposal teams have collected evidence, and the investigation continues to determine whether the attack was premeditated or part of a larger conspiracy.

The mosque caretaker, Sayyad Shammu, had spoken to media and confirmed that the accused had issued threats the previous day. The blast triggered outrage within the local Muslim community, leading to protests outside the Talwada police station demanding strict action against the perpetrators. In response, police imposed heightened security measures to prevent further unrest. Shops in the village remained closed in protest, but community leaders urged calm, emphasising the need for justice through legal channels.

Background of the accused

One of the arrested individuals, Vijay Rama Gavhane, lived near the mosque and had prior criminal records, including a case involving illegal arms possession. Police investigations have revealed that Gavhane, who had failed his Class X exams, worked as a well-digger in the village. His job involved using controlled explosions, making him familiar with handling gelatin sticks. A senior police officer confirmed that the accused misused their knowledge of explosives to carry out the attack.

Despite the village’s history of communal harmony, his actions suggest a pattern of radicalisation and extremist tendencies. Authorities are investigating whether external influences played a role in the attack. A now-deleted Instagram reel posted by Gavhane has also raised suspicions. In the video, he can be seen smoking in front of a bundle of gelatin sticks while a Marathi song played in the background, with lyrics translating to: “One should stay within limits. I am not less. I am the fire.” This revelation has intensified concerns that the attack was deliberate and ideologically motivated.

 

Systemic failures and the need for accountability

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, speaking in Nagpur during an event attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, acknowledged the blast and assured that the perpetrators would be brought to justice. Commenting on the explosion at the mosque in Beed, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, as quoted by ANI, “The information has been received, and we also know who was responsible. The concerned SP will provide further details.”

Beed Superintendent of Police Navneet Kanwat and Special Inspector General of Police Virendra Mishra visited the site to oversee the investigation and security arrangements. Local political leaders, including MLA Vijaysingh Pandit, appealed for peace, urging residents to let law enforcement conduct a thorough inquiry. However, the incident has raised larger questions about the increasing prevalence of communal attacks and the state’s ability to curb hate-driven violence.

This incident is not an isolated case but part of a troubling pattern of targeted attacks against religious minorities. The ease with which the accused accessed and used explosives points to glaring lapses in regulatory oversight. Additionally, the reluctance of authorities to categorise the incident as terrorism despite its clear intent to instil fear reflects a dangerous double standard in law enforcement.

While arrests have been made, the broader concern remains: will justice be served, or will this case fade into obscurity like other instances of anti-Muslim violence? The legal system must ensure that those responsible face the full extent of the law to prevent such acts from becoming more frequent.

The Beed mosque blast is a stark reminder that communal violence continues to threaten India’s social fabric. The government must move beyond routine arrests and conduct a thorough investigation into the motivations, networks, and ideological leanings that fuel such attacks. Without decisive action and systemic reform, impunity will only embolden further violence, deepening societal divisions and endangering the nation’s fragile communal harmony.

A tradition of shared festivities

Despite the attack on the mosque, local residents highlighted the long-standing tradition of celebrating festivals together in the village. According to a villager quoted by PTI, during the Gudi Padwa festival, Hindus customarily visit the Hazrat Sayyad Badshah Dargah near the mosque. The accused allegedly attempted to destroy the mosque using gelatin sticks just as preparations were underway for joint celebrations of Gudi Padwa and Ramzan Eid on Sunday.

Following the explosion, residents—who have coexisted peacefully for decades—came together to repair the mosque. A peace committee meeting was also convened in the village on Sunday morning to maintain communal harmony.

Political leaders condemn the attack

Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi squarely blamed the prevailing anti-Muslim rhetoric in political discourse for incidents like the Beed mosque blast. “Politicians are spewing venom against Muslims day in and day out,” Azmi remarked, criticising ministers for using inflammatory language. He further questioned why the accused were charged with minor offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Indian Evidence Act (IEA), rather than being booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law frequently applied to Muslim activists and organisations. “Are they not terrorists? Will they face bulldozer justice? Will they be forced to compensate for the mosque’s destruction?” he asked, highlighting the apparent legal double standard, as per Scroll.

Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament and president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), also condemned the attack, expressing concern that one of the accused had openly boasted about his role in the blast without fear of consequences. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Owaisi pointed out that the accused seemed confident of being treated as a hero rather than a criminal, which speaks to the larger environment of impunity for anti-Muslim violence.

 

Beed MLA Sandeep Kshirsagar of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) and Georai MLA Vijaysingh Pandit visited the damaged mosque and urged residents to remain calm. Kshirsagar condemned the attack but offered no substantial critique of the government’s response.

Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal took a more direct stance, alleging that the blast was not an isolated incident but part of the ruling MahaYuti alliance’s broader agenda to incite communal violence. “Maharashtra, a state known for its progressive ethos, is being dragged into a crisis of communalism,” Sapkal stated, as per the Deccan Herald. He accused the BJP-led MahaYuti government of deliberately fostering unrest, employing a “divide-and-rule” strategy reminiscent of British colonial policies. “The ruling alliance wants to keep Maharashtra in a state of turmoil, and the Beed mosque blast fits into that larger motive,” he asserted. Sapkal also raised concerns about the deteriorating law and order situation under Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also serves as the state’s home minister.

Accusation of selective justice

Legal experts have strongly criticised the state’s reluctance to invoke UAPA in this particular case, a law frequently used in terrorism-related cases. Supreme Court lawyer Javed Shaikh, speaking to the Free Press Journal, stated that the Beed explosion was an act of terrorism, making it a “clear-cut case” for UAPA charges. “In the past, the government has slapped UAPA charges on activists from the Popular Front of India (PFI) merely for participating in rallies. Here, we have an actual explosion inside a mosque, yet the state is hesitant to invoke UAPA. This selective application of anti-terror laws raises serious concerns about bias in law enforcement,” Shaikh argued.

Advocate A.K. Pathan questioned whether the authorities would conduct a thorough investigation into a possible larger conspiracy behind the attack. “There are forces working in the background to disrupt communal harmony. Will the state government ensure an impartial inquiry, or will it shield the perpetrators under political pressure?” he asked, as per FPJ.

The Beed mosque blast has reignited debates on how anti-terror laws are applied in India. While Muslim activists, students, and organisations have often faced UAPA charges for lesser offences, the state’s reluctance to use the same law against those accused of attacking a place of worship exposes a stark inconsistency. The demand for an NIA or ATS investigation is growing, with many questioning whether the government will ensure justice or allow the perpetrators to escape with minimal consequences.

The Beed Incident: A microcosm of Maharashtra’s escalating communal tensions

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Maharashtra has witnessed a staggering 823 incidents of communal unrest since the beginning of 2024, reflecting a sharp escalation in religious tensions. According to state officials, communal violence has erupted across multiple districts, including Nagpur, Nandurbar, Pune (Rural), Ratnagiri, Sangli, Beed, and Satara. Many of these incidents have been linked to orchestrated campaigns by right-wing organisations demanding the demolition of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, alongside the circulation of distorted narratives on social media designed to provoke unrest.

Statistics paint a grim picture of the deteriorating communal climate in Maharashtra. Since January, 4,836 communal crimes involving Hindu-Muslim tensions have been recorded, including 170 cognisable and 3,106 non-cognisable cases. Of particular concern are 371 incidents related to religious insults, underscoring how targeted provocations are being used to stoke sectarian divisions.

In the first three months of 2024 alone, authorities registered 156 criminal cases in January, 99 in February, and 78 by mid-March in connection with communal unrest. 102 of these cases were deemed cognisable—meaning they involved serious offences requiring immediate police action. Despite these alarming numbers, there has been little political will to curb hate-driven mobilisation, allowing tensions to fester.

One must also remember the recent incident of communal violence that took place in in central Nagpur on March 17, when mobs went on a rampage following a protest organised by Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). These groups were demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb, which they labelled a “symbol of pain and slavery.” The protest quickly turned into large-scale violence, with authorities identifying rumour-mongering and inflammatory content on social media as key triggers.

As per a report of Hindustan Times, Maharashtra Cyber Cell flagged 144 online posts across Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube that contained inflammatory content linked to the riots. Despite efforts to curb the spread of incitement—only 37 links were removed, while action was taken against 107—this digital hate machinery continues to fuel unrest.

The HT report further provides that incident of communal unrest has not been confined to traditionally sensitive areas. Even Maharashtra’s Konkan region, historically known for Hindu-Muslim harmony, has been shaken. In Rajapur, Ratnagiri, communal tensions flared when members of a Holi procession allegedly danced in front of Jama Masjid’s gate, damaging the structure while chanting religious slogans.

Right-wing narratives on social media immediately twisted the incident, falsely claiming that the mosque had been attacked, further escalating tensions. This pattern of provocation—using festivals as a pretext for targeted disruptions—has become alarmingly frequent.

Despite this, state officials continue to downplay the gravity of such incidents, insisting that Hindu-Muslim unity remains strong in Konkan and that such events are mere “aberrations.” However, this argument ignores a larger, deliberate trend—where once-peaceful areas are increasingly becoming sites of engineered communal flashpoints.

The Role of the State: Complicit or ineffective?

The recurring nature of these incidents across multiple districts points to a systemic failure—or worse, complicity—on the part of the state government. The selective application of the law is glaring. While harsh measures like UAPA have been used against Muslim activists for peaceful demonstrations, those openly instigating communal violence—whether on the streets or via digital platforms—continue to evade serious legal consequences.

Moreover, the administration’s failure to pre-emptively intervene despite clear warning signs—such as the circulation of incendiary social media content and mobilisations by right-wing groups—suggests a deliberate lack of political will. The growing normalisation of communal violence in Maharashtra underlines a dangerous shift: the state is no longer simply a passive observer but appears to be enabling and, in some cases, even facilitating these tensions.

The explosion at a mosque in Beed district of Maharashtra serves as yet another stark reminder of the escalating communal unrest across the state, following a troubling trend that has been unfolding since the beginning of the year. The Beed blast, which occurred amidst preparations for the joint celebration of Gudi Padwa and Ramzan Eid, is a culmination of rising religious tensions, exacerbated by right-wing propaganda and incendiary rhetoric from political figures.

This event mirrors broader patterns of communal violence seen in districts like Nagpur, Ratnagiri, and Satara, where attacks on religious sites and institutions have become disturbingly frequent. The explosion at Beed, allegedly orchestrated by local perpetrators using gelatin sticks, was intended to disrupt communal harmony during one of the most significant religious periods for both Hindus and Muslims. What makes the Beed attack particularly concerning is that it was preceded by a scuffle during a religious procession the previous night, which, according to locals, involved hate speech and threats of violence against the mosque.

 

Related:

India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava

Unnao’s Mohammad Sharif Killing: A tale of grief, injustice, and systemic bias

Who is Mumbai for? Students and Mumbaikars ponder the question

The post Gelatin blast at Mecca Mosque in Beed district ahead of festival celebrations, two arrested under BNS 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement https://sabrangindia.in/demolition-of-fahim-khans-house-a-political-message-disguised-as-law-enforcement/ Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:04:15 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40723 Maharashtra Government deploys bulldozer crackdown in Nagpur violence case, demolishes two houses of accused defying legal norms and Supreme Court guidelines

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On Monday, March 24, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), under heavy police security and drone surveillance, demolished the home of Fahim Khan, a leader of the Minority Democratic Party (MDP) who has been charged with sedition in connection with the March 17 communal violence in Nagpur. As per multiple media reports, three JCB machines were deployed at 10:30 am to bring down Khan’s residence in Sanjay Bagh Colony, Yashodhara Nagar, in what has now become a disturbing pattern of extrajudicial punitive action targeting Muslims in BJP-ruled states.

 

Demolition of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, also an accused in the Nagpur violence case, was also reported on the same day.

It is essential to note that the Municipal authorities have claimed the demolition was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, citing “unauthorised construction” as the reason. However, the selective and arbitrary nature of such demolitions raises serious questions about due process and the rule of law. Khan, who remains in judicial custody, is among more than 100 individuals—mostly Muslims—arrested in connection with the violence. Local residents have accused the police of bias and indiscriminate arrests, further deepening fears of state-sponsored communal targeting. The suggestions of there being biased enquiry into this violence can also viewed from the fact that the 11 members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had allegedly burnt the effigy of Aurangzeb as well as a chadar from a local Dargah to demand the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, had been given bail hours after surrendering to the police.

In regards to the demolition of Fahim Khan’s house, Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s deputy engineer, Sunil Gajbhiye, asserted that the demolition was conducted after an “investigation” and a 24-hour notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. However, the absurdity of such rapid enforcement—especially when encroachments by politically influential individuals often remain untouched for decades—suggests that this was less about urban planning and more about political retribution.

While Indian law does not permit property demolitions as a punitive measure, the BJP has increasingly used this tactic as an extrajudicial weapon against Muslims, particularly in cases of communal violence. Despite a Supreme Court stay on such measures, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis brazenly justified the “bulldozer action,” declaring on March 22 that it would be used “wherever required.” He further stated that damage caused during the violence would be recovered from the accused, failing which their property would be seized and auctioned. The CM also alarmingly suggested that those accused of inciting violence through social media would be treated as co-accused, raising concerns about potential misuse of state power to silence dissent.

The government’s rhetoric has been disturbingly violent, with Maharashtra minister Pratap Sarnaik openly advocating for extrajudicial violence, stating, “The bulldozer should be run over him, not his house, if anyone is involved in such violent activities.” His remarks, reported by the Deccan Herald, reflect the growing normalisation of state brutality and the erosion of legal safeguards.

The pattern of bulldozer politics, seen recently in Sambhal and other BJP-governed regions, is not just a violation of legal norms but a deliberate strategy to intimidate and collectively punish Muslims. That such actions continue despite the Supreme Court’s directives underscores the growing impunity of state actors who use communal violence as a pretext to enforce their majoritarian agenda.

With at least 105 individuals arrested and multiple FIRs registered, the situation in Nagpur reveals a deeply disturbing reality: rather than upholding the principles of justice and accountability, the state is resorting to bulldozers and arbitrary punishment, sending a chilling message about whose rights matter in today’s India.

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

It is also crucial to provide here that the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17 has now resulted in the death of a 38-year-old man, Irfan Ansari, who succumbed to his injuries at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital on March 23. A welder by profession, Ansari had left home to catch a train to Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh but was caught in the chaos near Central Avenue. He was brutally attacked by a mob, sustaining severe head injuries. His family was informed only after the police took him to the hospital, where he briefly regained consciousness before succumbing to his wounds.

The Nagpur police have arrested a total of 105 individuals in connection with the violence, including 14 people, among them 10 minors, who were detained earlier this week. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lohit Matani, 13 cases have been registered, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor Megha Burange confirmed that 19 accused individuals had been remanded in custody until March 24.

The violence occurred just hours after Hindutva groups held a demonstration demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders across 11 police station jurisdictions. While restrictions were gradually eased in some areas by March 21, the curfew was fully lifted on March 24, with police continuing to patrol sensitive localities.

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

On Sunday, March 23, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Nirupam had made unverified claims about the involvement of individuals linked to Bangladesh in the recent violence in Nagpur. At a press conference, Nirupam alleged that the unrest was “pre-meditated” and part of a larger conspiracy. He also accused one of the arrested individuals of using social media to fund “Mujahideen activities,” without providing any substantial evidence.

His statements took a political turn as he attacked the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), insinuating that its leaders were aligning with extremist elements. “Is the Sena (UBT) aligning itself with the Mujahideen? Are the Thackerays and (Sanjay) Raut supporting them?” he asked, attempting to stoke communal and political divisions. Furthering his rhetoric, he claimed that Uddhav Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, would soon display a photo of Aurangzeb alongside those of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj—an inflammatory remark aimed at discrediting the opposition.

The political exploitation of the violence has been evident in the statements of BJP allies like Sanjay Nirupam, who, instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, have chosen to push unverified claims of a “foreign hand” in the violence. His remarks, along with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ endorsement of punitive bulldozer actions, signal a dangerous trend of targeting minorities under the pretext of law enforcement.

The use of such rhetoric not only undermines due process but also diverts attention from the failure of law enforcement to prevent the violence in the first place. The events in Nagpur mirror a broader pattern of state-sponsored impunity, where accountability is selectively applied, and majoritarian politics dictate justice.

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

The Maharashtra Police have booked six individuals, including Minorities Democratic Party leader Fahim Khan, on charges of sedition and spreading misinformation on social media. The accused are among 50 others named across four FIRs.

Authorities have charged primary suspect Fahim Khan with sedition, among other offences. Police records indicate that Khan allegedly coordinated a demonstration outside a Nagpur police station on March 17. His criminal history includes charges of electricity theft and participation in protests during 2023-2024.

According to the FIR, Khan led a group of 50 to 60 individuals who illegally assembled outside Ganeshpeth police station on Monday to submit a memorandum opposing an earlier Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protest. Officials stated that Khan and eight others later went to the Bhaldarpura area, where they found 500 to 600 people gathered near Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, which led to his arrest.’

Besides the sedition case, a separate FIR has been filed against individuals accused of editing videos of the protest against Aurangzeb, allegedly “glorifying violence” and circulating them online. Another case pertains to video clips allegedly made to incite communal clashes, while a third concerns social media posts that further fuelled tensions.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber Cell) Lohit Matani stated that misinformation was initially spread on social media, triggering the violence, followed by more videos that glorified it. “He [Fahim Khan] edited and circulated the video of the protest against Aurangzeb due to which the riots spread,” ANI quoted Matani as saying. “He also glorified violent videos.”

More than 120 people, including 11 minors, have been taken into custody, according to Commissioner Singal. Additionally, on March 19, Commissioner Singal had confirmed that investigations were ongoing to identify additional assailants and determine the involvement of individuals mentioned in the FIR regarding Khan’s suspected role in orchestrating the violence.

It is also being reported that the law enforcement has established 18 dedicated teams to pursue and capture those responsible for the unrest in Nagpur. According to a senior official, the police have identified 200 suspects and are working to determine the identities of 1,000 more individuals recorded on CCTV during the violence. Authorities have lodged five First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ganeshpeth and Kotwali police stations, naming 200 accused persons. Officials confirmed that they are reviewing CCTV recordings to identify additional participants.

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Nagpur Commissioner of Police Dr Ravinder Kumar Singal briefed journalists about the special teams, which include personnel from Ganeshpeth, Kotwali, and Tehsil police stations, along with the Crime Branch. These teams are working in conjunction with the cyber cell to support the identification of suspects.

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

In a related development, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the night of March 19 had installed tin sheets around Aurangzeb’s tomb, following orders from the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar district administration.

“The green net covering two sides of the tomb was in bad shape, and the structure was visible to those visiting the nearby Khwaja Syed Zainuddin Chishti grave,” an ASI official told PTI. “So we have installed tin sheets.”

The demand for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb has been intensifying in recent weeks, with Hindutva groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, claiming that the structure is a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

 

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

On March 20, Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal had informed the media about forming a team of party leaders to visit the riot-affected areas of Nagpur. The delegation includes senior leaders such as Manikrao Thakare, Shomati Thakur, Hussain Dalwai, and Sajid Pathan. Nagpur district Congress chief Thakare will serve as the convenor, while AICC Secretary Praful Gudade Patil has been appointed as the coordinator.

Meanwhile, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, a cleric from the Barelvi sect, had written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking a ban on the film Chhava, alleging that it incited communal tensions and was directly responsible for the Nagpur violence.

Sequence of events and aftermath

The violence in Nagpur erupted hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb. The clashes broke out at 7:30 pm in central Nagpur’s Chitnis Park, where stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth bearing the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burned during a Hindutva-led agitation.

Unidentified Bajrang Dal office-bearers told The Indian Express that its members had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb during the protest. However, another clash erupted in Hansapuri, close to Chitnis Park, between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. The violence soon spread to Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas, prompting the police to fire tear gas shells and resort to lathi charges to disperse the mobs. Prohibitory orders barring public gatherings were imposed within the limits of 11 police stations.

A preliminary survey found that over 60 vehicles were damaged in the violence, including 20 two-wheelers and 40 four-wheelers. Two cranes were also set on fire, with a construction company reporting a loss of Rs 70 lakh. Authorities announced that individuals whose vehicles were fully damaged would receive Rs 50,000, while those with partially damaged vehicles would be compensated with Rs 10,000. The said compensation is said to be given to the victims on March 25.

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

The Nagpur violence and the state’s response underscore a disturbing trend of bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests, and communalised governance. The punitive demolition of Fahim Khan’s house—while the state turns a blind eye to Hindutva organisations inciting violence—reveals a stark bias in law enforcement. Statements from ministers and ruling party leaders openly endorsing extrajudicial action further normalise the idea that the law can be bypassed when dealing with minorities.

This particular incident of demolition of the house of an accused belonging to a minority religious community is not the first incident that has taken place in Maharashtra after the BJP has formed the state government. On February 23, (Sunday) during the highly anticipated India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match 2025, a local passer-by, owing allegiance to the Vishwa Hindu Parisha (VHP), accused a 15-year-old boy from a Muslim scrap metal trading family of shouting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match. This event took place reportedly around 9:30 pm on February 23. Varadkar, while the complainant one Sachin Varadkar, was on his bike riding to a friend’s house and claimed to have overheard the boy and a group of others shouting what he described as “anti-India” slogans. Later that evening, when passing by the area again, Sachin Varadkar reportedly saw the boy cycling and chose to confront him. What initially seemed like a minor disagreement quickly escalated, with Varadkar allegedly taking the matter to the authorities.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals. Just like in Nagpur, state sponsored illegal action in the name of demotions had taken place Muslim accused with following the due procedure of law. (Detailed story on the Malvan demolition may be read here.)

The broader context of the Nagpur violence reflects an alarming state strategy: use communal tensions as a pretext for aggressive law enforcement against one community while shielding provocateurs from accountability. This pattern not only erodes faith in the justice system but also contributes to deepening social divisions in Maharashtra and beyond.

 

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

 

 

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur https://sabrangindia.in/how-communal-unrest-was-stoked-misinformation-rumours-ignited-unrest-in-nagpur/ Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:16:35 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40620 Nagpur, Maharashtra erupts in communal violence after Aurangzeb Tomb protest by VHP-Bajrang Dal which itself followed weeks of hate speeches, based on misinformation, around the issue: vehicles were torched, security forces attacked, and over 50 arrested amid heavy police deployment

The post How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Violent clashes erupted in central Nagpur late on Monday night, March 17, leading to the arrest of at least 50 individuals after protests demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb from Maharashtra escalated into widespread unrest. The situation quickly spiralled out of control, resulting in injuries to dozens of people, including security personnel, as mobs engaged in arson and attacks on public property.

 

 

According to multiple media reports, the violence stemmed from a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Nagpur’s Mahal area. The protesters gathered to demand the relocation of Aurangzeb’s tomb, which is situated in Khultabad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district (formerly Aurangabad). During the protest, slogans were raised, and demonstrators allegedly burned a photograph of Aurangzeb along with a “symbolic grave wrapped in a green cloth filled with grass.” Police sources indicate that the act of burning the green cloth reportedly sparked rumours, as many believed it contained sacred verses, leading to heightened tensions.

Following this, a group of around 80 to 100 people, allegedly from the religious minority community, reacted violently, pelting stones at the police and setting multiple vehicles ablaze. An alleged clash then took place between the Muslims and the protesting Hindus. The unrest led to serious injuries, including those sustained by security personnel attempting to control the mob. Among the injured are 10 anti-riot commandos, two senior police officers, and two fire department personnel. A constable remains in critical condition. The violence also resulted in large-scale destruction, with rioters torching two bulldozers and approximately 40 vehicles, including police vans.

To restore order, law enforcement resorted to using force, employing lathi-charge and tear gas to disperse the mob. In response to the deteriorating situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Ravinder Kumar Singal imposed a curfew in several areas of the city under Section 163 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The curfew applies to the jurisdictions of Kotwali, Ganeshpeth, Tehsil, Lakadganj, Pachpaoli, Shantinagar, Sakkardara, Nandanvan, Imamwada, Yashodharanagar, and Kapilnagar police stations. The restrictions will remain in effect until further notice.

Authorities have confirmed that the situation is now under control. However, the scale of the violence, the number of injured, and the damage caused highlight the deep-seated tensions surrounding the issue. A PTI report states that at least four civilians have been injured, while more than a dozen police personnel sustained injuries during the clashes. Security forces remain deployed in the affected areas to prevent further escalation.

Misinformation and rumours ignite unrest in Nagpur

The violence in Nagpur on the night of March 17 was largely fuelled by misinformation and rumours that spread rapidly on social media. The unrest followed a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Mahal at around 8:30 pm. Protesters had gathered to demand the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb from Maharashtra and burned his effigy as part of their demonstration.

Hours later, tensions flared when rumours began circulating that activists from Hindu groups, including VHP and Bajrang Dal, had burned a piece of cloth inscribed with the holy kalma (Islamic prayer) and had also set fire to a copy of the Quran. According to police reports, videos of the Bajrang Dal demonstration quickly spread across social media, leading to outrage within the Muslim community. What police authorities did when and while such rumours flew fast is however, unclear. A formal complaint was subsequently lodged at the Ganeshpeth police station, alleging that a holy book had been desecrated. However, Bajrang Dal office-bearers refuted these claims, stating that they had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb and had not targeted any religious text.

As news of the alleged Quran burning spread, anger intensified. The situation escalated when reports surfaced that VHP-Bajrang Dal protesters had also burned a religious chadar near Shivaji Putla Square at Mahal Gate, a location just 2 km from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters. Clearly this was an act meant to provoke and it is not at all evident that action was initiated by the police against these miscreants. In response, a large group gathered in protest, demanding immediate action against those responsible. The protest soon turned violent, resulting in stone-pelting, arson, and violent clashes with the police.

Officials confirmed that social media played a significant role in spreading misinformation, fuelling tensions between communities. As the unrest escalated, security forces deployed riot-control measures, including water cannons and tear gas, in an attempt to disperse the crowd. Several officers were injured in the process, including Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) Archit Chandak and Niketan Kadam. Firefighters attempting to douse burning vehicles were also caught in the violence.

Eyewitnesses reported that the clashes started around 7:30 pm in the Chitnis Park area of Mahal, where groups hurled stones at the police, leaving six civilians and three officers injured. The violence then spread to other parts of the city, including Kotwali and Ganeshpeth, intensifying as the evening progressed. A resident, Sunil Peshne, told ANI that a mob of 500 to 1,000 people engaged in stone-pelting and torched multiple vehicles. He claimed that around 25-30 vehicles were damaged or destroyed during the chaos.

The timing of the unrest was particularly sensitive, as Monday marked the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha warrior-king. It also coincided with the holy month of Ramzan, further heightening religious sensitivities. The call for the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb at Khuldabad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar had gained traction on this day, adding to the charged atmosphere.

Authorities are currently reviewing CCTV footage and video clips to identify those involved in the violence. An FIR has been registered, and police teams are actively working to track down the culprits. Officials reported that the Chitnis Park to Shukrawari Talao road belt was among the worst-affected areas, where multiple four-wheelers were torched by rioters.

Residents of the Old Hislop College area near Chitnis Park spoke to PTI and claimed that a mob entered their locality around 7:30 pm, hurling stones at homes and vandalising parked cars. At least four cars were damaged, with one vehicle completely burnt. The rioters also destroyed water coolers and shattered windows before fleeing. Some residents attempted to control the fires themselves by arranging water to douse the burning vehicles.

A resident of the Hansapuri area, Sharad Gupta, recounted how his four two-wheelers, which were parked outside his home, were set ablaze by the mob between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. He suffered injuries in the attack and said the rioters also vandalised a neighbouring shop. He further alleged that the police arrived only an hour after the incident, by which time significant damage had already been done.

Fearing for their safety, some residents locked their homes and fled to safer locations in the middle of the night. A PTI correspondent witnessed a couple leaving their house at 1:20 am, seeking refuge elsewhere. Meanwhile, Chandrakant Kawde, a local resident involved in preparations for the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra, reported that the mob burned all his decoration materials and pelted stones at homes in the vicinity.

Angry residents have called for immediate police action against those responsible for the violence. While the situation is currently under control, tensions remain high as authorities continue their investigation.

 

 

Police crackdown and heightened security measures

In response to the escalating violence in Nagpur, Police Commissioner Ravinder Singal deployed over 1,000 officers and imposed prohibitory orders in key areas, including Mahal, Chitnis Park Chowk, and Bhaldarpura, to restrict movement in high-risk zones. According to a Times of India report, key roads were sealed, while additional reinforcements and intelligence teams were brought in to prevent further clashes. Despite the heavy police presence, sporadic incidents of stone-throwing continued late into the night, keeping security forces on high alert.

To maintain order, authorities utilised surveillance vehicles equipped with CCTV cameras to monitor the situation in real time. Public address systems were also used to issue warnings and instruct citizens to remain indoors. Local peace committees were activated, with law enforcement urging community leaders to play a role in de-escalating tensions and preventing further violence.

Meanwhile, security around Aurangzeb’s tomb in Khuldabad has been significantly tightened following threats against the monument. Visitors are now required to register their details and provide identification before entering the site. Additional forces, including the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF), local police, and Home Guard personnel, have been deployed in the vicinity to prevent any attempts at vandalism or desecration. Authorities remain on high alert as they continue to monitor the situation and work towards restoring normalcy.

Statement by the law enforcement authorities

Amid the volatile situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Dr Ravinder Singal provided an update, asserting that law enforcement had responded swiftly to restore normalcy. He clarified that tensions escalated following the burning of a photograph, which led to protests and growing unrest.

“A photo was burned, leading to a group gathering and raising concerns. We intervened immediately, and some individuals visited my office to discuss the matter. I assured them that an FIR had already been filed based on the names they provided, and appropriate legal action will follow.”

Dr Singal also provided details regarding the extent of the violence, noting that the incident unfolded between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. While stone pelting and arson took place, he stated that the damage was not as widespread as initially reported.

“The destruction is relatively limited—so far, two vehicles have been set on fire. We are continuing to assess the full extent of the damage. Combing operations are underway to identify and arrest those responsible.”

To prevent further disturbances, Section 163 of the BNS, which prohibits gatherings of four or more people, has been imposed in the affected area. The Police Commissioner urged people to avoid unnecessary outings and refrain from taking the law into their own hands.

“We strongly advise citizens not to step out unless necessary and to refrain from spreading or acting upon false information. Other parts of Nagpur remain peaceful, with only the affected area under heightened security.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Archit Chandak attributed the unrest to miscommunication and misinformation, confirming that the situation was now under control. He reassured the public that security measures had been strengthened to prevent any further escalation.

“We have deployed a strong security presence, and the situation is currently under control. I appeal to everyone to avoid engaging in violence, including stone-pelting.”

During the clashes, several police personnel allegedly sustained injuries, including DCP Chandak himself, who was struck in the leg. Despite this, he reaffirmed the commitment of law enforcement to maintaining order.

“The Fire Brigade was immediately called in to extinguish the fires, and prompt action was taken to disperse the crowds.”

A senior Nagpur Fire Brigade official confirmed that multiple vehicles had been torched, particularly in the Mahal area.

“Two JCBs and several other vehicles have been damaged due to arson. Unfortunately, one of our firefighters sustained injuries while trying to control the fire.”

While the immediate violence has been contained, authorities remain on high alert to prevent any recurrence. However, it has been reported that the VHP further signalled that their agitation could intensify and expand beyond Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, potentially spreading across Marathwada and other districts if their demands were not met. Their statements suggest a widening of communal tensions, raising concerns about further unrest and polarisation in the region.

Speeches prior to the clashes

The communal clashes were preceded by escalating demands for the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb, a call that gained momentum among right-wing Hindu nationalist groups, particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The organisation submitted a memorandum to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, asserting that the tomb symbolised oppression and referencing Aurangzeb’s execution of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and his destruction of Hindu temples. Protests in support of this demand had already taken place in Nagpur and suburban Mumbai, intensifying communal tensions in the state.

BJP MLA and Cabinet Minister Nitesh Rane’s call for Hindutva action: On the eve of the clashes, Maharashtra Minister Nitesh Rane invoked the demolition of the Babri Masjid, calling upon Hindutva groups to take matters into their own hands while assuring that the government would fulfil its role. Speaking at Shivneri Fort in Pune district on the occasion of Shivaji Maharaj’s birth anniversary, Rane made his position clear:

“The government will do its part while Hindutva outfits must do theirs. When Babri Masjid was being demolished, we did not sit and talk to each other. Our karsevaks did what was appropriate.”

His statements came as the VHP staged protests at government offices across Maharashtra, demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb and warning that if the government failed to act, they would march to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district and demolish the grave themselves.

Rane further sought to reshape historical narratives, denouncing any portrayal of Shivaji Maharaj as a secular king.

“We must continuously emphasise that Shivaji Maharaj was the founder of Hindvi Swarajya. This identity must be reiterated repeatedly so that the attempts of certain groups to portray him as a secular king can be thwarted by true devotees of Shivaji Maharaj,” he declared.

He insisted that Shivaji Maharaj’s army never included Muslim soldiers, claiming that the British themselves had recognised him as a “Hindu General.” Rane referred to historical documents that allegedly portrayed the Maratha ruler’s conflict with the Adil Shah dynasty as a religious battle, stating that “the spread of Islam was hindered during Shivaji Maharaj’s reign.”

He also referenced the film Chhaava, which depicts the torture and execution of Sambhaji Maharaj by Aurangzeb, using it to reinforce his narrative that the conflict was driven by religion.

“Aurangzeb demanded that Sambhaji Maharaj convert to Islam. Those who argue that their battle was not against Islam, how do they explain this? If it wasn’t a fight for religion, then what kind of war was it?” he asked.

Rane concluded with a veiled call to action, stating, “This is a significant day. As a minister, I have limitations on how much I can openly say, but you all know my views. Today, I am a minister, tomorrow I may not be, but until my last breath, I will remain a Hindu.”

Statements by CM Devendra Fadnavis and other BJP leaders: Earlier on the day of the clashes, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, while inaugurating a temple dedicated to Shivaji Maharaj in Bhiwandi, reiterated that the government would protect Aurangzeb’s grave but would not allow its “glorification.”

“It is unfortunate that we have to protect Aurangzeb’s grave since it was declared a protected site by the ASI 50 years ago. Aurangzeb killed thousands of our people, but we have to protect his grave,” he said in response to calls for its removal.

In Pune, right-wing groups gathered outside the district collector’s office, raising slogans and submitting a memorandum addressed to Fadnavis, insisting that the tomb should be removed as it was a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

The issue gained further traction when Fadnavis, on March 15, 2025, explicitly stated that he and his party believed that Aurangzeb’s grave should be removed from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, formerly Aurangabad. However, he acknowledged that since it was a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), any action must be taken in accordance with the law.

Fadnavis’ remarks were in response to BJP MP Udayanraje Bhosale’s demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s grave in Khuldabad. Bhosale, a descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, had openly called for its destruction. “What is the need for the tomb? Bring in a JCB machine and raze it down. Aurangzeb was a thief and a looter,” he declared. His statement followed a heated debate sparked by Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, who had earlier defended Aurangzeb as a “good administrator,” dismissing claims that he forcefully converted Hindus. Azmi’s comments led to his suspension from the state assembly for the remainder of the budget session.

BJP MLA T. Raja Singh’s open call to violence: The communal atmosphere further deteriorated when Telangana BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, speaking at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Pune, tore a picture of Aurangzeb and called for violence against his admirers.

“The way I tore this poster, you should tear up those Aurangzeb lovers. We won’t stop; we will create history,” he declared.

He directly incited violence, stating, “Just like we broke Babri, now we will erase Aurangzeb’s tomb. We are ready to do this; we are ready to get our heads chopped and chop the heads of those terrorists.” He continued, “We are not scared to kill our enemies.”

Singh asserted that all Indians wanted Aurangzeb’s grave demolished and framed his demand within the broader goal of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. Though facing several criminal charges including in Maharashtra, this elected representative has not been once arrested in Maharashtra.

“I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra and fight a war for that. I want to create ‘Hindu Veers’ (militias) and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb. I don’t care if the BJP expels me for this. A bulldozer needs to be used on that tomb.”

Deputy CM Eknath Shinde’s Remarks on ‘Traitors’: Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, speaking at an event commemorating ‘Shiv Jayanti’ in Thane district, described those who continued to praise Aurangzeb as “traitors.”

“Aurangzeb came to seize Maharashtra, but he faced the divine power of Shivaji Maharaj. Those who still sing his praises are nothing but traitors,” he declared.

Shinde contrasted Aurangzeb’s “oppression” with Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy, portraying him as a “divine force” who symbolised bravery, sacrifice, and Hindutva. He stated, “Shiv Chhatrapati is the pride of a united India and the roar of Hindutva. Shivaji Maharaj was a visionary leader, a man of the era, a promoter of justice, and a king of the commoners.”

The climate of hostility and mistrust: These speeches, delivered in the weeks and days leading up to the clashes, fostered an environment of mistrust, communal polarisation, and incitement to violence. By framing the issue of Aurangzeb’s tomb as a direct affront to Hindu pride and linking it to historical grievances, political leaders and right-wing groups stoked tensions, encouraging hostility and, in some cases, explicitly calling for extra-legal action. The convergence of these narratives created a volatile atmosphere where communal violence became not just a possibility but an almost inevitable outcome.

Understanding the Nagpur communal clash through the “Pyramid of Hate”

The communal clash in Nagpur unfolded through a series of events—beginning with a movie distorting history followed by hate speeches promoting the historical distortion and giving it a communal angle, a planned protest, rumour-mongering, and culminating in violent clashes. This progression aligns with the “Pyramid of Hate”, which explains how intolerance grows in society, starting from implicit biases and eventually leading to violent consequences.

The Pyramid of Hate teaches us that violence is never sudden—it is a process often occurring after a systemic build-up. The Nagpur incident demonstrates how communal intolerance spreads step by step, from biased portrayals in media to unchecked hate speech, discriminatory institutional responses, and eventual clashes. To prevent such violence, it is crucial to intervene early in the pyramid—countering hate speech, debunking misinformation, and ensuring impartial law enforcement. Hate must be confronted at its roots—before it manifests in bloodshed.

  1. Biased Attitudes: The role of media and stereotyping

At the foundation of the Pyramid of Hate lie biased attitudes, which include stereotyping, micro aggressions, and unchecked prejudices. In this case, the movie “Chhaava” triggered the controversy of the fight between Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj to be about the fight between two people of different faith, wherein Aurangzeb tortured the Maratha ruler because he refused to convert to Islam, the said movie, with its violent representation, allegedly contained misrepresentations or one-sided portrayals of the Mughal ruler, which was then used to reinforce existing biases against Muslims. Films have historically, and more often recently, played a role in shaping public perception, and when a narrative demonises a group, it provides fertile ground for hateful ideologies to take root. This leads people to see the “other” as inherently different or dangerous, setting the stage for further hostility.

  1. Acts of Prejudice: Hate speeches and protest

As biased attitudes become more socially acceptable, they manifest in acts of prejudice, which include hate speech, social exclusion, and dehumanisation. In the Nagpur incident, hate speeches followed the release of the film, with individuals and organisations openly expressing hostility toward Muslims, deeming them to be followers of Aurangzeb and “traitors”. These speeches did not occur in isolation; they were meant to provoke reactions and mobilise groups around a shared sense of grievance.

The subsequent protest further escalated tensions. While protest itself is a legitimate form of expression, it often turns into a platform for inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the demonstration was not just about dissent; it became a catalyst for heightened communal sentiments, reinforcing the idea that one group was under threat from another.

  1. Discrimination: Institutional neglect and selective action

Hate does not spread in a vacuum; it requires institutional tolerance. Discrimination, the third stage of the Pyramid, involves systemic inequities in policies and enforcement. In many instances of communal conflict in India, law enforcement is accused of being slow to act or biased in its response. If authorities fail to curb hate speech, misinformation, or mob violence, it signals tacit approval of discrimination.

In Nagpur, the law enforcement allowed the hate speeches and protests to go unchecked in case of BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, it contributed to the escalation. Additionally, with the State CM and Deputy CM also echoing the same divisive sentiment by indulging in inflammatory diatribe against Aurangzeb and his tome, other influential leaders also got the leeway to make offensive statements. Failure to counter false narratives spread through rumour-mongering further alienated communities and deepened mistrust. This selective action—or inaction—allowed prejudice to turn into active hostility.

  1. Bias-Motivated Violence: The clashes

As tensions continued to rise, the situation eventually escalated into violent clashes. This stage of the Pyramid—bias-motivated violence—includes assaults, arson, and attacks on property or individuals based on identity. At this stage, hate is no longer just a belief or rhetoric; it translates into direct harm.

The violence in Nagpur was not spontaneous; it was the culmination of escalating intolerance. The clash was a symptom of the deep-seated communal divisions that had been nurtured through earlier stages. When rumours spread unchecked and violence is justified in the name of retaliation, the possibility of a full-scale riot increases.

  1. Genocide: The extreme end of the Pyramid

At the very top of the Pyramid lies genocide—the systematic destruction of a group. While the Nagpur clash did not reach this extreme, history shows that unchecked hate can escalate to large-scale atrocities. Incidents like the 2002 Gujarat riots, the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, and the 2020 Delhi riots all followed a similar trajectory, beginning with hate speech and rumours before descending into mass violence.

CM Fadnavis and Union Minister Gadkari appeal for calm

In the wake of communal violence in Nagpur, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari have urged residents to remain calm and not be swayed by misinformation. Highlighting Nagpur’s legacy as a city known for communal harmony, Fadnavis called upon citizens to support law enforcement efforts and refrain from spreading or acting on rumours.

“Nagpur has always been a symbol of peaceful coexistence. I appeal to all residents not to fall for false information and to cooperate with the police in maintaining order.”

Union Minister and Nagpur MP Nitin Gadkari echoed similar concerns, attributing the unrest to rumour-mongering. Stressing the importance of upholding the city’s tradition of peace, he appealed for restraint.

“Certain rumours have created a situation of religious tension in Nagpur. However, our city has always demonstrated unity in such circumstances. I urge everyone not to believe or spread misinformation and to ensure peace prevails.”

Criticism of the state government’s handling of Nagpur violence

While the administration sought to de-escalate tensions, the Maharashtra government faced sharp criticism from the opposition over its handling of the situation. Shiv Sena (UBT) spokesperson Anand Dubey held the government responsible for its failure to prevent the violence, pointing to a collapse in law and order. Expressing deep concern, he remarked,

“Maintaining law and order is the fundamental duty of any state government. The violence in Nagpur is highly regrettable—vehicles have been torched, stones have been thrown, and the situation has spiralled out of control. This is a city where people of all communities have historically lived in peace. The government has clearly failed to foster unity and prevent such unrest.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray took to X, stating, “The law and order of the state has collapsed like never before. Nagpur, the home city of the CM and Home Minister, is facing this.” His remarks underscored the irony of unrest unfolding in the stronghold of Maharashtra’s Chief Minister and Home Minister.

Supriya Sule, Lok Sabha MP from the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), also condemned the violence, calling it unfortunate. She urged citizens to “not believe in any rumours” and appealed for mutual harmony, reminding people that Maharashtra has always been a land of progressive ideas.

Congress leader Pawan Khera pointed out that Nagpur has not witnessed riots in 300 years, suggesting that recent events were a deliberate attempt to stoke historical divisions for political gains. “Over the last several days, attempts were being made to weaponise 300-year-old history and use it now to create divisions, distractions, and unrest. These clashes expose the real face of the ideology of the ruling regime—both at the Centre and in the state,” he stated.

Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Assembly, Congress MLA Vijay Waddetiwar, went a step further, alleging that the violence was “government-sponsored”. He demanded a ban on Telangana BJP leader T Raja in Maharashtra, accusing him of instigating communal tensions. He also questioned why the BJP government, despite being in power both at the state and central levels, was protesting over the Aurangzeb issue instead of governing effectively.

Similarly, Ambadas Danve, Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, blamed CM Devendra Fadnavis and his government for the unrest, asserting that the BJP was deliberately fuelling communal disharmony in the state.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi also slammed the ruling party, warning that the Maharashtra government was “ruining the state for political opportunism and leading it towards a violent implosion.” She pointed out that the violence occurred in Nagpur, the constituency of both the Chief Minister and the Home Minister, making their failure to control the situation even more glaring.

The opposition’s critique highlights growing concerns over state-sponsored communal polarisation, the failure of law enforcement, and political machinations aimed at deepening religious divides in Maharashtra.

 

Related:

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

 

The post How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state https://sabrangindia.in/surviving-communal-wrath-women-who-have-defied-the-silence-demanded-accountability-from-the-state/ Sat, 08 Mar 2025 03:49:14 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40442 On Women’s Day 2025, March 8, we honour the survivors who became warriors - documenting atrocities, challenging power, and demanding justice in the face of unspeakable brutalities

The post Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On International Women’s Day, March 8, while the world celebrates achievements in gender equality, it is equally important to honour the women whose courage and resistance have shaped the struggle for justice in the face of systemic oppression. These are women who, despite being victims of unspeakable brutality, refused to be silenced. They bore witness chroniclers, and were the seekers of justice after independent India’s most horrific communal conflicts. From the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984, the Gujarat genocidal carnage of 2002 to the Delhi violence of 2020, women have not only endured the worst forms of gendered violence but have also led the battle to document the truth and hold perpetrators accountable.

Their testimonies have been crucial in exposing state complicity, resisting the erasure of history, and demanding accountability. Yet, their pursuit of justice has been met with intimidation, legal obstruction, and, in some cases, criminalisation. Across these three instances, a grim pattern emerges: the deliberate targeting of women, the systemic failure of institutions meant to protect them, and the extraordinary resilience with which they have fought back.

1984 anti-Sikh pogrom: Survivors bore became the voice of the battle for justice

The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 resulted in the targeted killings of close to 3,000 Sikh men in Delhi alone though the all-India figures are higher. The targeted violence left behind a generation of widows who not only survived brutal gendered violence at the time, but also bore the burden of documenting the atrocities and seeking justice for over three decades. These women, who were often left to fend for themselves by a cruel state apparatus, after witnessing the murders of their male relatives, rose out of the tragedy to become among the strongest voices to reclaim memory and assert the cries for justice. It was their collective voice that ensured that the history of the massacres was not erased. Their testimonies and persistent legal battles formed the backbone of efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots had to overcome the dual trauma of sexual violence and the loss of their families. Many were raped in front of their own children, while others were kidnapped and tortured for days. Their homes were looted and burned, leaving them homeless and destitute. The legal system and government, rather than offering justice, attempted to silence them through intimidation and bureaucratic neglect. Yet, these women refused to let the world forget what had happened.

Women like Nirpreet Kaur, who was 16 when she witnessed her father being burned alive, dedicated their lives to collecting evidence, documenting survivor testimonies, and ensuring that cases against the perpetrators remained alive. Kaur, despite facing police torture, years of imprisonment under false charges, and the loss of two husbands, continued to fight for justice. She meticulously gathered witness statements, encouraged other widows to testify, and resisted repeated offers of bribes and compensation meant to buy her silence.

Similarly, many widows who had lost their husbands and sons stood as the primary eyewitnesses in court. Their testimonies were critical in exposing the involvement of political leaders who had orchestrated the violence. Women who had lost everything, such as Pappi Kaur, who saw 11 of her male relatives burned alive, and Bhaagi Kaur, who was left to raise her children in abject poverty, took the stand despite threats and intimidation. Their courage ensured that the narratives of rape, murder, and destruction remained central to the legal battle.

The state machinery worked relentlessly to suppress the voices of Sikh women. Many were offered financial compensation to withdraw their cases, while others faced direct threats to their lives and families. Witness protection was virtually non-existent, with police officers themselves leaking information to the accused. In one instance, police allegedly warned a witness that her children would be killed if she continued to testify.

Despite these threats, Sikh women continued to push for legal accountability. They filed affidavits, attended court hearings, and worked with human rights lawyers to challenge the impunity granted to perpetrators. Their efforts led to the reopening of cases, the formation of commissions, and, after decades of struggle, the eventual conviction of senior politicians such as Sajjan Kumar in 2018.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Sikh pogrom

The testimonies of Sikh women were instrumental in revealing the premeditated nature of the violence. Unlike the state’s claim that the riots were spontaneous, these women detailed how mobs were armed with chemicals, iron rods, and torches; how police officers either stood by or actively participated; and how political leaders directed the killings. Their statements also underscored the targeted sexual violence inflicted on Sikh women as a means of communal humiliation.

At the time, after the mob set Darshan Kaur’s husband ablaze, she gathered her three children, the youngest just 15 days old, and ran. In the frenzy, the baby slipped from 19-year-old Darshan’s hands. But there was no time to stop. For the next three days, she and the remaining two children ran from the police station to gurudwara searching for a safe place. Yet she has not given up and remains the haunting yet strong figure for justice for the survivors of 1984.

The fight for justice was long and arduous. It took 26 years for the trial of Sajjan Kumar to even begin, and even then, convictions came only after relentless pressure from survivors like Nirpreet Kaur. Many Sikh widows, facing extreme poverty, had to make painful choices—some accepted financial compensation in lieu of pursuing legal battles, while others withdrew their cases due to fear. Yet, those who persisted forced the legal system to reckon with the atrocities committed in 1984.

Some women were denied even dignified rehabilitation. There is Satpal Kaur, 13 years old and the eldest of four girl survivors at the time. Suddenly from living a normal middle-class life, on November 1, 1984 everything changed. Four members of their family, their father, mother, brother and uncle, were killed and only the four sisters were left alive. As the eldest, Satpal Kaur, was 13 and the youngest girl only four years old at the time, and finally it was Advocate HS Phoolka who helped the legal battle for custody of the girls that was given to the grandfather. Another story about 21 widows, all from one family, who lived in the Sagarpur area of West Delhi near the Delhi Cantonment. On November 1, 1984 a resident of the area suggested that the male members of the family should all take shelter in a tube well room located near their house. The men were locked up in the room ostensibly to save their lives but later the mob was informed of their whereabouts. They came and set fire to the room, roasting the men alive. The youngest of these 21 widows, Manjit Kaur, was just 20 years old and had only been married for two years when tragedy struck. She had no children and after this traumatic incident, did not marry again. For the two and a half decades thereafter, she tried to get a government job to no avail.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots not only bore the weight of personal tragedy but also became the torchbearers of justice. Their documentation of crimes, unwavering testimonies, and refusal to be silenced ensured that the massacre was not forgotten. Though justice came late and in fragments, their fight set a precedent for future struggles against state-sponsored violence. Their resilience remains a powerful testament to the strength of survivors who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Gujarat 2002: Testifying against unimaginable horror

The Gujarat riots of 2002 marked one of the darkest chapters of communal violence in India. Amidst the widespread bloodshed, women not only bore the brunt of gendered violence but also led the struggle for accountability, documenting atrocities and seeking justice. These women, many of them victims themselves, stood against systemic apathy and intimidation to ensure that the truth was recorded and the perpetrators were held accountable. Their determination played a crucial role in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, despite efforts to erase or suppress these accounts from official records. In one of its shining moments the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo moto action in Gujarat 2002. The seminal report followed by path-breaking interventions in the Supreme Court of India ensured, in some measure, that other institutions responded with some seriousness.

The gendered violence during the Gujarat riots was unparalleled in its brutality. Women were raped, mutilated, and killed, often in broad daylight; their bodies used as battlegrounds for communal hatred. The systemic nature of these crimes was evident in the way women were specifically targeted, often in public settings, as a means of humiliating the entire community. Survivors, however, refused to let these crimes be erased from history. According to officially admitted records, documented by Citizens for Justice and Peace, 97 women eye-witnesses played a critical role in criminal trials related to the massacres. Despite immense pressure, intimidation, and threats, they deposed before courts, describing the horrifying acts of sexual violence and targeted attacks in explicit detail. State Intelligence Bureau figures admitted to 99 cases of gendered violence though citizen’s efforts put the figure at twice the number.

In cases such as the Naroda Patiya massacre, where over 110 people were killed, and the Gulberg Society massacre, where at least 69 lives were lost, women testified about the gruesome acts of violence they witnessed or endured. These testimonies included accounts of gang rape, public stripping, and the killing of pregnant women and infants. Women described how mobs used iron rods, swords, and petrol bombs to attack them, often displaying a sadistic violent brutality in each of the attacks. The testimonies highlighted the premeditated nature of the mob violence as also the utter complicity of the state, from local police to other authorities.

The struggle to document sexual violence was particularly difficult, as official records often downplayed or omitted these accounts. Women survivors and activists persisted, ensuring that evidence of rape and brutalisation was included in legal proceedings and public records. Forensic reports were often manipulated or withheld, and in many cases, there was an absence of medical documentation due to the fear instilled in victims and their families. Despite these hurdles, women continued to speak out, determined to create a historical record that could not be erased.

Women who stepped forward to testify faced relentless harassment. Many were forced to relocate multiple times due to threats from the accused and their supporters. In some cases, male relatives were pressured to withdraw cases or dissuade women from testifying. Police officers and local authorities often refused to file FIRs or conducted deliberately flawed investigations, further victimising survivors. Women were denied legal representation, forced to relive their trauma in hostile courtrooms, and subjected to humiliating questioning by defence lawyers who sought to discredit their accounts.

Among those who played a pivotal role in this documentation were women like Bilkis Bano and Zakia Jafri, who recently passed away. As survivors, they turned their personal tragedies into a relentless pursuit of justice, ensuring that accounts of gendered violence were not buried under political pressure. Bilkis Bano’s testimony became instrumental in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, as she recounted how she was gang-raped while her family members, including her infant daughter, were murdered. Zakia Jafri, despite losing her husband, former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, in the Gulberg Society massacre, fought for years to hold state officials accountable for their complicity in the violence. Their struggles, alongside those of many other unnamed women, challenged state complicity and legal apathy, fighting in courts for years to establish the truth. CJP was among the leading groups that persisted over two decades with legal aid for survivors like Zakia Jafri, Rupa Mody, Saira Sandhi (Gulberg case), Bashirabi and others (Sardarpura case) and Farida bano, Shakila Bano and others in the Naroda Patiya case.

Despite multiple attempts to derail these cases, the persistence of women survivors led to rare convictions in some instances. The Supreme Court eventually intervened to move key cases, including the Best Bakery case, outside Gujarat due to concerns over bias and threats to witnesses. This was a direct result of the relentless efforts of women who refused to back down despite knowing the risks involved.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Gujarat riots

The documentation of violence by women played a crucial role in countering the official narrative that sought to dismiss or minimise the scale of gendered atrocities. In many cases, the state machinery attempted to frame the violence as spontaneous riots rather than a coordinated attack. Women’s testimonies dismantled this argument by providing detailed accounts of how mobs were armed, how attacks were systematically carried out, and how law enforcement agencies either stood by or actively participated in the violence.

The legal battle that followed the riots was long and fraught with challenges. The initial investigations were deliberately botched, with crucial evidence being destroyed or tampered with. Public prosecutors appointed by the state were often affiliated with the ruling party and acted in ways that favoured the accused. Women survivors, however, continued to file petitions, demand re-investigations, and push for special hearings. Their relentless legal advocacy forced the courts to acknowledge the specific targeting of women during the riots and set legal precedents for future cases of communal violence.

One of the most significant impacts of women’s documentation efforts was the recognition of sexual violence as a weapon of communal conflict. Their testimonies became part of a larger movement that called for reforms in how gender-based violence was prosecuted in mass crimes. Women’s organisations, both within and outside Gujarat, used these testimonies to demand accountability at national and international levels, submitting reports to bodies such as the United Nations and the Supreme Court.

The Gujarat riots of 2002 showcased the brutalisation of women, but they also highlighted their resilience. In the face of unspeakable horrors, women survivors fought relentlessly, not just for their own justice but for a historical record that would not allow their suffering to be forgotten. Their testimonies and legal battles remain a testament to the power of resistance, ensuring that gendered violence in communal conflicts does not fade into obscurity. The documentation of these crimes by women survivors forced India’s legal system to confront the role of sexual violence in communal conflicts and laid the groundwork for future legal battles. Their fight continues to inspire generations to confront hate with courage and demand accountability, even against the most formidable adversaries.

Delhi 2020: The weaponisation of the state against women

The communal violence that unfolded in northeast Delhi between February 23 and 26, 2020, was not a spontaneous riot but an orchestrated attack. The violence, which resulted in the deaths of 53 people—40 of them Muslim—was a brutal response to the anti-CAA protests that had mobilised thousands across the country, led significantly by Muslim women. While the state and the media sought to rewrite the narrative, blaming protestors for the violence, women who had witnessed and experienced the attacks fought to document the truth and seek justice. Unlike past instances of communal violence, where survivors slowly found avenues for legal battles, the women of the Delhi riots faced an unprecedented challenge: criminalisation, incarceration, and continued suppression by the state.

The anti-CAA protests, particularly the Shaheen Bagh movement, symbolised peaceful resistance led by Muslim women. However, these women soon became targets. In Jaffrabad, one of the protest sites, women were on the frontlines, protesting discriminatory citizenship laws when mobs, emboldened by political leaders’ inflammatory speeches, launched targeted attacks. Homes and shops were torched, mosques vandalised, and people lynched. Women who led protests, like Ishrat Jahan, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Safoora Zargar, and Gulfisha Fatima were arrested under draconian laws, accused of conspiring to incite the violence they had, in reality, been victims of.

Unlike previous instances of communal violence, where women fought prolonged legal battles for justice, in Delhi, they were pre-emptively branded as conspirators and jailed. Gulfisha Fatima, an MBA graduate and grassroots activist, was arrested under FIR 48, initially granted bail, only to be re-arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), ensuring her prolonged incarceration. To date, she remains in jail, a stark reminder of how the state weaponised the legal system against Muslim women who dared to resist. Gulfisha remains under arrest as an undertrial, without bail to date, five years later.

Similarly, Safoora Zargar, arrested while pregnant, was accused of being a key conspirator despite a lack of evidence. Ishrat Jahan, a former municipal councillor, was denied bail for years, and when granted, it was seen as an exception rather than a norm. Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, founding members of Pinjra Tod, were arrested and re-arrested on multiple charges, illustrating the state’s relentless pursuit of women activists.

Even those who weren’t arrested faced systemic suppression. Police dismissed the testimonies of women who had lost family members and refused to investigate cases that implicated Hindutva extremists. In courts, victims found their cases delayed indefinitely, while those accused of instigating the riots walked free. The judiciary, instead of upholding justice, repeatedly sided with the state’s narrative, making it nearly impossible for Muslim women to seek legal redress.

The importance of women’s testimonies in countering false narratives

The role of women in documenting the 2020 Delhi riots goes beyond legal battles—it is about preserving the truth against deliberate erasure. The mainstream narrative continues to blame Muslim activists for the violence, while the actual instigators remain shielded by the state. The testimonies, photographs, and first-hand accounts collected by women protestors and survivors challenge this state-sponsored narrative and ensure that the history of these attacks is not rewritten.

In contrast to past instances of communal violence, where survivors eventually found some measure of justice after decades of struggle, the women of the Delhi riots face an ongoing battle where justice remains entirely out of reach. With Gulfisha Fatima still in jail after four years and many others continuing to fight baseless charges, their struggle is far from over. Their resistance, however, ensures that their stories remain alive, refusing to let the truth be buried under propaganda and state repression.

The women of the 2020 Delhi riots fought not just against targeted violence but against a state determined to criminalise their very existence. Their documentation of the attacks, their refusal to remain silent, and their continued struggle for justice in the face of legal persecution exemplify resilience. In a system that punishes those who seek accountability, their fight is one for survival, memory, and truth. Their resistance stands as a testament to the unyielding spirit of women who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Women and their unyielding fight for truth

Women who have fought for justice in the aftermath of communal violence in India have done so against overwhelming odds. They have defied a state machinery that actively seeks to erase their suffering, a legal system designed to delay and deny, and a society that too often treats them as collateral damage. Their fight has not only been about personal justice but about exposing the larger structures of power that enable such violence.

Despite decades of struggle, justice remains a distant dream. In Gujarat, where a handful of convictions took place, the state machinery ensured that most perpetrators walked free. In 1984, justice came too late for many survivors, with key political figures being convicted only after decades of relentless legal battles. And in Delhi, justice is yet to arrive—Muslim women who dared to protest against discriminatory laws remain imprisoned while the instigators of violence roam free.

The stories of these women force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: the state is not merely a bystander in communal violence but an active participant, shielding perpetrators and punishing those who seek accountability. Their resilience in the face of such repression is a testament to their courage. But their continued struggle also serves as an indictment of a system that has failed them at every level. This International Women’s Day, their fight must not only be remembered but actively supported—for justice, for truth, and for the right to resist oppression without fear.

Related:

This women’s day CJP celebrates all women in resistance

The women of CJP: Resilient and resolute in their mission to advocate for the rights of all and counter prejudice

Oh, what a year to be a woman! IWD 2023: CJP lists some advocates who paved the way for women’s rights

Wounds still linger

Remembering 1984

The post Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention https://sabrangindia.in/marked-for-deportation-denied-due-process-ajabha-khatun-among-the-63-facing-detention-in-assam-seeks-supreme-courts-intervention/ Fri, 28 Feb 2025 04:53:51 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40345 Stripped of her rights, detained without proof—Ajabha Khatun’s battle exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process and the urgent need for judicial intervention.

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

]]> On February 25, 2025, Khatun, assisted by the legal aid organisation Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), intervened in the ongoing case of Rajubala Das v. Union of India, seeking her impleadment as a party petitioner and additional directions regarding the constitutional and human rights violations arising from her detention. This intervention follows the February 4, 2025 hearing of the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, which instructed Assam to commence deportation proceedings against individuals declared foreigners, including Khatun, despite the absence of concrete proof of their foreign nationality and addresses.

During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged that Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

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

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

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

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

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

Download PDF

 

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

Why was this impleadment essential?

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

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

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

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key issues in the case

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

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

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

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

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

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

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

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

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

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion and prayer

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

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

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


Related:

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

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

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

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

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

]]> The Debate around Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? https://sabrangindia.in/the-debate-around-section-498a-misuse-or-inappropriate-application/ Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:08:53 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40121 As Section 498A transitions into Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the debate over its misuse and necessity continues - can reforms strike the right balance?

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

]]> Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced in 1983 in response to the alarming rise in domestic violence and dowry-related harassment faced by married women. Recognising the widespread abuse women endured within marriage, the provision sought to offer them a legal remedy against cruelty inflicted by their husbands and in-laws. It was meant to serve as a deterrent, ensuring that perpetrators of domestic violence faced serious legal consequences. However, in the decades since its enactment, Section 498A has become the subject of intense debate, often framed through allegations of ‘misuse’ rather than its ‘necessity as a protective measure’.

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

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

Understanding section 498A and its intent

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

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

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

Use of section 498A

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

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

The real problem: systemic failures, not the law

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

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

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

Recent judgment lamenting “misuse of Section 498A”

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

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

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

Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab (2024)

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

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

Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 498A IPC: Addressing misuse without dilution

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

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

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

Strengthening implementation instead of dilution

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

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

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

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

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

Re-orienting the application of Section 498A

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

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

 

Related:

India’s struggle to end manual scavenging continues

Supreme Court: Calls for legal protections for domestic workers

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

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

Noise Pollution Ban: Unequal standards for diverse practices?

 

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

]]> Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest https://sabrangindia.in/manipur-chief-minister-n-biren-singh-resigns-amid-political-turmoil-and-ethnic-unrest/ Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:20:45 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40059 BJP leader steps down following Supreme Court scrutiny, internal rebellion, and mounting opposition pressure as ethnic tensions continue to grip the state

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

]]> N Biren Singh tendered his resignation as Manipur’s chief minister on Sunday, February 9, bringing an end to his embattled tenure nearly two years after ethnic violence erupted in the state. His resignation followed days of internal dissent within the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) state unit and an impending no-confidence motion in the assembly. Singh submitted his resignation to Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla at Raj Bhavan in Imphal around 5:30 pm, just a day before the scheduled budget session, which was later scrapped. In his resignation letter, Singh expressed gratitude to the union government for its “timely actions, interventions, and developmental work,” while also listing key policy measures, he hoped would continue, including territorial integrity, border security, and counter-narcotics efforts.

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

Supreme Court intervention and allegations of instigating violence

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

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

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

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

Ethnic conflict, polarisation, and Singh’s role

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

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

BJP’s internal rebellion and legislative fallout

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

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

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

Manipur’s uncertain future and lingering security concerns

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

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

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

 

Related:

2024: Peace, a distant dream for Manipur

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

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

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

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

]]>