In its scathing critique, the AIKS has said that the Draft Seeds Bill 2025 is poised to increase the cost of cultivation by allowing corporates to indulge in unchecked pricing of seeds; besides the all-India farmers organisation said that bringing in this law is a move to corporatise India’s seed sector and concede seed sovereignty

Elaborating further, SKM leaders said the draft Seed Bill surrendered the seed sovereignty of India and it was aimed at predatory pricing by the corporate monopolies. They have asked that the Centre should withdraw the Bill. The SKM also warned against “conceding on harmful clauses” in the summit to be held in Lima, Peru from November 24 to 29 on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

Federalism, Federal rights

The campaign pitch to be launched will be all-encompassing. The leaders said the SKM would launch a national campaign with the slogan of “Strong States for Strong India” to safeguard the federal rights of States demanding increase of State share in the divisive pool (including cess and surcharge) from the current 31% to 60%. The SKM would also demand that the Goods and Services Tax Act must be amended to reinstate taxation power of States. “Financial autonomy of the States is necessary to realise minimum support price and minimum wage through augmenting public investment to modernise agriculture, build agro-industries and share the surplus out of processing, value addition and trade on all crops, thus to end agrarian crisis, peasant suicides and distress migration,” the SKM said.

The leaders said November 26, 2025 marked the fifth year of the beginning of the farmers’ struggle on the Delhi borders. “Sacrificing the lives of 736 martyrs, the protracted struggle of 380 days forced the BJP-led NDA union government to repeal the three pro-corporate and anti-people farm laws. Though five years have passed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi just formed a committee, but yet to implement the written assurances on MSP at the rate of C2+50% (as per M.S. Swaminathan Committee report), debt relief and privatisation of electricity given to SKM on December 9, 2021,” they said. The SKM would organise meetings, rallies and conventions to support its demands on November 26.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) in its condemnation of the proposed law has termed it “anti-farmer and part of the larger political project of the RSS-BJP to dispossess the small farmers and surrender India’s seed sovereignty to a handful of multinational and domestic monopolies.”

AIKS has also pointed out in a statement issued by office bearers Ashok Dhawale and Vijoo Krishnan that the RSS-BJP-led NDA government is pushing this extremely pro-corporate bill at a time when the agrarian crisis is deepening in India. Several scientific studies have established that the increasing corporate control on agriculture would intensify the agrarian crisis and farm suicides. The draft Bill has the necessary ingredients to accelerate the squeezing and looting of Indian farmers. For instance, this law would create a conducive atmosphere for monopolies to indulge in an unchecked pricing of seeds.

Besides, expanding its criticism further the AIKS ha stated that any new legislation regarding seeds — such as the draft Seeds Bill 2025 — must actively complement, not conflict with, the progressive legal safeguards already established under the PPVFR (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right) Act 2001, and India’s international commitments under the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and the ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). These national and international commitments collectively uphold national sovereignty over genetic resources and protect indigenous varieties. They thus recognize farmers as breeders, conservers and rightful custodians of biodiversity with guaranteed rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds.

In contrast, the draft Seeds Bill 2025 introduces a heavily centralised (and corporatized) regulatory system that risks weakening farmer-centred protection and diluting India’s legal architecture for biodiversity conservation and farmers’ rights. The draft appears to favour market control and stringent formalization of seed systems, potentially marginalizing indigenous varieties, public institutions and national/international seed networks. To be precise, the new draft of the Seeds Bill 2025 deviates India’s regulatory architecture on seeds substantially away from the provisions of the PPVFR Act 2001 and actively shifts the balance in the seed sector in favour of big corporate players.

The weeks and months ahead are likely to see campaigns and agitations against this draft law build up nationally.

Related:

Protest decision of Union Government to Scrap 11% Import Duty on Raw Cotton: AIKS

Unseasonal Rains: Over 80 Dead, Huge Damage to Crops, Orchards; AIKS Demands Ex-Gratia

AIKS, Karshaka Sangham and rubber farmers take on tyre cartel; file Intervention Application (IA) in Supreme Court

The post Draft Seeds Bill must be withdrawn: SKM, AIKS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Going further it reminds the public of how, in the recent past, Rahul Gandhi of the Congress provided evidence-based public exposures of deficiencies and manipulations of the electoral rolls in previous elections in Maharashtra, Karnataka and then in Haryana. This clearly required that the ECI make itself publicly accountable to explaining these discrepancies and otherwise investigate to identify the circumstances in which such frauds took place. As an independent body, it is the ECI’s responsibility to do so and certainly not that of the Central or state governments.

However, the ECI, currently headed by Gyanesh Kumar, has simply dismissed all these exposures, in effect refusing to make the ECI accountable, as it should and must be, to the Indian public. Even a former Election Commissioner, Ashok Lavasa, has criticised the current ECI on this count. No surprise then that there is the very widespread view that precisely such electoral manipulation has played a major role in determining the outcome of the Bihar assembly polls. Moreover, the ECI has failed at another level also. It has ignored a blatant violation by the Modi-led NDA of the Model Code of Conduct for parties during elections.

Towards the end of September, Modi launched a state government scheme to make bank transfers of Rs. 10,000 to women to start self-employment ventures with one instalment transferred on the date elections were announced and others made during the election process itself! More than a crore of women in different households benefitted from this. The total voter turnout, male and female, was a little over 5 crores. Previous such pre-poll cash handouts by governments have been halted by the ECI but not this time in Bihar.

This lure to women voters turned out to be particularly important for Nitish Kumar and the JD (U). The female voter turnout at around 72% was almost 10% higher than the male voter turnout and was a key factor in raising the JD (U) vote share by 4% from the last assembly elections in 2020 and enabling a seat tally increase of 42 seats to 85 in all. The BJP had roughly the same vote share at around 20% as in 2020 but increased its seat tally this time by 50 to 89 in all. Among the NDA’s other partners, the new Chirag Paswan led party the LJP, with its vote base among Dalits, got a vote share of around 4% and 19 seats. The Congress with double the LJP’s vote share dropped 13 seats from 2020 to achieve only 6 this time. The RJD got the same vote share as in the last assembly election of 23%, higher than any other party did. However, it’s seat tally dropped by 50 from 75 to 25 this time. The CPI(ML)-Liberation fell from 12 seats to 2.

Finally the statement asks, what then are the lessons to be drawn from all this? First, that in all likelihood there was significant manipulation of rolls favouring the NDA. Second, voters faced with promises of jobs and freebies of all kinds will prefer to have a bird in hand than two in the bush, i.e., a state party backed by the Central government that has already delivered a handout and is in a better position to give more, will definitely have the edge. Third, all parties share a consensus that SC Reservations must be preserved even as it may be extended to other sections. So why should Dalits prefer opposition parties to the BJP and its political allies. The material problems of lower castes remain but a small and rising Dalit elite that provides leadership is attracted to where power already lies. Moreover, in lieu of serious material improvement, the Sangh’s Hindutva ideology offers a form of cultural compensation to lower castes in recognising them and their religious deities and practices as part of a wider Hindu fold that is being seen as the natural heir of Indian-Hindu nationalism. Fourth, the Mahagathbandan (MGB) whether in Bihar or elsewhere pursues a soft Hindutva, does not directly challenge the BJP’s Islamophobia and itself reduces the number of Muslim candidates put up.

So, says the statement, it should not be surprising that in Seemanchal, where there is a higher concentration of Muslim voters, they would have preferred Owaisi’s AIMIM than to, say, the Congress. This is disturbing because it enhances religious polarisation. However, this can only change if supposedly secular parties are prepared to act in a genuinely secular manner. Fifth, apart from anti-BJPism, what does the MGB have in common? There is not and cannot be any genuine programmatic unity since apart from the Congress and the Left, the other regional parties do not have any Pan-India, let alone any international, vision or perspective.

Sixth, always a factor in the importance of cadre-based capacity of the RSS and its affiliates to entrench themselves within the pores of civil society as a matter of daily routine and not just for the purposes of periodic mass mobilisation which of course is also greatly facilitated by having this cadre base. The lesson here is for the Left and not for the other opposition parties that do not possess an ideologically committed and disciplined cadre base but have activists as part of more traditional patron-client linkages and networks that can also more easily shift their political loyalties. The Indian parliamentary left has a cadre base but one that is much smaller and more ideologically uncertain than in the past. Even for it to achieve electoral successes, the extra-electoral terrain is where the forces of the Sangh must be confronted through sustained struggles on various fronts.

Building a newer left that is internally more democratic and that sheds the shibboleths of Stalinism and Maoism for its cadres, is vital. Such a broader united front of the Left must not be sectarian within, and it must prioritise linkages with progressive movements of all kinds that continue to exist in our continental-sized country rather than with opposition bourgeois parliamentary parties. The latter are not capable of, and will never move in the direction of forging an anti-capitalist, truly democratic and deeply egalitarian society. This should be the goal of such a Left united front that is allied with a range of progressive movements. Forging a programme and practice of left populism as an intermediate stage in pursuit of that much longer-term goal is our shorter-term need.

The statement was released today.

Related:

Civil society warns, Election Commission is “Undermining Democracy”

From Welfare to Expulsion: Bihar’s MCC period rhetoric turns citizenship into a campaign weapon

Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire

The post Radical socialist statement on Bihar Election results appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the heart of the controversy is the Special Intensive Revision –SIR — a revised method of updating electoral rolls first deployed in Bihar, suddenly since June 2025. In a sharply worded joint statement, activists allege that SIR is not an administrative exercise but a tool that has disenfranchised lakhs of legitimate voters, fundamentally altering electoral outcomes. Political Economist and husband of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman, Mr Parkala Prabhakar said speaking to TNIE said, `The SIR process “bears no resemblance” to the voter-roll revision system introduced in 2003. This statement by these NGOs from across the nation points out that additions and deletions were made to the voter list with “focused intent,” possibly manipulation engineered to benefit ruling-party candidates.” In a rare show of solidarity with state-level grievances, the groups declared, “We stand with the People of Bihar in rejecting the election results.”

Earlier in August 2025, the Vote for Democracy had released its preliminary analysis of discrepancies in the Bihar SIR. This may be viewed below.

This time, these groups have also directed criticism at Opposition parties, accusing them of participating in elections conducted under the SIR framework even as they protested against it. The statement argues that by doing so, Opposition parties have inadvertently lent credibility to what the groups call a “fraudulently elected government.” It further notes that despite large-scale mobilisation during movements such as the Voter Adhikar Yatra, the Opposition has failed to build durable alliances with grassroots civil society networks. The Election Commission has come under its most severe civil society criticism in recent years. The statement accuses the Commission of: firstly, “disregarding its constitutional mandate,” secondly, becoming “an assaulter, not a protector, of electoral integrity,” and thirdly of “losing its legitimacy under its current leadership.”

The signatories pledged to push for a non-partisan and transparent Commission, indicating that an organised campaign may be in the works. Civil society groups have warned that the SIR process is now slated for rollout in 12 more states, raising fears of further large-scale voter disenfranchisement. Their slogan — “No rightful voter left behind” — is emerging as a rallying point for activists preparing for legal, political and public mobilisation.

The statement has drawn support from a broad cross-section of society, including retired judges, senior civil servants, economists, farmers’ organisations, teachers’ groups, technologists, Jesuit institutions, artists and student networks. Prominent signatories include: Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (Retd., Supreme Court), Devasahayam M.G. (Retd. IAS), Dr Parakala Prabhakar, Political Economist, Tushar Gandhi, Activist, Meena Gupta (Retd. IAS), Thomas Franco, Voters Rights Movement, Justice Shankar K.G.,K. Ramachandra Murthy, Former Editor, Their combined presence signals an emerging nationwide civil society front preparing to challenge the SIR’s expansion. Senior IAS retired MG Devasahayam speaking to TNIE said, “How can we call this Bihar election fair by any stretch of imagination.”

As the ECI fends off unprecedented scrutiny, the Opposition faces questions about its strategy, and civil society groups mount coordinated pressure campaigns, India appears headed for a high-stakes confrontation over electoral integrity. The statement ends with a stark warning — and a pledge:

Related:

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

Vote for Democracy: Statistical, legal and procedural irregularities dot Bihar’s controversial SIR process

The post Civil society warns, Election Commission is “Undermining Democracy” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioner Masoom Raza, practicing advocate in Bihar, told the Sabrang India that the scheme as an “arbitrary sanction and timed execution” of a 2,500 Crore fund aimed at 25 lakh women beneficiaries. The petitioner further said that this action is not a “legitimate welfare measure” but a “calculated exercise in electoral inducement” designed to “destroy the ‘level playing field'” for the election.

The petition names the State of Bihar, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, the Department of Rural Development, and the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (JEEVIKA) as respondents.

What is the scheme and why is it being challenged?

The PIL provides a detailed timeline to support its claims. The MMRY scheme was given Cabinet approval on August 29, 2025, to provide a non-refundable grant of 10,000 rupees to one woman per family for self-employment.

The petitioner’s challenge focuses on the timing of the implementation:

September 20, 2025 – The Rural Development Department (RDD) issued a letter confirming a “high-profile online launch” for the first instalment transfer, scheduled for September 26, 2025, with the presence of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and Chief Minister.

September 29, 2025 – JEEVIKA issued an office order scheduling a “single, massive Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) of 2500 Crore” to 25 lakh beneficiaries on October 3, 2025.

October 6, 2025 – The Election Commission of India announced the schedule for the Bihar Assembly Elections, 2025, bringing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) into “immediate effect”. The MCC, Part VII, Clause (v), prohibits ministers and authorities from sanctioning “grants/payments out of discretionary funds” after elections are announced.

The petition alleges that despite the MCC coming into force on October 6, the state continued to execute the disbursement in a “staggered manner”. The PIL cites a Direct Benefit Transfer timeline, showing that post-MCC fund transfers were initiated on October 17, October 24, and October 31, 2025.

The petition argues this demonstrates a mala fide decision to ensure the financial grant operates as an inducement during the polling phases. It also notes that the same timeline indicates a further disbursement is scheduled for November 7, 2025, necessitating “urgent judicial intervention”.

What are the specific allegations of wrongdoing?

Beyond the timing, the petition also raises serious questions about the scheme’s implementation, alleging it was procedurally flawed and led to corruption.

The PIL argues that the scheme’s guidelines improperly delegate the core executive function of ground-level beneficiary verification to “non-governmental” and “non-statutory” functionaries known as “Community Mobilisers (CMs)”. The petition claims this delegation is arbitrary and ultra vires (an act done without legal authority), creating a fundamental flaw in the scheme’s governance.

This hurried and unchecked process, the petition alleges, has resulted in “widespread illegality and mismanagement,” including demands for bribes for application verification. The petition includes multiple news reports as evidence.

These news reports allege that irregularities and extortion demands have marred the implementation of the scheme across several districts. In Bettiah, four employees were dismissed following complaints of “illegal recovery.” In Jamui’s Chakai block, a “Jeevika Didi” (Community Mobiliser) allegedly demanded 250 rupees to process a form, while in Barhat, similar allegations surfaced of demands ranging from 100 rupees for a form to 2,000 rupees from the 10,000 rupees grant, with an audio clip of a CM allegedly seeking money reportedly going viral.

In Beldaur, women from multiple Self-Help Groups in Sukhaybasa village claimed they were denied benefits after refusing to pay a “nazarana” (offering or bribe) of 1,000 rupees per member to a Jeevika employee.

Prevent the misuse of “money of the taxpayers” and protect the “sacrosanct fundamental right of fair election

The petitioner, states that he has no “personal interest” in the case and is acting in the public interest to prevent the misuse of “money of the taxpayers” and protect the “sacrosanct fundamental right of fair election”.

The PIL prayed High Court to issue several directions:

1. Stop further payments: an order directing the State of Bihar, the RDD, and JEEVIKA to “immediately cease and desist” from all further fund disbursements under the MMRY scheme until the election process is concluded.
2. Enforce the MCC: a direction for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take “prompt, decisive, and mandatory action” against the state for the “egregious breach” of the Model Code of Conduct. The PIL also notes the ECI’s alleged “failure to act” on a formal complaint filed by RJD Leader Shri Manoj Jha on October 31, 2025.
3. Investigate corruption: an order to constitute an “Independent Fact-Finding Committee” to inquire into the scheme’s verification process, the delegation of authority to CMs, and the “widespread allegations of illegal demands, corruption, and bribery”.
4. Demand records: a direction for the state to file a “detailed Compliance Affidavit” providing all original administrative records, including a complete list of beneficiaries sanctioned before the MCC was enforced (October 6, 2025) and a separate list of all beneficiaries who received payments after that date.

Related:

Supreme Court of India – Judgement on Vishakha (PIL) to enforce the fundamental rights of working women

Those in India must act as per its culture: Supreme Court on PIL against religious conversion

Judicial Pushback against Cow Vigilantism: Allahabad HC flags arbitrary FIRs, demands accountability from top officials

The post PIL filed in the Patna High Court, claims the MMR Yojana was used to influence voters by making payments after the MCC was in effect appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The NACEJ has strongly condemned, what it terms as “the abject failure of the Government in systemically addressing the air pollution crisis and the brazen, arbitrary detention of peacefully protesting citizens, students, parents, environmentalists, workers and activists, who are courageously organizing against this public health catastrophe.” The Chief Minister (Rekha Gupta) owes a public apology to the protestors and the people of Delhi for the government’s failure, unjust detentions and use of police force against peaceful citizens. The NACEJ has called for withdrawal of cases registered, if any, against the protestors.

The indiscriminate action by authorities not only violates democratic rights, but also blatantly disregards the dire health emergency faced by millions in Delhi NCR, as air pollution soared to its highest levels in four years, especially following Diwali on October 21, 2025, as confirmed by official monitoring stations. In the backdrop of the severity of the issue, the short-sighted, politicised response of the government will only exacerbate the air pollution crisis further in Delhi NCR. 

The group has also demanded that the Delhi Government, the Union Government and all authorities must immediately, without delay or evasion, recognize the magnitude of this public health emergency and the legitimate outrage of the people of Delhi NCR, instead of treating it as a ‘law and order issue’ or a political blame game. This unchecked governance failure-fuelled has directly led to record-breaking pollution, with hazardous air choking the region and pushing public health to the brink.

Besides, the NACEJ has called all for urgent, transparent, and scientifically accountable actions; not repression and diversion, to protect the lives, rights, and dignity of every Delhi NCR resident. The Government needs to initiate year-round air pollution crisis management, built on long-term policy preparedness and a prioritization of public health and justice. It is high time for political and bureaucratic authorities to address the rightful angst of the people, setting aside political calculations and vested interests.

Despite years of crisis and public outcry, air pollution remains a severe and escalating public health hazard, with Delhi NCR and several other Indian cities suffering the world’s worst air quality. This crisis causes millions of preventable deaths and immense economic losses, while disproportionately impacting poor and marginalized communities, outdoor and informal workers, women, elders, children and those living in congested or industrial areas. Government actions have consistently excluded the most vulnerable, widening environmental injustice.

What is most alarming this year is that, despite clear evidence and expert warnings, the government prioritised appeasement-based political interests over scientific and public health advice, specifically legalizing the sale and use of so-called ‘green’ crackers for Diwali. This move led to rampant illicit use of fireworks, ignoring the Supreme Court’s limited hours order, leading to its weak implementation. The result was record-breaking PM2.5 levels and a dangerous spike in air pollution, with Delhi reporting levels as high as 675 µg/m³ (CPCB data) – the worst in four years.In parallel, non-compliance and apparent fudging of data such as the reported use of water sprinklers near AQI monitors to artificially lower recorded pollution further erode trust and delay meaningful action. The persistent blame games over stubble burning also do not address the reality, especially since, in 2025, its contribution to Delhi’s PM2.5 was notably lower than previous years. Year-round vehicle and industry emissions remain the primary drivers. Delhi’s pollution emergency demonstrates a deeper governance failure where populist politics has been allowed to overshadow public health and science-led environmental policy.

To genuinely address the roots of Delhi’s air pollution emergency, the following immediate and structural measures are essential:

• A time-bound, transparent policy and plan of action to reduce air toxicity and fixing answerability and accountability of all statutory authorities, as per law.

• Pro-active promotion and comprehensive upgrades to Delhi’s public transport as a clear alternative to odd-even private vehicle restrictions. Odd-even schemes are not novel and have demonstrated mixed results, while similar restrictions already exist as part of GRAP. What is urgently needed is a sharp pivot away from political optics and towards policies that truly discourage the daily use of private cars and SUVs by improving public transport and reducing road congestion through measures like congestion pricing.

• Differentiate between public transport modes: A renewed emphasis is needed on both bus and metro infrastructure, as well as the neglected surface rail network, which can provide cleaner, more inclusive mass transit, if upgraded and integrated into a unified transport system.

• Implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes alongside metro enhancements, for high-frequency, accessible public bus services, rather than segregated bus lanes. Upgrading, expanding, and integrating these modes is essential for sharply reducing waiting times and increasing convenience for commuters.

• When calling for tackling vehicular pollution “at source,” new concrete measures are needed: leapfrogging to BS6 fuel and emission norms and promoting EVs are steps already taken. What is needed now is a rapid phase-out and strict control of all non-BS6 diesel vehicles in Delhi NCR, combined with the elimination of diesel fuel subsidies for non-commercial vehicles. Non-BS6 diesels remain a disproportionate source of PM2.5 and PM10 compared to petrol vehicles—despite diesel’s lower price, its use for private transport is now obsolete and counterproductive for clean air.

• Highlight the persistent neglect of Delhi’s extensive surface rail infrastructure. Investments and integration with bus and metro systems are urgently needed to maximize sustainable, mass transit and reduce the reliance on polluting road vehicles.

• Reference existing scientific source apportionment studies (IIT Kanpur 2023, etc.) that establish the root sources and their respective shares – vehicles, dust, construction, waste and industry, so that measures are not misdirected.

• A clearly statement that stubble burning is not a major year-round pollution source. Recent studies confirm its limited, seasonal contribution, while vehicle and industrial emissions remain chronic drivers of Delhi’s poor air quality. Victimising and vilifying farmers while subsidizing or ignoring much larger polluters like the automobile sector is unjust and must be stopped.

• A firmly implemented year-round ban on firecrackers and a credible transition plan for firework-industry workers. WTE incinerator plants, and all unchecked construction and waste burning, must be banned or relocated beyond residential and ecologically sensitive areas, given their toxic emissions. Scientific evidence fully rejects their ‘green’ branding while they continue to drive air toxicity and perpetuate health crises.

• Recognize innovations, but emphasize their futility when major pollution sources, notably ‘green’ WTEs and vehicular fleets, remain inadequately regulated and incentivized.

• Government must set up an effective and permanent mechanism for inputs from and dialogue with environmental, civil-society organizations and collectives.

• Government must release real-time, credible and accessible air-quality data and health advisories in different formats.

• Government must respond to peaceful protest calls with dialogue and not intimidation, threats, detentions and arrests of citizens and activists.

• People at large must reject any political or religious narrative that undermines or delays urgent public health actions in response to environmental emergencies.

In conclusion, the NACEJ has also called for a scientifically informed, health-centred, long-term air quality management framework for Delhi NCR and all Indian cities. This must feature enforceable bans on new WTE plants and place existing WTEs in the Red Category. Year-round prohibition on firecrackers, strict controls on construction and vehicular emissions (with a focus on outdated diesel vehicles), and a fundamental reorientation of urban, transport and industrial policy towards safeguarding public health are equally important. ‘Innovations’ and civil society efforts cannot succeed while major polluters remain unchecked and unaccountable, especially under the guise of ‘green’ solutions.

Addressing air pollution requires an integrated, inter-sectoral, institutional accountability approach rooted in public well-being and aligned with broader environmental, economic, and development goals. India’s future depends on putting public health, social and ecological justice and constitutional rights of all citizens at the very centre of all environmental and urban policymaking.

Signatories to the Statement: NACEJ Members: 

1. Alok Shukla, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Raipur
2. Apoorv Grover, People for Aravallis, New Delhi
3. Dr. Babu Rao, Scientists for People, Telangana
4. Chythenyen Devika Kulasekaran, Centre for Financial Accountability, Selam, Tamil Nadu
5. Disha A Ravi, Fridays for Future India
6. Dr. Gabriele Dietrich, Penn Urimay Iyakkam & NAPM, Madurai, Tamil Nadu
7. John Michael, NACEJ and NAPM Telangana
8. Krithika Dinesh, Legal researcher, NAJAR, Delhi
9. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan and NAPM, Madhya Pradesh
10. Meera Sanghamitra, NACEJ Telangana
11. Neelam Ahluwalia, Founder Member, People for Aravallis, Haryana
12. Nirmala Gowda, Mapping Malnad, Bengaluru
13. Prasad Chacko, Social Worker, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
14. Rajkumar Sinha, Bargi Bandh Visthapit Evam Prabhavit Sangh, Madhya Pradesh
15. Ramnarayan K, Natural History Educator and Independent Ecologist, Uttarakhand
16. Ravi S P, Chalakudypuzha Samrakshana Samithi, Kerala
17. Soumya Dutta, Movement for Advancing Understanding of Sustainability and Mutuality (MAUSAM) & NACEJ, New Delhi
18. Soutrik Goswami, Environmental Researcher and Activist, New Delhi
19. Stella James, Researcher and Independent consultant, Bengaluru, Karnataka
20. Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, NAPM & NACEJ (Pune, Maharashtra)
21. Sumit (For Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective, Himachal Pradesh)
22. Tarini, Independent Filmmaker, Delhi
23. Yash, Environmental Rights Activist, New Delhi

Related:

Catch people’s attention on pollution narrative: “Switching to public transport can lower your heart attack risk by 10%.”

Indian Coal Giants Pushed for Lax Pollution Rules While Ramping Up Operations

Air pollution: Is Delhi heading towards “pollution control” lockdown?

The post Say No to ‘Toxic Governance’: Arrest air pollution, not activists and protesters: NACEJ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The act, discovered on the morning of Saturday, October 25, 2025, was immediately seen as a deliberate communal provocation. Given the charged atmosphere in the state over the “I Love Muhammad” slogan, which had led to widespread police crackdowns in other districts, the incident was treated with extreme seriousness. Local Hindu residents and right-wing organisations were incensed. A formal police complaint (FIR) was swiftly lodged by Gyanendra Singh Chauhan, the All-India Vice President of the Karni Sena.

Based on this complaint, Aligarh police initially registered a case against eight Muslim men from the locality. The men named in the FIR were Mustaqeem, Gul Mohammad, Sulaiman, Sonu, Allahbaksh, Hameed, and Yousuf. After the incident, heavy police forces were deployed to the villages to prevent any outbreak of violence as tensions soared.

However, as investigators, led by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Neeraj Kumar Jadaun, began their work, they noticed inconsistencies. According to a report in The Times of India, the officers observed that the slogans were “misspelled, and all in the same way.” This misspelling was crucial. It did not match the stencilling or lettering style of the “I Love Muhammad” banners and posters that had been seen during protests and processions in other cities, such as Bareilly. This discrepancy led investigators to suspect “mischief” and the possibility of a different motive.

Police investigation

Police teams pivoted their investigation. Shifting from the assumption of a communal motive, they employed technical surveillance and began examining local disputes. Their work led them to a group of men from the Hindu community.

On October 30, SSP Neeraj Jadaun held a press briefing to announce the arrest of four men, Zeeshanth Singh (also reported as Jishant Kumar), Akash Saraswat (or Akash Kumar), Dilip Sharma (or Dilip Kumar), and Abhishek Saraswat. A fifth accused, identified as Rahul, was reported as absconding.

Aligarh: Abhishek Saraswat (s/o Virendra Sharma, Aakash (s/o Santosh Saraswat), Dileep Kumar (s/o Ramraj Sharma) & Zeeshanth Kumar (s/o Yashpal Singh) arrested by UP’s Aligarh police for allegedly writing “I love Mohammed” on temple walls to frame Muslim neighbours due to… pic.twitter.com/f7l9DHhxQA

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) October 30, 2025

The motive, police revealed, was not communal hatred. It was a calculated conspiracy born from a personal vendetta.

SSP Jadaun stated that the main accused, Jishant Singh, had a “personal dispute” with Mustakeem, one of the Muslim men who was initially named in the FIR. Media reports specified the conflict was related to a land-related rivalry. In a deliberate and malicious attempt to settle this score, Jishant Singh allegedly conspired with his friends to paint the inflammatory slogans on the temple walls. Their goal was to “falsely implicate” Mustakeem and his associates, leveraging the existing communal tensions surrounding the “I Love Muhammad” slogan to ensure their rivals were arrested and publicly disgraced.

“The investigation found that the graffiti was not a communal act but a deliberate attempt to implicate others due to a land-related rivalry,” SSP Jadaun said, as reported

The revelation was a profound shock to the local community. It demonstrated how easily personal conflicts could be masked as communal ones, with perpetrators willing to risk widespread violence to settle a score. Even before the arrests, some had suspected a setup.

On October 25, Samajwadi Party leader Zia Ur Rehman Barq had alleged that the graffiti was part of a “well-thought-out conspiracy” and stated, “If an impartial investigation is conducted, it will be clear that no Muslim person was involved in this act.”

#WATCH | Sambhal, UP: On Moradabad Madrasa asking for a virginity certificate from girls, SP MP Zia ur Rahman Barq says, “We also found out about this through social media. However, I still believe that it has not happened at any of our Madarsa or religious institutions where a… pic.twitter.com/0f3afPBxnJ

— ANI (@ANI) October 25, 2025

Following the arrests, SSP Jadaun confirmed that the case registered against the eight Muslim men would be withdrawn, and the four arrested men were booked under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for promoting enmity between groups and disturbing public peace.

Background: the “I Love Muhammad” campaign and state crackdown

The Aligarh incident did not happen in a vacuum. It was the volatile endpoint of a controversy that had been building for nearly two months, starting with a simple expression of faith.

The timeline begins on September 4, 2025, in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. As part of the celebrations for Eid Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of Prophet Muhammad, some young Muslim men in the Syed Nagar locality of Rawatpur put up a decorative light board at the entrance of a lane. It bore a simple message in English: “I Love Muhammad.”

As per a report in The Wire, this act drew objections from some local right-wing groups. They claimed the banner was a “new tradition” and alleged it was a “deliberate provocation” because it was placed on a public road near a gate also used for Hindu festival processions like Ram Navami.

On September 9, police in Kanpur registered an FIR against 24 people (nine named and 15 unidentified) for allegedly “disturbing communal harmony.” A local prayer leader, Shabnoor Alam, who was named in the FIR, told The Wire that police had asked him to help convince the crowd to move the board. Another accused, Mohammad Siraj, stated, “Last year, we displayed the same message on a cloth banner, and no one raised objections. This year, we used a light board, and suddenly people started protesting. I don’t understand why.”

The flashpoint: violence in Bareilly

The police action in Kanpur transformed the slogan from a festive decoration into a symbol of protest. In response to what they saw as the criminalisation of their faith and expressions, Muslim groups in other cities began displaying the slogan as an act of religious expression and defiance.

This set the stage for a major confrontation in Bareilly. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, a prominent local cleric and leader of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC), called for a large protest after Friday prayers on September 26, 2025. The protest was called to oppose the police crackdowns and alleged derogatory remarks made against the Prophet.

Despite authorities denying permission for a march, thousands gathered at the Islamia Ground. The situation quickly spiralled out of control. Clashes erupted between protesters and police. Reports from the ground described stone-pelting from the crowd and even alleged gunfire, which prompted a heavy lathi charge from security forces to disperse the gathering.

The aftermath was severe. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan and seven others were arrested and later sent to 14-day judicial custody. As many as ten FIRs were registered across Bareilly, each naming between 150 and 200 Muslims, with over 2,500 people accused in total. By late September, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a non-governmental organisation, had already documented at least 21 FIRs nationwide related to the campaign, with 1,324 Muslims named and 38 arrested. In Meerut, five men were arrested simply for putting up a poster with the slogan, as per a report in The New Indian Express.

The counter-campaign and political rhetoric

As the “I Love Muhammad” slogan became a national controversy, it triggered a counter-campaign from right-wing organisations. In Varanasi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Lok Sabha constituency, activists from a saffron outfit called the Sanatan Sena began pasting posters with the slogan “I love Mahadev” on walls, temples, and mutts.

Jagadguru Shankaracharya Narendrananda, who led the effort, told Deccan Herald that the “saint community will respond to the fundamentalists through these posters” and that some elements were “trying to foment communal tension” with the “I Love Muhammad” posters.

This “poster war” highlighted a sharp political and social divide. Political leaders like AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi and PDP President Mehbooba Mufti publicly questioned the discrepancy.

I LOVE MOHAMMAD ﷺ @adgzonekanpur ये जुर्म नहीं है। अगर है तो इसकी हर सज़ा मंज़ूर है।

तुम पर मैं लाख जान से क़ुर्बान या-रसूल
बर आएँ मेरे दिल के भी अरमान या-रसूल

क्यों दिल से मैं फ़िदा न करूँ जान या-रसूल
रहते हैं इस में आप के अरमान या-रसूल https://t.co/8kKWY22zHC

— Asaduddin Owaisi (@asadowaisi) September 15, 2025

They asked why expressing “I Love Muhammad” was being met with FIRs, lathi charges, and arrests, while slogans like “I Love Mahadev” or “Jai Shree Ram” were seen as acceptable expressions of faith.

Jharkhand Minister Irfan Ansari remarked, “Just like people who believe in Sanatan Dharma, write ‘I love Ram’… and I don’t have any problem, I love Prophet Mohammed… I cannot understand how these three words can be the cause of arrests.”

#WATCH | Ranchi | Jharkhand Minister Irfan Ansari says, “Just like people who believe in Sanatan Dharma, write ‘I love Ram’, ‘I love Hanuman’, ‘I love Krishna’, ‘I love Sita’ or ‘I love Radha’, and I don’t have any problem, I love Prophet Mohammed and Islam as I belong to… pic.twitter.com/9s66IAMrnN

— ANI (@ANI) September 25, 2025

The controversy was further inflamed by the rhetoric of high-ranking officials. On September 28, 2025, in the wake of the Bareilly violence, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath made a series of widely reported public statements. Speaking at an event, he warned against “vandalism in the name of faith” and promised severe retribution.

“If you trouble us, we will not spare you,” he stated, using the Hindi phrase, “chedhoge to chodenge nahi.” He promised action that would be remembered by “future generations” and said that “denting and painting must be done.”

Civil rights groups and media critics argued that this language, which was amplified by national news channels, effectively framed the display of the “I Love Muhammad” slogan not as an issue of religious freedom, but as a severe law-and-order problem. This, they argued, legitimised the harsh police crackdowns across the state.

The Aligarh incident, therefore, serves as a crucial case study. It exposed the danger of a high-tension environment where a slogan had become so loaded with political and communal baggage that individuals felt they could weaponise it to settle a personal score, confident that the blame would fall along pre-existing fault lines. It was only through a police investigation that looked beyond the obvious communal narrative that the true, and more personal, conspiracy was brought to light.

Related:

From slogan to sanction: how a Chief Minister’s words hardened into punitive policing after the “I Love Muhammad” row

Free speech, even in bad taste, is protected if no incitement to violence: HP HC

Two Hate-Filled Speeches, One Election: CJP complaints against Himanta Biswa Sarma and Tausif Alam for spreading hate and fear in Bihar elections

The post A Conspiracy of Hate: The Aligarh temple graffiti incident appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over 35 locations witnessed coordinated demonstrations led by the Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS) — one of the largest lay organisations representing Catholics in Maharashtra. The participants gathered outside churches carrying placards reading “My Faith, My Right” and “Don’t Criminalise Compassion”, expressing alarm that the proposed Bill—while claiming to curb “forced” conversions—could, in effect, criminalise voluntary expressions of faith, humanitarian work, and social service. The BCS is one of the largest organisations of the Catholic laity representing as many as 68,000 believers.

‘A Violation of Article 25’: The constitutional concern

As per the press note released by BCS, protestors underscored that the Bill represents a direct affront to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.”

BCS spokesperson Dolphy D’Souza stated that the law’s vague and sweeping provisions could “interfere with an individual’s personal choice of faith” and “open the door for surveillance, policing, or discrimination against religious minorities.” D’Souza described the Bill as “a misnomer — there is no freedom in the so-called Freedom of Religion Bill,” adding that it risks chilling constitutional rights by blurring the line between legitimate religious activity and alleged conversion.

Newly elected President, BCS, Norbert Mendonca, stated to Sabrangindia,” We organised this this peaceful protest to affirm our commitment to constitutional values, religious freedom and  liberty, and communal harmony, and to appeal to the Government of Maharashtra to withdraw any move that infringes upon these rights.”

‘Every act of compassion could be misinterpreted’

From the people present at the protest, unifying fear emerged: that ordinary acts of kindness, charity, or social work could be weaponised as evidence of ‘inducement’ or ‘allurement’.

According to the BCS press note, the proposed Bill “threatens to criminalise compassion,” warning that “every act of kindness could be misinterpreted or maliciously portrayed as an attempt at conversion.”

This sentiment reverberated through the protest at St Michael’s Church, Mahim, one of the major protest sites, where BCS members explained that schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions run by Christian organisations serve people of all faiths. “Our work is motivated by faith and humanitarian concern — not conversion,” said one participant. “But under this Bill, even that service could be labelled inducement.”

‘Misuse and Targeting’: A familiar pattern

While the text of Maharashtra’s Bill has not yet been made public, Global Bihari noted that BCS apprehensions are informed by experiences in other states where similar “Freedom of Religion” laws have been introduced — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Uttarakhand.

In Uttar Pradesh, the 2021 Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has led to multiple FIRs and arrests. In May 2024, the Supreme Court observed that several provisions “may seem to be violative of Article 25,” staying further proceedings in certain FIRs. In Madhya Pradesh, the High Court in November 2022 declared Section 10 of its Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 — which required prior declaration before conversion — prima facie unconstitutional, with the Supreme Court refusing to stay that order in 2023.

Community Voices: Between fear and faith

The protests were marked not by confrontation but by prayer, song, and civic solidarity. At Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Goregaon (West), Free Press Journal reported that even non-Christian citizens joined the demonstration. Among them were civic and human rights activist Prof. Arvind Nigale, Gandhian Jayant Diwan, Rashtra Seva Dal convenor Umesh Kadam, environmental activist Mannan Desai, and Abu Shaikh from Jamaat-e-Islami, Goregaon — underscoring a rare show of interfaith unity.

In Mahim, Mid-Day report captured the mood poignantly: “This is not about aggression but awareness,” said Vinod Noronha of BCS. “Many people still do not know what this Bill is about. Our protest is to awaken civic consciousness, not to divide.”

Former BCS president Rita D’Sa added, “We would have actually liked to see inter-faith dialogue and goodwill. Instead, this Bill creates suspicion.”

‘A political diversion from real issues’

Beyond religious freedom, protestors questioned the political intent behind the legislation. As per the press note, it was provided that “While the stated aim of the Bill is to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions  experiences from other states suggests such laws in practice, could be used to harass faith-based groups, charitable institutions, or individuals who are simply practising their faith, especially in minority communities.”

It was further provided that such laws can be used selectively to harass minority groups, mirroring patterns seen elsewhere. “If the intent was merely to stop coercion, there would be no need for a new law. We already have adequate provisions in the Penal Code to deal with force or fraud.”

A retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Joe Gaikwad, summed up the mood with quiet defiance while speaking to Mid-day: “If there was any conversion, it was from hate to love, from sinfulness to salvation. This is a peaceful community.”

‘Faith Does Not Require Permission’

As the gatherings drew to a close, participants joined in hymns and prayers. D’Souza’s concluding invocation, as quoted by Mid-Day, resonated across the crowd: “We pray, Lord, in your wisdom that you enlighten the minds of our leaders. Be with us in this moment of anxiety and grief. Let there be peace on earth.”

But this was no end — merely a beginning. The BCS announced a continuing campaign, with the next awareness event scheduled for November 16 at I.C. Colony, Borivali, as reported by all three outlets.

In its official press note, the BCS stated: “Our efforts will continue. The very title of the Bill is misleading — it is not a ‘Freedom of Religion’ law but a means to harass minorities. We will network with other religious communities and citizens of goodwill to defend the constitutional right to freedom of conscience.”

A broader warning

Beyond the Catholic community, the protest has become a bellwether for civil liberties in Maharashtra. Citizens for Justice and Peace, the lead on the case challenging various State anti-Conversion laws that remains pending before the Supreme Court, has warned that anti-conversion laws — though couched in the language of protection — often rely on vague and subjective terms such as “inducement,” “allurement,” and “coercion,” which invite misuse and threaten the presumption of personal autonomy. If enacted in its current form, the organisation fears that Maharashtra’s proposed law may replicate the chilling effects seen in northern states — discouraging interfaith marriages, constraining charitable activity, and empowering local authorities to surveil minority groups.

For the citizens gathered outside churches that Sunday, the message was clear: Faith is not a crime, compassion is not a threat, and constitutional freedom is not negotiable.

Related:

Guarding culture or policing faith? Chhattisgarh High Court’s ‘social menace’ observation and the future of Article 25

Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination

From Victim to Accused: High Court of Gujarat’s 2025 Ruling on Religious Conversion

SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner

Inter-Community clashes erupt at Dehradun railway station after interfaith couple meets

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post ‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is evidence that the Government is now going ahead full steam to pander to the advancement of these corridors, which have no demonstrated benefit to people at large, whether in Goa or in Karnataka. For a small state like Goa to have to lose its resources and become a ‘corridor’ towards the Corridor, spells complete disaster. Its air, waters, its rivers, its agriculture, its fishing and fish-drying spaces, its forests, its peoples’ health and livelihoods, are all under threat from coal dust and infrastructure being set up to make coal transportation through the port, roads, railways and waterways of Goa possible.   

The NAPM has also condemned the questionable legal architecture systematically introduced to facilitate these plans that enable corporate expansionism, even as existing laws and regulations around environmental protection, social impacts, land acquisition and rehabilitation are being violated.

In a statement issued yesterday, the NAPM has also joined the active people’s movements of Goa and Karnataka in resisting the reduction of the region to a coal transportation and corridors hub, and in their struggles to safeguard the ecology, livelihoods and people’s well-being, for current and future generations.

Goans have been demanding the de-notification of the rivers of Goa, which have been declared as National Waterways under the National Waterways Act, 2016. Similarly protesters have been demanding stoppage of the railway double-tracking project and return of lands acquired through draconian legislation.

NAPM further calls for an immediate halt to port expansion, by respecting the will of the people as even articulated in the public hearings in Mormugao taluka.

The people of Goa held a Chalo Lohia Maidan mass protest on Sunday November 9 in Goa.

Related:

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

NAPM condemns Delhi authorities for deserting over 700 Dhobi Ghat residents

The post Solidarity with protests of locals against projects facilitating coal transportation (Goa to Karnataka): NAPM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court, speaking through Justice Augustine George Masih (for a Bench also comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai), extended the constitutional and procedural safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India—previously emphasized in the context of special statutes such as the UAPA and PMLA—to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) / Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Constitutional mandate reinforced

Reaffirming that Article 22(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a binding constitutional safeguard, the Court held that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, in a language and form he can understand, and such communication must be in writing.

“…mere communication of the grounds in a language not understood by the person arrested does not fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The failure to supply such grounds in a language understood by the arrestee renders the constitutional safeguards illusory and infringes the personal liberty of the person as guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 44)

The Court explained that the purpose of Article 22(1) is to place the arrestee “in a position to comprehend the basis of the allegations levelled against him,” and to enable him to “seek legal counsel, challenge custody, and apply for bail.” This purpose, it said, “would not be fulfilled by merely reading out the grounds.”

Written grounds in language understood by the arrestee

Drawing from Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, the Court held that written grounds must be furnished in the language understood by the person, not merely read out or translated orally.

“The mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of India which is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands. The mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard.” (Para 45)

Reiterating this, the Bench added:

“There is no harm in providing the grounds of arrest in writing in the language the arrestee understands, this approach would not only fulfil the true intent of the constitutional mandate but will also be beneficial for the investigating agency to prove that the grounds of arrest were informed to the arrestee when a challenge is made to the arrest on the plea of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.” (Para 45)

Extension beyond special statutes

Rejecting the argument that earlier rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) were confined to PMLA or UAPA offences, the Court held that Article 22(1) applies equally to all arrests—without exception.

“Article 22(1)… casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22 (1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).” (Para 39)

The Bench further clarified that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is fundamental, non-derogable, and absolute, and non-compliance vitiates the arrest itself:

“The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.” (Para 40)

Limited exception for exigent circumstances

While declaring the arrest in the present case illegal, the Court carved out a narrow operational exception: where arresting officers are confronted with offences occurring in their presence (for instance, a murder or assault in progress), oral communication of the grounds may be permitted at the time of arrest, provided that written grounds are supplied within a reasonable time and, in any event, at least two hours before the arrestee’s production before the magistrate for remand.

“However, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. The remand papers shall contain the grounds of arrest and in case there is delay in supply thereof, a note indicating a cause for it be included for the information of the magistrate.” (Para 52)

This two-hour threshold, the Court noted, ensures a functional balance between safeguarding personal liberty and allowing police to perform their duties without procedural paralysis.

“The two-hour threshold before production for remand thus strikes a judicious balance between safeguarding the arrestee’s constitutional rights under Article 22(1) and preserving the operational continuity of criminal investigations.” (Para 53)

Consequences of non-compliance

In unequivocal terms, the Bench held that failure to provide written grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee renders both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal, entitling the person to immediate release.

Summarising its conclusions, the Court laid down the following binding directions:

1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest applies to all offences under all statutes, including IPC/BNS.
2. The grounds must be communicated in writing and in the language understood by the arrestee.
3. If it is not possible to supply written grounds immediately, they may be communicated orally, but must be furnished in writing within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand.
4. Non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, and the person “shall be entitled to be set at liberty.”

Significance and Broader Impact

This ruling is one of the most significant expansions of procedural due process under Article 21 and 22 in recent years. It builds on Pankaj Bansal (2023), Prabir Purkayastha (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which strengthened the constitutional guarantee of being informed of arrest grounds under special statutes.

By explicitly extending these safeguards to all offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and allied laws, the Court has now constitutionalized written notice of arrest grounds as a non-derogable fundamental right, comparable to the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

“The Court further held that a copy of such written grounds must be furnished to the arrested person at the earliest without any exception observing that the communication provided under Article 22 and Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS 2023) is not a mere procedural formality but a vital safeguard with the ultimate objective to enable the arrested person to effectively consult legal aid and be prepared to raise objections in remand hearing and apply for his/her bail. The right to life and personal liberty, safeguarded under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, stands as the paramount fundamental right.” (Para 45)

The Court also directed that copies of this judgment be circulated to all High Courts and State Governments for immediate implementation and compliance.

Conclusion

The Mihir Rajesh Shah ruling marks a transformative moment in India’s criminal procedure jurisprudence, ensuring that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not reduced to hollow ritual. It affirms that an arrest made without written grounds—especially when not communicated in a language understood by the arrestee—is no arrest in the eyes of the Constitution.

“The genesis of informing the grounds of arrest to a person flows from the Constitutional safeguard provided in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The expression ‘personal liberty’ has been given a wide meaning through various judicial pronouncements. One of which is that personal liberty includes procedural safeguards from the abuse of power by the State agencies and scrutiny of the actions of the State.” (Para 17)

The complete judgment may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad HC grants bail in UAPA case over WhatsApp video; raises questions on overuse of stringent national security laws

SC intervenes for personal liberty after HC adjourns a bail application 27 times!

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

Examining Jurisprudential Shifts: The Evolution of Bail Provisions Under PMLA – Part II”

The post Due Process Strengthened: Supreme Court mandates written, language-specific grounds for arrest under special laws and general laws appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a report by PTI, the devotees were stopped after crossing into Pakistan through the Attari–Wagah border. Officials allegedly told them, “You are Hindu, you cannot go with a Sikh jatha.” Amar Chand, one of those turned back along with six family members, said that despite having valid travel documents and clearance from Indian immigration, they were refused entry once inside Pakistan.

As per the Hindustan Times report, the jatha of around 1,900 Sikh pilgrims had crossed into Pakistan on Tuesday to participate in the Parkash Purb festivities. Chand’s family, along with seven others from Lucknow, had joined the group intending to offer prayers at prominent gurdwaras, including Nankana Sahib. However, all 14 were sent back by Pakistani officials soon after entering.

As per the HT report, a Punjab intelligence officer posted at the border confirmed the incident, saying: “Those denied entry are Hindus by faith, originally from Pakistan but settled in India for many years. They held valid Indian passports and had obtained immigration clearance from our side. Once they entered Pakistan, officials there examined their documents and returned them to the BSF.”

Interestingly, other Hindu devotees in the same jatha faced no such problems. Palwinder Singh, head of the pilgrimage department of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which organises the largest pilgrim groups, clarified:

“Nearly 40 Hindus are part of our group this year, and almost all entered Pakistan without any issue. Many Hindu followers of Guru Nanak travel every year for these pilgrimages — they have never been barred on the basis of religion.”

The SGPC jatha will remain in Pakistan until November 13, visiting key Sikh shrines including Gurdwara Panja Sahib (Hasan Abdal), Gurdwara Darbar Sahib (Kartarpur, Narowal), Gurdwara Sacha Sauda (Farooqabad), Gurdwara Dehra Sahib (Lahore), and Gurdwara Rori Sahib (Gujranwala).

Amar Chand recounted that his family had even paid ₹95,000 (Pakistani rupees) for bus tickets after clearing all formalities. “Five officials came and told us to get down from the bus, saying Hindus can’t go with Sikh pilgrims. We were then sent back, and our money was not refunded,” he said. Chand, originally from Pakistan, moved to India in 1999 and obtained Indian citizenship in 2010.

Meanwhile, more than 200 other applicants were stopped at the Indian side of the border as they lacked final approval from the Union Home Ministry.

Earlier, the Indian government had initially decided against sending any jatha to Pakistan this year citing security concerns after Operation Sindoor. However, it later allowed a limited group to proceed under strict conditions.

Under the 1950 Nehru–Liaquat Pact, Sikh pilgrims are permitted to visit Pakistan’s revered shrines on four key occasions each year — Baisakhi, Guru Arjan Dev’s martyrdom day, Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s death anniversary, and Guru Nanak Dev’s birth anniversary.

Related:

Shah Bano Begum (1916-1992): A Socio-Political Historical Timeline

Pregnant woman deported despite parents on 2002 SIR rolls, another homemaker commits suicide

How Muslims treated non-Muslims in early Islam

The post Pakistan denies entry to 14 Hindu devotees in Sikh ‘jatha’ visiting for Guru Nanak Jayanti appeared first on SabrangIndia.